Supports exactly what Michael Hudson & others say about the rise of the financialised economy.

It’s a graph of robbery & looting, charting the last 3 decades of neo-liberal de-regulation.

which doesn’t make sense as Mike does recognise human capital and in particular as a wasted resource – it also can’t be stored, what you don’t use today is gone forever.

There also seems to be a basic disagreement of understanding on whether the state spends to tax or taxes to spend. If you believe the latter then you’re unlikely to agree with MMT especially around inflation.

Consider that value is always created as a combination of labour/skill/wealth then the only aspects that could be classed on a ‘use it or lose it’ basis are the first two. Under utilisation of labour isn’t logical, we invest in people from creation through nurture and then we pay them to do nothing. Economically we are indulging in the equivalent of paying to store a depreciating asset.

By your definition labour and skill is covered by human capital but I dislike lumping the two together. The first can only be grown/contracted by population control whereas the latter can be influenced by education. In short to mid term economic terms the former is static and the latter is variable. But, regardless of definition, we both agree that the placing of wealth/capital within the economy is the problem.

So how do you think that further deregulation will result in a more equitable spread?

mindboggling!

I follow discussions over at the linked in Economist page there was a cheerlleader for a chap called Nial Fergusson a Scot and Harvard Professor who has a new book out. Nial Ferguson wrote a series which aired on Channel 4 televison called the Ascent of Money I have watched the first two episobdes and will watch the rest as time allows.

I am not a fan of Professor Ferguson he holds an apparently unshakeable view in line with the establishment narrative I am not a great consumer of the modern soundbite history he seems to be pedalling I find it procrustean in the extreme.

On Gold Buggery I have a simple question do those favouring it have a position in it already a hedge or speculation or position? I suspect that most gold buggery would not meet Aristotles measure of teleia philia that is perfected freindship for a universal good?

The translation looks good to my rusty French!….Thanks very much for it and the link.

Its interesting that Brazils Partido Trabalhador ( Workers Party ) is mentioned. It does seems to be a broad based organisation from what I can see.

In Brazil everybody has to vote ( its on a sunday ) or have a formal vouched excuse for not voting or pay a fine . If not it causes problems for your CPF your social secuirty number – you cannot apply for certain jobs, sort out federal documents if your electoral situation is not regularised. You cannot ignore it. That is the biggest secret to establishing democracy from what I can see – total participation of the elecorate!

Thanks for the interesting points you make Joe R.
It is indeed very important to try and take a broader look in a search for inspiration, examples and ideas.

And it was actually South America that gave inspiration to Jean Luc Melenchon, the candidate of the ‘Front de Gauche’ for the last French election. He peaked at about 15% on the polls and finally got about 11% of the votes in a country which is a little traumatised with the idea of “the useful vote” after the 2002 election and the extreme right phantom. Might not seem much, but it seems that he was actually useful to put some real issues on the debate.

There is an interesting interview (in French) in which Melenchon (JLM) describes his analysis of the parallels between Europe and South America. It can be found here:

http://www.legrandsoir.info/melenchon-l-amerique-du-sud-est-la-principale-source-d-inspiration-du-front-de-gauche.html

I have translated (I hope correctly, I’m no French nor English native speaker) a fragment of the interview, I hope it can provide some insights.

Q: You have much written and theorized about what happened in South America during the last 15 years. How is Front de Gauche inspired by those experiences?

JLM: I have learnt a lot from the south american experiences, and not only during the last 10 years. What is fascinating from the late 90s is to observe how a system falls: when, how, etc. As in Argentina or Venezuela, it’s a fortuitous event which cristalizes the general situation. The violence that is produced can seem disproportionate to the previous situation, but actually, society was at a boiling point without being necessarily aware. The ‘coup de grace’ is given by the middle class that is put into motion, disgusted by the capitalist disorder. This predictable but fortuitous character, with the pressing to death hammer of liberalism over society, I think is what will arrive throughout Europe, and in France in particular.

Q: More than in Spain or Italy, where the economic situation is more critical?

JLM: Yes, this is the volcano of Europe, first because of the revolutionary tradition in our history. Next, because the working and middle class is not torn appart by regionalisms. And because we are here to express this will of insurrection. Never someone like me, who comes from the left of the left and a French comunist party at 1% would’ve arrived at our score at normal times. It’s the situation that’s imposing it.

Q: The economical and social situations in Europe and in Latin America are not comparable, however… what lessons can be drawn for France?

JLM: Exactly, the other aspect that made me think was the role given to the poor in revolutions, which does not exist in the same way here. We have had to theorise the notion of “precariat”, a word that we have formed from “precaire” and “proletariat”. It’s a transversal class, which goes from the precarious engineer to the precarious cleaning worker. In Latin America, you have put the poor into movement, here we move the “precarious”, cause if we call the poor to rebel, we would loose our time. People don’t assume themselves as poor in a country with egalitarian tradition, public services, etc. No one here says ‘we the poor’ as in South America. It’s a problem of the old left: they only think about status workers, they were never able to think about the reality of the “precariat”.

On the other hand, I was very seduced by the articulation between social fights and popular sovereignty, at the heart of the new constitutions. The motto of Equator’s president Correa is citizens’ revolution. At La Bastille, our slogan was civic insurrection and citizens’ revolution. Maybe we would have been able to invent it ourselves, I don’t know. But it was actually an idea that we brought from South America, and the fact that it works here gives us strength and legitimity to use it.

Q: Concretely, which of the South American models you feel better with?

JLM: There isn’t one model, I take from all. For example, we have deeply studied the Argentinian recovery from the crisis and their way to govern facing the banks.
I’m also very interestedby the communication techniques of the Kirchner, a mixture of silence and confrontation with the media. In Brazil, it’s the formation itself of the Workers Party, a federation with all types of people, like the Frente Amplio [Wide Front] in Uruguay, that’s how we construct the Front de Gauche. Brazil is also the example on the issue of the poors and the role of the theology of liberation. From Venezuela, what I would get with no hesitation is the idea of a new constitution.