Michael Taft is an Under-Consumptionist

by John Doherty Sat Sep 11, 2010 13:16

Michael Taft is advocating what LLoyd George proposed in the 1920s. This is now seen as 'left economics'. The joke is on the working class.

by V for vendetta Sat Sep 11, 2010 20:09

Michael taft is against taxing the poor as the government are doing. He favours not taxing those who spend most of their income. As such I support him. I presume he is being attacked because his ideas and his willingness to express them and the respect people have for him mean he represents a threat to the policies of the powers that be who want to tax the poor and give welfare to the rich. Good on you Michael. Keep up the good work.

For those of you a little less interested in partaking in a thinly disguised hatchet job, and more interested in progressive intelligent solutions, Michael writes some interesting articles on his blog
http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/

Keep up the good work Michael!

by Paddy Hackett Sat Sep 11, 2010 21:24 maxanger at live dot ie

The outpouring from V(endetta) is not an argument against the views that I forwarded on Newswire to Michael's misleading understanding of the nature of capitalism. Nowhere in Vendetta's piece do I detect anything to show that I was wrong in what I said.

It is not insignificant that this piece may represent the best that the Left in Ireland can do to counter my attack on Michael's views. You get people like Michael Taft (Joe Higgins,Kieran Allen and now the guy who runs The Irish Left Review blog) constantly repeating that income tax increases imposed on the "the poor" dampen demand and thereby increase unemployment. I have repeatedly made it clear how and why this is not necessarily so. Yet it seems to fall on deaf ears.

The response to what I write usually alternates between silence and trite remarks such as above. Most of the time I dont find it useful to respond to the latter. The intellectual level of the left in Ireland is appalling low.

Its not for nothing that Fianna Fail has been in power longer than probably any other party in the capitalist West. This is a bourgeois party of great professionalism. It is not enough to see its obvious shortcomings. But its strengths need to be recognised to if an objective assessment of it is to be made. The party, in a sense, made no big mistakes over the last three or so years. It protected the interests that it has been protecting since its been in power. This is why it introduced the bank guarantee. Politics is not about what is formally rational. It is about interests --protecting and advancing interests.

by V for vendetta Sun Sep 12, 2010 02:59

Sure, of course, I agree. Get rid of capitalism and replace it with a resource based economy something like the venus project which put's people's needs first. However until pigs fly and the masses develop vision and group intelligence and start to act in all our long term interests and those of the environment, I welcome anyone putting up a fight of any kind against the relentless progress towards the abyss for the poor of this country. Michael Taft is one of the few putting up a practical fight. So I do agree with you but I still support Michael Taft's efforts ( in the interim before the revolution - hah! ). No need to insult me. I didn't insult you.

by Paddy Hackett Sun Sep 12, 2010 08:03 maxanger at live dot ie

It is precisely because of reformism, if you can even call it that, such as Taft's that the working class will lack a revolutionary communist consciousness. It is the obstacle in the way. This is why it has served capital so well.

I have never insulted anyone on the internet and dont see how I insulted you.

by Lars Kierkegaard Sun Sep 12, 2010 18:31

Dare to borrow says Michael Taft.

"We must dare to spend, dare to borrow, dare to invest and dare to intervene. There is no other option – unless decline, stagnation, unemployment, emigration and poverty are acceptable while we wait for the market to correct itself.

The problem is we don't have a stimulus framework. This is a major gap in the progressive critique. We must challenge the Government's framework with one of our own. Until then, our demands for stimulus will be aspirational and easily dismissed."
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/91856?search_text=micha...+taft

by Patrick Hackett Sun Sep 12, 2010 18:43 maxanger at live dot ie

I see some sense in what you are saying.

This category of "the poor" is a questionable one. The "Irish poor" is used very elastically. There is much evidence that people officially categorised as poor are relatively comfortable -houses, large cars, tvs, pcs,videos, plenty of drink, tanning sessions and the holidays to Spain. Indeed many of them can afford things I just cannot afford. But I am not supposed to say that. When I was a boy I was often very hungry while waiting for the breadman to come around with his bread van. And when I was in London I had only a piece of chewing gum for food for one day. And this kind of thing did not just happen once.

As I have written the radical Left just want the capitalist state to give the working class in Ireland more of what it has been getting from the capitalist nanny state.

Due to growing productivity the value of individual commodities tends to fall making them cheaper to buy. This is one of the reasons a 600 euro laptop today is as powerful as a computer twenty or more years ago which could cost 15000 euros or more.

But you must understand that Marx was no supporter of the iron law of wages and the theory of absolutely increasing misery. We have to view the poor in relative as opposed to absolute terms. This again is something that is neglected by the radical left in Ireland.

By the bye East Germany was not Communist. It was stalinist. I am a communist and have no truck with stalinist parties such as Sinn Fein and the SWP.

by V for vendetta Sun Sep 12, 2010 19:55

"it is precisely because of reformism, if you can even call it that, such as taft's that the working class will lack a revolutionary communist consciousness. It is the obstacle in the way"

No. It is not because of Michael Taft that the working class lack a revolutionary consciousness. It is because people are silly, greedy, selfish, none too smart, don't think and don't look at the long term picture and are easily led by the sound bites of corrupt sociopaths that the working class lack a revolutionary consciousness, or even a proper sense of community.

You see sad thing is, the greedy poor in our society bought into the right wing ideas floating around too y'know. They just didn't realise that they were expendable and weren't really in the "gang". Now it's up to people like you paddy to turn them all into communists and "save them". But did you ever consider the possibility that they helped get themselves into this by voting for FF and they may deserve everything they get? And Michael Taft certainly did not tell them to do that!

This idea that deep down the average worker is wise enough to realise what is really going on is nonsense. Democracy is the tyranny of the stupid. Often in a democracy, the best you can do is shield people from some of the worst consequences of their own stupidity as Michael Taft is doing. If you try to present the ideas of a resource based economy putting the needs of people and ecosystem before profit to the common man, people will often laugh at you in the street as just a nutcase (they have!). Tv tells them what to think not Marx. They can barely read the fabricated lies in their most popular newspapers. That is, if they read anything at all these days other than misspelt texts on their mass produced built in obselescent mobile phones made with coltan from poor exploited third world countries. Perhaps it will improve their revolutionary consciousness to see the other dirty end of capitalism first hand. Because they obviously don't listen much when you try to tell them about it. Maybe if they truly see it for themselves first hand (which it looks like might happen) then they will all get with your program Paddy?

Thing is, good as it sounds, communism never worked out too well either did it? Some alpha monkey always seems to manage to grab power. It's built into our sociopathic monkey genes. Perhaps we need to fix those first before we can have something better. But there just isn't time. The earth is being ruined in real time. Perhaps we need something else with less possibility of a nexus of central power developing in the meantime? Something that does not give free reign to our monkey instincts. At least until we evolve a bit more. TBH as far as I can see, benign dictatorship is the only thing so far to have ever worked. Look at Bhutan.

Meanwhile, not an endorsement but certainly some food for thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
After all, why can't food for thought be pie in the sky?

Good luck converting the noble masses to communism Paddy! And I wonder who the next Stalin / Mao / Dear leader who hijacks it will be? Sadly that is the pattern with communism so far.

by J. Doherty Fri Sep 17, 2010 22:40

Borrow till we drop says Michael Taft.
1) Borrow ‘Til We Drop
“We need to borrow. We need to borrow big time. You can’t cut-and-tax your way out of a recession - you spend. And borrowing is the main instrument. Borrowing will get us ‘over the hump’. We won’t take money out, we will put money in. In times of recession, borrowing is good.”
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/91481

by MysticMeg Sat Sep 18, 2010 00:32

which of the following strategies is best for the average joe?

FF:
borrow borrow borrow, tax the poor, cut social programs, pay it all directly to the banks, default, no local industries left, penal servitude, slave labour for corporations, third world country. No hope of getting out

or

MT:
borrow borrow borrow, tax the rich, leave the poor cos they spend their money in the real economy, don't pay the banks, use money to build infrastructure, create local jobs and industry, eventual third world country with better infrastructure and more local industries. at least a glimmer of hope of getting out.

I prefer Michael Taft's solution

by P.Doherty Sat Sep 18, 2010 15:17

Those who agree with the pseudo-keynesianism of Michael Taft and advocate that the Irish state, already with the highest fiscal-deficit stimulus in the world, should borrow even more, need to explain why the current stimulus/deficit is not working as evidenced by the more than 20% of the workforce on the dole. They should also take a look at this graph and ask themselves why the interest rate on Irish bonds is shooting upwards.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GIGB10YR:IND&n=y
The material welfare of the Irish working class is ill served by economic illiteracy masquerading as progressive politics.

by Anonymous Coward Sat Sep 18, 2010 15:52

Those who agree with the pseudo-keynesianism of Michael Taft and advocate that the Irish state, already with the highest fiscal-deficit stimulus in the world, should borrow even more, need to explain why the current stimulus/deficit is not working as evidenced by the more than 20% of the workforce on the dole

what 'fiscal-deficit stimulus' are you talking about?

Are you referring to the bail-out of the Banks and property speculators which that economically-illiterate idiot Brian Lenihan and his cronies arranged, using the nations Pension fund?

That wasn't a 'fiscal-deficit stimulus', that was a clear example of daylight robbery - the Pension Fund has been looted in broad daylight to guarantee the loans of parasitic speculators

The material welfare of the Irish working class is ill served by economic illiteracy, such as yours, masquerading as 'informed politico-economic commentary'

They should also take a look at this graph and ask themselves why the interest rate on Irish bonds is shooting upwards.

Because the people that know what's going on, the people who loan money, have already figured out that what YOU refer to as a 'fiscal-deficit stimulus' was in fact daylight robbery of the nations Pension Fund in order to guarantee the loans of parasitic speculators, and not a 'fiscal-deficit stimulus' in any shape or form

The people that know what's going on, know full well that the Irish economy is not going to benefit from the daylight robbery of the sovereign Pension fund in order to guarantee the loans of parasitic speculators,

The people that know what's going on, know full well that the Irish economy is going into a death-spiral and will not benefit one bit from the daylight robbery of it's sovereign Pension fund.

The people that know what's going on, the people who loan money, have noticed that the Gov't has stupidly bailed out the banks and parasitic property speculators, and consequently the people who loan money decided to close in for the kill, sensing that given our need to borrow they can screw the hell out of us with massive interest-rate hikes on Irish bonds

Are you aware that when the interest rate hits 7% that means that the debt (+interest) actually DOUBLES EVERY 10 YEARS?

Do you have any idea what has just been done, to the Irish people, by it's own FF Gov't Ministers?

Do you even realise that virtually EVERY politician, and talking-head in the country colluded in conning the gullible and economically-illiterate idiots known as 'The Irish People' into accepting this?

The material welfare of the Irish working class is ill served by economic illiteracy, such as yours, masquerading as 'informed politico-economic commentary'

by P.D. Sun Sep 19, 2010 00:11

you're very confused. If the money is coming from the Pension Fund why are they borrowing?

by P.D. Sun Sep 19, 2010 01:24

Dare to borrow till you drop? Lunacy.
"THE INTEREST rate demanded by those who lend to the Government rose to new highs yesterday on fears over the State’s budgetary position."-
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0918....html

by Anonymous Coward Sun Sep 19, 2010 01:42

Not all confused- just far better informed than you. Probably because I no longer bother reading the Times or watching RTE like the rest of you plebs

It really isn't too hard to understand if you use your brain

The pension fund has/is being used to finance the ongoing NAMA crimes.

the current borrowing is directed to prop-up the banks, and to fill the holes left in the nations coffers due to the collapse in the tax revenue. the banks, despite being bailed out by you and me are refusing to lend money thus killing the economy. No money circulating = no economy

See? that wasn't too hard to work out now, was it?

3 yrs ago the Pension fund stood at 80 Billion. Currently the Gov't is claiming that it stands at 40 Billion - (personally I don't believe them, I'd say if there is even worth 25/30 Billion left we'd be very lucky) only about 30% of the fall in value was as a result devaluing investments due to the international depression. the rest has been looted

by P.D Sun Sep 19, 2010 22:04

The govt. borrows to finance the deficit. By spending more than it takes in the govt. adds to aggregate demand. In simple Keynesian terms this is stimulatory to the economy. The Irish state is incurring one of the largest deficits in history (which is not being financed by the pension fund, but by borrowing on international markets).
And yet it is insufficient to compensate for the fall in demand in the private sector, as is evidenced by the more than 20 percent of the labour force on the dole. This is what needs to be explained before one embarks on foolish advocacy of more borrowing. Your and Taft fail to take this into account. Calling for more 'stimulus' and 'borrow till you drop' in this environment is idiotic.
Progressive politics should not be confused with economic illiteracy. A grasp of basic macroeconomics, which neither you nor Michael Taft possess, is essential to understand the current debacle in Irish political economy. A good place to start is Joan Robinson's 'An Introduction to the Theory of Employment' (Macmillan 1938). It is clearly written and, with some effort, should be understandable even by economic illiterates.
A grasp of the concepts and categories of macroeconomics deriving from Keynes is necessary before you so foolishly rant in public, with silly sloganeering such as 'dare to borrow' and 'borrow till you drop'.
Note: I am not suggesting that Keynesian economics is the solution to Ireland's economic difficulties. Merely pointing out that failure to grasp macroeconomics 101 and foolishly calling for 'stimulus' when the state is already running one of the largest fiscal deficits/stimulus in the world, is misleading and damaging to the material interests of workers.
Neither am I suggesting that the austerity being imposed by Lenihan and his orthodox economic advisers is the solution; its obviously part of the problem.
As for your suggestion that I stop reading the Irish Times, and watching and listening to RTE, I'll take your suggestion under advisement, consult with my fellow plebs, and consider whether I should from now on get my news from the Examiner and Independent.

by Self Serving Greedy B***tards Sun Sep 19, 2010 22:13

In reply to P.D are you trying to suggest i help out the government for short changing me??
Why should my pension,i worked 50 hard years for,my whole life?
For a bunch of FF'ers who clearly don't give a rats about the people they are governing,but they are happy to loot,the money we have paid into our whole lives and worked hard for!

by P.D. Sun Sep 19, 2010 22:40

Nowhere have I suggested that the pension fund go to help the greedy bastards. I'm merely pointed out that its not going to finance the deficit. And using the pension fund to bail out the banks, under the spurious guise of 'investment' should be vigorously opposed by all progressives, not to mention radicals.
Investing the pension fund in stock markets was a mistake. The Labour Party policy at the time was that the pension fund should be invested to develop Irish infrastructure. The resulting increase in production and in productivity would increase the level of economic activity from which future pensions could be paid.

Unlike Ireland, here in the U.S. Republican proposals to invest Social Security funds in the stock market were successfully opposed. Since the financial debacle we don't hear too much of this proposal right now.
Pension funds are part of the social wage of workers, part of surplus value not appropriated by capital. Attempts by capital to appropriate these funds to alleviate bankers and bondholders of their losses should be resisted. Lenihan is pursuing a policy of socialism for the rich while imposing neo-liberal orthodoxy on those with low incomes.
A real pro-worker alternative must be developed to the present debacle where the economy is being run and organized for the benefit of international finance capital.
The 'dare to borrow' and 'borrow till you drop' proposals of Michael Taft are phony psuedo-progressive nonsense fully compatible with the control of the Irish economy by international finance capital. What is needed is a real radical restructuring of economic power in Ireland, not simple-minded, chamber of commerce style boosterism.