Meme on the Poor as the Drivers of the Economy | Beastrabban\’s Weblog


Simple. Effective. Genius.

This Writer wishes he had time to create infographics like this. Thanks to the Beast for finding it. Please spread to all corners of the social media with all the glee you can muster.

(I should probably add that the footnote “Liberal and proud of it” is not an expression of support for the UK Liberal Democrats but for Liberal politics in the United States, as opposed to – guess what? – Conservatism.)

This is another meme I found over on the over 18 site, 1000 Natural Shocks. It succinctly makes the economic point Mike over at Vox Political, the Angry Yorkshireman and many other bloggers have been making for a very long time: that it’s the poor that drive the economy by spending their money through sheer necessity. All the money the rich save in tax cuts is effectively thrown away, because they don’t spend it. The trickle down economics beloved of Thatcher and Reagan is a lie.

Source: Meme on the Poor as the Drivers of the Economy | Beastrabban\’s Weblog

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

14 thoughts on “Meme on the Poor as the Drivers of the Economy | Beastrabban\’s Weblog

  1. Stephen Mellor

    Or, far more likely, the rich man invests it in business that provide jobs to “poor” people who then spend even more.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      No – history shows the rich simply hold on to the money.
      See comments elsewhere about quantitative easing. The government would be far better-off giving £10,000 to each of us, to be spent within a certain time limit or removed again, than giving the money to the banks.

  2. Stephen Mellor

    And let’s not forget that $100 was taken from someone in the first place: through taxation or borrowing.

    1. Daniel

      This would be true if taxation and borrowing paid for government spending, but this is a neoliberal LIE

      In fact, the reverse is true. Spending provides the currency required to pay taxes, which actually takes currency out of the economy (sometimes required, sometimes not!). Why would the government need to take it’s own IOUs from you to pay for spending? After all, the BoE and Treasury can issue as much cash as needed, given they are the monopoly issuer of Sterling.

      If you find this hard to believe, ask yourself this – how much did the Government need to raise taxes for in order to bail out the banks in 2008, and where does the tax come from when QE is issued? (in both cases, the answer is none and nowhere)

      Read here for more http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=9281

      1. Terry Davies

        Some argue in propiety that bailing out the banks was not the best way forward. where did the ‘market’ principle apply in doing this.
        Bankers continued to get obscene bonuses for incompetency, and taxpayers money used for this purpose.
        investments and loans to small businesses were adversely affected and these banks are to be sold back to the private sector with further losses to taxpayers.
        would it not have been best to have formed a public bank after these bailed out banks had signed over their assets etc and been declared bankrupt. ??

      2. Daniel

        Terry (can’t reply to you directly, so have to reply to my own post!)

        That is exactly the problem I am talking about. It cost nothing to the taxpayers to bail out the banks, since the required funds were created by the BoE using keystrokes. Which means we get angry at the right people (but not all of them) for the wrong reasons, which means for the true powerplayers (the very wealthy etc) the change that is actually required is never demanded, as most people don’t even realise what change is needed!

        So long as we are “banker bashing” (not that they don’t deserve prosecution and gaol!), no one asks why we can supposedly afford to prop up the failing financial sector and bomb faraway places, but cannot afford flood defences, fully funded NHS, fully funded welfare state and full employment. Instead, everyone blames the lack of funds for the above on “bailing out the banks”. Instead, we should be pointing the finger of blame at money creation only for the benefit of the elite.

        The state (in the form of the BoE and the Treasury) can create and as much money as they require, since they issue Sterling. Too much would cause inflation (hence the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe scare stories), but to even glimpse at a risk of that, we’d need all available resources already engaged, which includes the ~1.7 million unemployed, much of the 8.9 million “economically inactive” (at least those who are not in training/education or considered unable to work due to disability etc) and the however many underemployed to be fully employed, to risk inflation. That is, the state could create £billions more before inflation rears it’s head. I mean, we’ve already had over £400 billion in QE and inflation is still dangerously low!

      3. Terry Davies

        you raise an important issue about the lack of knowledge that money is directed towards the elite not necessarily bankers.
        I agree that jailing corrupt bankers is accountability too.
        However my belief is that the political system in the UK is designed to create an elected dictatorship. The Party system is never going to create anything different. A hung Parliament resulted in s right wing coalition last time.
        Therefore the credibility of the economy is secondary to making this government accountable. Deselection is not possible for five years and they represent a minority of UK people. How can this be acceptable?
        a vote of no confidence by the people should be an inherent right of the people. This doesnt exist until another election occurs.
        why arent MPs salaries evaluated.?
        why is there no probationary period of MPs monitored for performance.?
        Inflation and statistics regarding employment, migrants and other economic factors are meaningless to the vast majority of working classes but they need awareness of our corrupt government.

  3. Terry Davies

    leaves out the rich man is minded to rip off the poor man who gets muscles from working. the poor mans only recourse to stopping the rich man exploiting his lifestyle choice is to work for low wages.
    This culminates in bigger muscles of the worker and the notion of ‘Crime’ and legislation to protect exploiters.
    The capitalist system then creates greed- driven politics, prisons, low wages and anarchistic and terrorist viewpoints.
    The corruption of the rich man driven by greed, power, and exploitation of the poor man creates more issues, crimes, unfairness, greed, and ego centrism leading towards war and conflicts, more exploitation of the poor man and this cycle continues to satisfy the greed of the rich man.
    This is what happens globally as the capitalist system expands.

  4. Nessie King

    Comedian Mark Thomas has a new series on Radio 4 which started on Thursday – he is putting together a “People’s Manifesto” from suggestions made by the general public as to how the country could be improved. One of the things that was suggested was that Quantitive Easing is a total waste of money. Giving banks money, which they then invest off shore or keep for themselves and do nothing to actually help the economy is a waste of money. Instead, the audience member suggests with the amount of money given to Banks, we could instead give every single person in Britain £10,000 and he suggested that they MUST spend it in six months of receiving it. You can’t invest it (unless it was for a deposit for a house or car) and if you don’t spend it, the Government has the right to claw it back.

    The comedian said this was a completely “mad” idea but he ran into one of the World’s top economists and put the idea to him. To his absolute astonishment, the economist said it WOULD work and within six months the economy would be back on track.

    The economist went on to say “It comes to something when the ideas of the Government are so bad, that a comedy show audience like yours can come up with better economic management policy than the Chancellor!”

    You can hear the show here on i-Player

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bm0pr

  5. John Gaines

    Well we will not get any richer by proping up the Dirty City of London, home of all TAX dodgers:
    Remember Rurik Jutting, the British banker detained after two women were found dead in his fancy flat in Hong Kong?

    Turns out that the man at present in jail awaiting trial — who denies all charges — was making some enemies in his day job at his former employer Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, Jutting worked for an arm of Merrill known as Structured Equity Finance and Trading (Seft), which offered a service to shift clients’ shares to lower tax jurisdictions just before dividends were paid. The moves meant fund managers could save millions on their tax bill.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/business/jim-armitage-yet-another-example-that-the-financial-conduct-authority-lacks-bite-a3151916.html

    http://www.standard.co.uk/business/jim-armitage-yet-another-example-that-the-financial-conduct-authority-lacks-bite-a3151916.html

Comments are closed.