Twitteretter

The Connollys, a Northern Irish couple who won £115 million on the National Lottery, have been revealed to have donated more than half their winnings to charities and people in need, whilst spending little on themselves. This may be surprising to many, but it is not. A win such as this equips you with the financial security most of us miss nowadays and allows you to live your normal life without pressure, after maybe indulging a couple of expensive whims. Having done that, one soon realises that keeping the balance in the bank, voyeuristically staring at it, or even investing it to try to grow it, is an empty endeavour, and that money is best used where it makes the most difference and, in doing so, where it gives the most satisfaction to those giving it. The Connolly’s behaviour is normal, logical and intelligent. What is not normal is the behaviour and drive of incessantly accumulating millionaires and billionaires, who take a much needed resource from the system for no known purpose...

This is an interesting observation, even if also a somewhat disappointing one. I have over the years known many cases of people who have evolved, as their wealth and age increased, from a somewhat antisystem, progressive political outlook, to a conservative mindset. This is, at first sight, a change in politics, from left to right. But appearances can be deceiving, and I think it really is something else. This is the politics of ‘whatever suits my personal circumstance, and not society, best at any given point’. And it remains consistent. When poorer and younger, more sharing of the wealth of the haves and help for the have nots. Once you are enlisted in the ranks of the haves, the opposite, lower taxation, individualism and a conviction that those who have not choose that situation and do not deserve help. I guess how steady your politics are as your circumstances change depends on how you answer the fundamental question ‘Does society exist to serve me, or does it exist to serve all?’...

  Capitalism as described by Adam Smith, its ideological father, is based on the accumulation of capital, which keeps the system operating. The capitalist (in modern terms, the entrepreneur, as for Smith the capitalists were the factory owners) accumulates wealth to reinvest it in additional means of production, growing his capacity and as a result his competitiveness. This in turn increases general wealth, as more competitive production means cheaper consumer goods. Alas, the XXI century is very different to the XVIII. A large proportion of global wealth today is unproductive, tucked away in tax havens and invested in obscure assets, not engaged in tax paying, employment creation or productivity increase. This robs the population of the benefit of accumulation, without benefitting the accumulator, who has nothing to show for it other than an inflated bank balance. Our system needs to find a new way to employ accumulated capital in the productive delivery of society’s objectives Le...

I realise I am about to open a huge hornets nest, but in thinking about the incorporation of women to the workplace in the 50s and 60s, a critical step on the emancipation of women, as many would tell you, I cannot help but thinking also about the impact that this had on the value of labour in its ages old to and fro with capital for the share of the wealth created in the economy. By doubling the supply of labour overnight, it over time halved its value. The result is that a working couple today has, all else being equal, similar relative acquisitive power to a one worker couple in the 60s, whilst corporate profits have exploded since. This is a bad deal for workers and a capitalist dream. Women should, of course, have access to the workplace in fully equal terms, but the way this should work, in the interest of the working class, should have been with one of the couple, it does not matter who, entering the labour force, thus preserving the unit value of labour and the price it command...