Skip to content

The crazy idea of a fairer society

September 13, 2015

A friend chose yesterday of all days, to bait me about Corbyn being a dangerous socialist and Thatcher’s “you always run out of other people’s money”. This was my response.


Dearest C,

I don’t really know where to start to reorient you. I suspect you don’t wish to see another side to your argument, whatever the other side is. I don’t know how to engage with this reduction of entire decades to cheap Murdoch headlines. All I can say is “the data simply does not support your position” and hope that facts can make a difference.

Poverty in Britain rose under Thatcher to levels not seen since the aftermath of World War II. Unemployment reached percentages not experienced since the great depression. The gini coefficient — economists’ accepted method for measuring inequality — grew by 40%. The welfare culture that you so despise, is entirely her baby. It was simply cheaper to park people on benefits, in the mining and industrial towns that she decimated, than retrain them to a diversified industry. We are living the legacy of that. These are the facts of conservatism.

According to the economist Bernard Lietaer, author of The Future of Money, as recently as 1975 roughly 80% of foreign exchange transactions involved the real trading of a product or a service. The rest were mostly speculative; bets made on the value of currencies going up or down. By 1997 the percentage of foreign exchange which involved transactions in the real economy was only 2.5%. Today, according to the Global Policy Forum, only 0.6% of foreign exchange could be traced to genuine international trade in goods and services. More than a third of those happens daily in the City. Money has ceased to be the tool of trade and has become its object.

Thatcher simply wanted to make way for Britain becoming “financiers of the world”, in her own words. Others, like Germany, chose a diversified production base. We became the world centre of usury. Britain’s over-reliance on its finance industry is the reason we were particularly vulnerable to the global financial crisis. It is also the reason we have lived in perpetual boom and bust since her time. Because boom and bust is good for the finance industry.

Booms are when imaginary value is created and busts are when it is converted to real wealth, by buying assets (often, state assets for which generations have paid) on the cheap. Without the jagged peaks and troughs of the ups and downs, the finance industry simply makes less money. The trouble is, the booms are getting narrower and narrower in terms of whom they benefit and the busts deeper and deeper about whom they harm and how much.

The latest one in 2008, in which private, liberalised banks – the absolute symbol of free market capitalism – collapsed spectacularly and had to be bailed out with taxpayers’ money, represents the absolute failure of capitalism, even by its own standards. It has created a mutated hybrid, a Frankenstein system, in which the very top now benefit directly from the state-collected proceeds of the many. A system under which not only do they avoid tax, but they get it pumped into them when in trouble. A system which has mutualised their losses, while protecting their privatised profits. It has rewarded market failure. Meanwhile, people like you bitch about the comparative drop in the budget ocean that is a mobility payment for someone disabled or a dialysis machine for someone ill or social care for someone old and alone.

An even bigger crisis is coming. The first shockwaves of it are being artificially kept at bay from China to the U.S. A system under which the richest 1% will control as much wealth as the remaining 99% by 2018 (according to Oxfam’s global poverty report) is a creaking, unstable House of Cards. Even neoliberal voices are beginning to recognise this fact and express it explicitly (see the paper which resulted from the IMF’s conference on inequality this year).

What pains me is to see people like you, who do not belong to that elite and never will, defend it. You are the middle class defence they have built around their wealth. You are the talking-out-of-your-arse, relatively well-to-do 5% moat which protects their enormous castle.

That 1% relies on you believing the nonsense you spout – and using your megaphone to spread it – in order to keep their ever-growing wealth safe, by irrationally hoping that this sort of megawealth is somehow possible for you too, somehow available. That, someday, you too might be invited to the enormous castle for dinner. You never will. You provide their dinner. You are the staff. You are the mug that keeps buying scratch cards from which nobody, ever, won a penny.

But that irrational hope makes your tongue unkind and your elbows sharp. In truth, you have much more in common with the people you do down, than with those you defend. I hope you never get to find out how close to penury you – and all the salariat – are. We are constantly encouraged to spend anticipated income. Mortgages, credit cards, speculative portfolios. If the income stops, for whatever reason, most of us are instantly bankrupt. I hope you never get to find out what real, state-sanctioned, Daily-Mail-sponsored unkindness feels like. I like you and would not wish it on you.

In your heart, you know all of this. You have chosen to silence at a societal level everything that you consider good on a personal level. You have chosen to fling mud at any attempt to discuss a fairer system that is based around people, rather than money. You know this is wrong, but you still do it, because you are self-interested. You mock those who are less so. You’re doing all right at the moment – you’re healthy, employed, secure – so you don’t give a toss about those who are not. You simply want to pay less tax. That is what it boils down to. “Me” is the most important word in your Lexicon, the only word even, and you think that’s dandy.

Well, it isn’t. There are those who disagree with your bitter, jaded version of society. And you should thank heaven for us, because if yours became the only view, if the cruelty you long for became reality, the result would not be a society which you would enjoy. You demand respect and solidarity for your rights, but offer none in return.

I have resented typing every word of this, because your premise is absolutely disingenuous. You think people who fail are lazy or stupid and have said so on many occasions. You would never be tempted to vote for radical, progressive politics. You would find a way to intellectualise your rejection of them and stick to your voting habits. So your protestation of “oh, if only you were more sensible, Labour, I might vote for you” is bunkum.

I have typed it anyway, however. Just so you can tut and roll your eyes at my leftie nonsense and think of some irrelevant “but what about” sophistry to wheel out in reply. Knowing that I chip away at you on a deeper level than the shallow push and pull of soundbites. Because I’m right. Because my way is better and you know it. Because there must be a terrified part of your brain that gets what utter foolishness it is supporting a system and a world view, which daily makes us all less kind, less open, less caring, less civilised, less evolved and, ultimately, less human.

But you don’t have to be that person. You have a choice. We all do. You can soothe those around you with word and action, rather than cut them with criticism. You can help those who are in a worse position, not step on their throat. I wish you would choose that.

I love you.


49 Comments leave one →
  1. September 13, 2015 2:43 am

    I’m afraid political analysis isn’t my strong point but I thought it a bit ironic that you call your friend’s “tongue unkind” in the course of a succession of cutting criticisms in which you call him/her a “bitter”, “self-interested” person that’s “talking-out-of-your-arse”.

    Do you now have one less friend?

    • Bruce MacLeod permalink
      September 13, 2015 9:03 pm

      He may have one less ‘friend’ but has many more believers…. He speaks the truth and articulates himself better than most. Good on you Sir!

  2. September 13, 2015 4:08 am

    Well said and kia kaha to us all.

  3. unitron permalink
    September 13, 2015 5:29 am

    I strongly disagree.

    It should have read “the data simply do not support your position”.

    Otherwise I think you pretty much nailed it.

    • James permalink
      September 13, 2015 2:31 pm

      If there’s one thing I hate more than a grammer nazi, it’s an ironic post modern grammer nazi. Like your wit sir! And a very good piece Alex, though I disagree with you about Corbyn. I think the Labour Party have just made sure George Osborne will the next PM in 2020. But I will try to suppress that thought, and wish the new leader the very best in his titanic endeavours.

      • September 14, 2015 3:11 pm

        Indeed. You are fundamentally incorrect in more than one respect.
        It’s grammAr.

      • September 14, 2015 8:04 pm

        The electorate may be pretty dumb, but nobody is mindless enough to make George Osbourne PM, no matter his media cheerleaders. I think you mean Boris the Clown

  4. elenits permalink
    September 13, 2015 6:03 am

    Your friend and others like him / her are not the only opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s candidacy. You can see from this link that the British equivalent to AIPAC has also swung into action. This whole subject needs exposure too.

  5. September 13, 2015 7:06 am

    Alex I love you! This is such a brilliant piece of writing, it grabbed me by the throat and almost made me cry. I will be sharing it everywhere I can. I hope The Guardian would give it some prominence. Thank you

    With love Toni

    Sent from my iPad


  6. scotsgeoff permalink
    September 13, 2015 7:06 am


    So reassuring that there are some caring people out there although there are a few I could do with sending this letter to also as Thatcher’s legacy of selfishness continues around me stoked by the media.

  7. September 13, 2015 7:17 am

    This is so good thank you Alex. I hope people share and share again because that is what this is all about isn’t it?

  8. September 13, 2015 8:37 am

    Reblogged this on Gari Davies and commented:
    Not by me, but I think this is very well written and worth a share!

  9. September 13, 2015 8:41 am

    It’s the same sentiment that’s misrepresented in the USA about Bernie Sander (and Obama).

  10. September 13, 2015 9:55 am

    Reblogged this on lmrh5.

  11. September 13, 2015 10:45 am

    Reblogged this on markcatlin3695's Blog and commented:
    Excellent, well said!!
    Facts not indoctrination-fed opinion!

  12. September 13, 2015 11:07 am

    This doesn’t only apply to the Corbyn situation – we should all seek our inner humanity when looking at the those left devastated and homeless resulting from the conflicts (cynically) whipped up around the world

  13. Miss Castello permalink
    September 13, 2015 12:14 pm

    “You have chosen to fling mud at any attempt to discuss a fairer system that is based around people, rather than money. You know this is wrong, but you still do it, because you are self-interested. You mock those who are less so. You’re doing all right at the moment – you’re healthy, employed, secure – so you don’t give a toss about those who are not. You simply want to pay less tax. That is what it boils down to. “Me” is the most important word in your Lexicon, the only word even, and you think that’s dandy.”

    Yet you “love” him/her?!?

    • September 13, 2015 12:17 pm

      Yes. He is stuck in a pattern on this issue, just like I am on others. Just like we all are.

  14. Lesley Bourke permalink
    September 13, 2015 2:09 pm

    Alex, I really haven’t seen such a reasonable, well-articulated argument for a long time. I admire you for sending that to your friend, not sure I could do it, even though I know a couple of people who really should read it!

  15. September 13, 2015 2:49 pm

    You are a very smart guy, perceptive:
    “In your heart, you know all of this.”

    That’s me, looking at you and your response to I’m a very smart guy, and perceptive. I think you condemed the idea with faint praise, something like “perhaps a good basis”.
    If you can see any “good” in the idea, then you must see all of it; it’s that binary.

    I really hope you put aside whatever emotional barrier you have in the way and publicise the idea, get behind it – I don’t care for credit, don’t refer to the website – just get the idea out there, for the good of the World.


    Harry Alffa (@HarryAlffa)

  16. September 13, 2015 3:39 pm

    Very well written. Thank you.

  17. September 13, 2015 3:49 pm

    The polemics of fairness is simply another invitation to revisit that great failed experiment in the ultimate fate of Socialism. Since you have not read your own country’s history from 1700 to present and I doubt you are faintly familiar with that of the USSR from 1925 until it’s end, then I suppose you view of fairness, just another catchphrase for the redistribution of wealth, is skewed with good intentions but ignorant of its consequences. A “Fairness” that murders ten to twenty percent of its population for the crime of not believing correctly is a very steep price to pay for what is, at best, a very poor ideology.

    Of course the world is about to fail due to many very bad economic decisions, the least of which has anything to do with fairness. Excessive credit creation produces excessive debt and that leads to excessive inflation in assets that do not add to the distribution of goods and services. The real truth is that these assets are built on debt. If a man buys the mortgage of another, he is not buying an asset but a debt. And debt is always repaid, if not by the debtor, then by the grantor of that debt. And if the grantor of the debt pays, then it is a loss of his capital. Perhaps your sense of fairness would include the poor sharing that loss as well.

    • September 13, 2015 4:27 pm

      That’s a lot of big words to cover some fairly small-minded insults. But since you wholesale dismiss any politics which aim at fairness by conflating it with autocratic communism, while ignoring other models, and also accept that we are heading for a catastrophe, I’d be very interested to know your solution.

      • September 13, 2015 8:13 pm

        The idea of fairness is one based mostly on emotion. One may wish to bring forth a moral argument, but even there the ground is very shaky. Fairness is an ideal, not a state in nature. I don’t ignore anything.

        Is there a solution to the coming “end of the world”? A great world wide depression is upon us and actually has started. You can see some of it now in China as the economic and financial systems start to collapse. We need to make a distinction between an economic system and a financial one. And economic system is about the allocation of scarce resources to produce goods and services. A financial system concerns itself with money (currency, credit, debt, investment, savings, etc). The total world debt, as far as it can be conservatively estimated is somewhere between 600 to 900 trillion US dollars. the world GDP, as far as it can be estimated is somewhere around 90 trillion US dollars. We use estimates because the accounting is difficult. not all countries tell the truth about their GDPs or measure it the same way. If one assumes economics is a science, it is a very sloppy one.

        So what happens when the bust comes? There will still be attempts by governments to do the Keynesian thing of spending their way to wealth. for the seven years prior to WWII that didn’t work very well. War, on the other hand provided full employment and a surfeit of production. But at a cost, and what a cost that was. Millions of lives lost, billions of property damage, perhaps a trillion in economic losses. And a lot of borrowing by governments. the result was inflation after the war in the industrial countries where industry was still operational.

        So we start our big depression although it will not hit everyone at once. I expect the US to be the last one affected by depression. China and Japan go first, then Europe. Those at the top who hold all the wealth, as so many of us like to believe, really get hit hard. Billionaires become multimillionaires. Millionaires become not millionaires. You see, it is credit creation that is the real problem. Unlimited credit is like unlimited printing of currency. The difference is that those at the top have been abusing that credit system and for their troubles, they have been lured into chasing yields and that means buying high risk assets. so many people think the rich are sitting on hoards of cash. But that is not true. If Bill Gates tried to sell what was left of his Microsoft stock, the price would plummet. Many of the rich are in this trap, they can’t sell their assets without greatly depressing the prices.

        Now if you are a minimum wage earner, what do you care about this rich man’s problem? It really won’t affect that many people. But the one thing a depression brought on by gross over expansion of credit and excess debt is that credit and debt become extremely hard to obtain for many years. Economic expansion stops, it contracts, Many people lose their jobs and that means fewer retail sales. Fewer retail sales means far less production of goods and services. Current accounts suffer (those are the foreign exchange accounts governments and corporations maintain to do business in foreign countries. Refugees no longer matter in the wider scheme of things. Taxes will have to be greatly increased to keep welfare alive. But fewer individuals will be able to shoulder that tax burden. Governments will, by necessity, have to restrain their spending and that means curtailing so much of their deficit spending. Why, because the market for their debt in the form of government bonds, notes, and other debt securities will diminish. Interest rates will increase greatly because credit will become scarce.

        The only solution is a general reset. Just as from 1928 through the early thirties many individuals, both middle class and millionaires, were bankrupt, so the same will occur again. That is the economic side of the story.

        The social and political side will be full of wild attempts to “do something” whether it works or not. You may get your wish about “fairness” being taken seriously. Except when done by politicos, the results is pretty much the same, a move along the road to socialism and fascism. Eventually, if left alone to go where it wants it becomes a dictatorship. Venezuela took only a couple of decades to descend into total chaos of “fairness”. If you are in the party leadership you will get your fair share, if you are just a peon, then your fair share will be a lot less.

        What is the solution? Kill off as much government as one can do without. End the free shit army stranglehold on the budgets. Churches used to do a decent job of charity for the poor, the unfortunate, the widows, and the orphans. But, as Britain is one of the prime examples, government takes over charity and calls it welfare or fairness or what other descriptive name, it becomes an entitlement for the middle classed since they administer what little they dole out to those whom they deem worthy. In 1929 through 1933, many federal state, and local government employees were laid off, fired, done away with. Once FDR came into office the size of the federal started expanding. Now in the US, the number of government employees at all levels of government reaches close to fifty percent. Is it any wonder that Congress must engage in deficit spending. we would have to raise taxes significantly to pay for the government we now have.

        While I’d love to tear it all down and start it all over again, people being a dumb, ignorant, and stupid as they are, it won’t take us two hundred and fifty years to get back to the same point in history. I would say we might be able to do it half the time. If someone goes and kills a few people using some sort of weapon our answer is to add more laws to show that we have taken action. Now I don’t know about you, but I have never once seen a stop sign stop a car. It has always been the driver. But adding more laws about the use of stop signs in insane. This country, the US, has well over ten thousand federal laws and a quarter of them conflict with each other. So what do we do every year in congress? Pass more of the same. Don’t laugh, your Parliament is just as bad. Government is the problem, pare it down to the bare minimum. Government attracts money and money attracts corruption. If you want Caesar’s wife to above suspicion, then hold her to a much higher standard and make sure that capital punishment is carried out on those who fail the meet those standards.

        Now maybe you think I am some sort of nut job. That would be your privilege and right. What I have stated is both opinion and fact. Math never lies. On the other hand, ideals often do. They seldom translate to the reality of living. They have far too many exceptions and excuses. People are individuals who are not uniform in their makeup. The individual variations are vast in combinations too great even for supercomputers to compute. My fields of expertise, such as they are, are voice and data communications and cognitive psychology, I have a few degrees in both. I am very widely and deeply read in histories, economics, various sciences, philosophies, and recently, literature. I’ve been doing this type of reading since I was fourteen. I am now in my late sixties. I do believe I’ve been around the block more than once in my life. I know the hell of war and the even greater hell of peace ( I do not say that lightly).

        Will you ever change your mind? No, your political beliefs are just that beliefs just as sincere as any religious holding a born again christian would cling to. If you ever stopped believing in that ideal of fairness you would be totally lost in the world. You have never taken your ideal to its logical conclusion. you can’t because first of all, you lack the skill to research all the knowledge that would come to bear on the ideal of fairness. Second, you believe in simple solutions. Complexity befuddles you. An ideal is a simple construction, just ask the Greeks of Socrates’ era. When one wants to speak to ideals, first one imbibes a bowl of wine, then one speaks. Imagine the conversations one could have with others that way.

      • September 13, 2015 8:30 pm

        How beautifully confused. Thank you for that. Several moments of much needed mirth.

      • September 14, 2015 2:09 am

        I am happy to have supplied much needed mirth as a result of my supposed beautiful confusion. Have as good a life as you can find.

    • Paul permalink
      September 14, 2015 3:22 pm

      It is interesting that one can ignore the very real downside of the capitalism you espouse which is that people need to be able to afford to buy the things they are told they need. So, to do so we create a credit factory where people can become indebted to, and for, the very things they are told they should own, in order to be the whole people they think such ownership confers on them. A house, car, clothes, holidays, fine food, wine, electronic goods etc..

      They are caught in this cycle because the capitalism you espouse cannot consider making things people need and selling them at prices people can afford because they manufacture things to make profits to pay dividends to people who lend us money to make things to sell to people who don’t really need those things in the first place. The capitalism you espouse enhances those profits by not paying going or useful wages or salaries and people become indebted because the dream espoused by capitalists fails to reach them unless they have the money to buy what they don’t need, which they’re not paid, so they borrow it.

      However, the capitalism you espouse, protects itself by increasing the amount of credit it gives to people, to make up for the shortfall capitalism endowed its workers with until the bubble bursts. POP, and down it all comes crashing around peoples’ ears.

      Or, the government pays tax credits to people on low wages to bring them up a little bit in their spending power so that the credit companies can get a bit more back and the worker, instead of being paid a living wage, becomes dependent now on hand outs.

      Now here’s the rub, people don’t need to buy homes, big thirsty cars, fifty inch tvs, designer clothes, watch type computers, so it comes as a shock to them when governments accuse them of being shiftless wastrels who need to be treated to austerity cuts because the cycle is getting out hand.

      Who to blame then? Well, it can’t be us, the capitalists, because we create wealth and employment and such, so it must be those on benefits or woolly minded leftists or crazy people … oops no, its migrants and now it’s likely to be that loony left leaning Corbyn who will sell off our security and cause us to make fewer weapons with which to arm people around the world, helping us to create instability and helping them take their eyes off us as we go around stealing the oil, nay saying climate change, selling off the family silver; not paying taxes; looking after our chums – especially that nice Mr Murdoch and Fox news and News Corp, because, after all they only tell us what we want to hear, think we want to hear, unsure of what we want to hear but at least the words are nice and short and easily digested and then regurgitated projectile fashion.

      And so it goes …

      Two things I need to point out to you – it is stop signs which stop cars because the consequences of not doing so can be catastrophic; and a reduction in the number of guns and to whom they can be sold does reduce needless death.

      It might, given you are obviously a man of great intellect, do you some good to check out the facts – more people have died from unconstrained weapon ownership in the US than ALL the combatants in ALL the wars in which the US has been involved.

      And I can buy degrees from the US in any subject I choose. cool, huh?

  18. Martin Read permalink
    September 13, 2015 4:46 pm

    Beautifully articulated! I fully understand your exasperation and I suspect that many of us who similarly despise the reactionary red-tops will have experienced similar ‘differences of opinion.’

    It is vital now that those of us who have longed for just such a change to Labour’s political thrust keep arguing our case. Because we are absolutely right to feel the way we do!

  19. September 13, 2015 6:17 pm

    You’re obviously very passionate (if more than a little passive aggressive towards someone you supposedly love) except that your argument falls at the very first hurdle. I am no Thatcher supporter. No Tory supporter either. But to suggest that under T poverty rose to levels not seen since the aftermath of WW2 is wildly inaccurate. Also, what’s a neoliberal?

    • September 13, 2015 8:27 pm

      In 1979, 13.4% of the population lived in relative poverty (accepting the standard economic measure of subsisting below 60% of median incomes before housing costs). By 1990, this had gone up to 22.2%, or 12.2m people. Pensioners were particularly hard hit. 22.2% of relative poverty was last recorded in 1951. I am aware of the – very much minority – IEA school of thought (that’s Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank) that there is “a problem with the tail end of the data for the bottom decile”, but it has been debunked by several rival studies. Measures like core poverty, breadline poverty and wages as a percentage of GDP, very much confirm the orthodox view.

  20. September 13, 2015 7:43 pm

    I do adore you. What a wise, kind, compassionate man you are.

  21. September 13, 2015 9:31 pm

    bravo, bloody brilliant

  22. September 14, 2015 7:19 am

    Nicely put your commentary in regard (UK) capitalism – “The latest one in 2008, in which private, liberalised banks – the absolute symbol of free market capitalism – collapsed spectacularly and had to be bailed out with taxpayers’ money, represents the absolute failure of capitalism, even by its own standards. It has created a mutated hybrid, a Frankenstein system, in which the very top now benefit directly from the state-collected proceeds of the many. A system under which not only do they avoid tax, but they get it pumped into them when in trouble. A system which has mutualised their losses, while protecting their privatised profits. It has rewarded market failure.”

    Bit of a reverse Robin Hood thing going on here – Steal from the poor to give to the rich …


    Don Charisma

  23. September 14, 2015 8:31 am

    I have no idea whether the economics of Corbyn and his new Chancellor McDonald would make more than a fractional difference to the economic position. I suspect that many who voted for him or – like me – rooted for him from afar, have heard enough about economics – economics divorced from societal issues and political issues is a dry and infertile thing, we must surely all agree. Whether it is Marxism or Thatcherism, this is just as true, The real benefit in the election of Jeremy Corbyn is that we have two politically distinct parties for the first time in twenty odd years – maybe since Kinnock’s resignation. And that is a good thing, by any standard. And, like Obama in America, how refreshing to have a political leader who can react and respond like a cabby, on the turn of a sixpence (and like that cabby seem to always have an opinion on everything). Unlike their respective tongue-tied predecessors, who often seemed to lose the sense of what had been scripted for them.

  24. hatfinch permalink
    September 14, 2015 9:09 am

    This piece was great until the vitriol started.

    You may think your friend knows that he or she is selfish; but I assume you intended this post to have wider applicability, as you have written it in a public blog rather than a DM. Babies are not born with the ability to check their privilege: it is a skill which some people never learn at all.

    You do not win people over by proving you are superior to them, but by providing a face-saving way for them to come over to your way of thinking. Your sweeping generalisations and condescension provide an easy excuse for people to dismiss the substance of what you say.

    • September 14, 2015 10:34 am

      I think this hits the nail on the head. The attitude communicated by your letter – which expresses utter contempt that you presumably hope will be forgiven due to a combination of convincing the recipient that you have superior intellect, plus the patronising “Dearest” and “I love you” – is so arrogant that you make it very easy to sympathise with him and not focus on whether your point of view actually stands up. Similarly, a respondent who’s clearly an intelligent person and makes points at least worth considering is ‘slapped down’ with irritation, although his somewhat abrasive first contribution was considerably more diplomatic than yours! You’re referring to issues of such complexity that I’m sure I’m not the only one who is instinctively suspicious of commentators/politicians who convey such total conviction that they are right.

      • September 14, 2015 11:02 am

        My thanks to both. I will be clearing all communication with people I know and you don’t through the two of you in future. All best.

      • hatfinch permalink
        September 14, 2015 12:02 pm

        You couldn’t really have missed the point any more succinctly, sturdyblog.

  25. Bob Edwards permalink
    September 14, 2015 4:32 pm

    So much bitter and twisted,cut and pasted gut-spilling. Economies need entrepreneurism, wealth-creation, scientific innovation, research and development. Where do you think that that comes from you fucking moron.

    • September 14, 2015 4:50 pm

      Hello, Bob. Always good to meet a fan.

    • Cathy S permalink
      September 14, 2015 7:03 pm

      Community Initiatives and Cooperatives require entrepreneurism, wealth-creation, scientific innovation, research & development. These factors are not the exclusive reserve of global corporate capitalism. It is not “fucking moronic” to suggest that human society can choose to deploy these factors in more ways than one.

      • elenits permalink
        September 14, 2015 8:02 pm

        Quite right. And these can also be private firms in the community. The important point here is that global corporate capitalism is NEVER innovative, entrepreneurial, value-creating…nor does it engage in research and development. It simply buys up the companies – whether cooperative or private – that have created this wealth.

      • September 14, 2015 8:09 pm

        I’m shocked there wasn’t an accusation of hypocrisy for buying anything as ‘capitalism made them’. Funnily enough, the current incarnation of capitalism actually tends to reward plagiarism, espionage and theft – the opposite of entrepreneurs seeing the full fruits of their endeavours.

  26. elenits permalink
    September 14, 2015 5:41 pm

    Sturdy, the huge number of trolls you’ve attracted shows that what you say is correct, that say it powerfully – and that the City is actually seriously worried about a Corbyn win!

    The trolling & nonsense propaganda will only get worse of course.

    Take it as a compliment and stick to your guns 🙂
    Kourageio! And onward to victory!

  27. Christine Jackson Counelis permalink
    October 11, 2015 3:34 am

    I kinda wish I had written this. But when I do, my echo will have the same soul, but more shrewishness. Alex you are a fine writer who tells it true.

  28. October 31, 2015 10:17 pm

    Reblogged this on sideshowtog.


  1. The crazy idea of a fairer society | sturdyblog | sdbast
  2. The crazy idea of a fairer society | lmrh5
  3. The crazy idea of a fairer society | Slow & Dirty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: