Half right.
The public stakes in RBS and in HBOS are now permanent, non-negotiable safeguards of the Union, as public ownership has always been. But apart from that, all the banks should be turned into mutual building societies, ironclad as such by statute. As for the public stakes, why not provide for the profits of each of them to be divided equally, tax free, among all households in the United Kingdom?
It was good to hear David Cameron express his support for the principle of the maximum multiple, which I first ever heard expressed by the man who is about to become the Deputy Leader of his coalition partner. But why restrict it to each public sector entity, considered to isolation? As set out here yesterday, we need to ban anything from paying any of its employees more than ten times what it pays any of its other employees, with the whole public sector functioning as a single entity for this purpose, and with its median wage fixed at the median wage in the private sector. Possibly, that median would do as the salary for MPs. Certainly, there should be a statutory ban on anyone's being paid more than the Prime Minister.
There is no private sector. At least, not as that term is ordinarily employed. Not in any advanced country, and not since the War at the latest. Take out bailouts or the permanent promise of them, take out central and local government contracts, take out planning deals and other sweeteners, and take out the guarantee of customer bases by means of public sector pay and the benefits system, and what is there left? They are all as dependent on public money as any teacher, nurse or road sweeper. Everyone is. And with public money come public responsibilities, including public accountability for how those responsibilities are or are not being met.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"As set out here yesterday, we need to ban anything from paying any of its employees more than ten times what it pays any of its other employees"
ReplyDeleteThat would be economically stupid.
Compared to what? The present state of affairs? There is now a reasonable case for all existing Economics Departments to be closed down as a public menace. But then, who else would employ their cranky inhabitants?
ReplyDeleteCameron has accepted the principle of the maximum multiple. The door is now ajar. Look out for only New Labour in opposition, the way only New Labour is going to vote against restoring the link between pensions and earnings, and only New Labour is going to vote against discontinuing the identity card scheme. Or are those measures "economically stupid", too?
Take out bailouts or the permanent promise of them, take out central and local government contracts, take out planning deals and other sweeteners,...
ReplyDeleteWhat a good idea!
That would close down the businesses that depend on them.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the manner of the bailouts, but there is nothing wrong in principle with the use of the machinery of government to guarantee employment in general, and specifically the forms of economic activity that society, including the society that is the family and the society that is the nation, wants and needs. That, indeed, is what the machinery of government is for.
And with public money come public responsibilities. All the more reason for it to reach into every of the economy. As, in fact, it does.
I know that you are being slightly flippant about sacking all academic economists, but you do well to point out how the free market fanatics are always the most securely tenured people. Try sacking a professor and see how far you get.
ReplyDeleteQuite so. No one who actually had to live in the "free" market would have any time for it.
ReplyDeleteBut then, who really does? As I said, take out bailouts or the permanent promise of them, take out central and local government contracts, take out planning deals and other sweeteners, and take out the guarantee of customer bases by means of public sector pay and the benefits system, and what is there left?
They are all as dependent on public money as any teacher, nurse or road sweeper. Everyone is. And with public money come public responsibilities, including public accountability for how those responsibilities are or are not being met.
Anonymous the first should be careful. David Lindsay has more expertise on economics than the evil Kamm who is paid to write about economics.
ReplyDeleteIs the evil Kamm paid? I had always assumed that he was only used because he was too rich to need to be paid. Very New Labour.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if Kamm is paid, then, since he is employed by The Times, he is in fact paid by the Sun, the News of the World, and Sky Sports. It suits him. The Times makes a loss. Unlike this blog.
Kamm would run a mile from debating economics with Mr L.
ReplyDeleteOh, Kamm just pontificates and then engages in prolonged campaigns of criminal harassment against anyone who does not spontaneously submit to his genius. Nothing else to do, I suppose. Enormous inherited wealth must be very dull if you are a dullard. If you don't believe me, then read anything by Kamm. Among others in that crowd.
ReplyDeleteOr look at the Miliband brothers.
ReplyDeleteIf you can bear to. Then again, that is possibly unfair on Ed. Possibly...
ReplyDelete