"Nothing without Labour".

Why "Labour", not "labour", which is what the article is about?

Yet another article breaching the stipulation "Articles should generally be between 800 and 1,000 words, unless the subject matter demands a longer piece - 2,000 is an absolute upper limit".

Maybe "absolute" has a different meaning in this forum to the time-honoured meaning I know and use.

"This would herald a peaceful revolution. We need to embark on it urgently to avoid a monumental financial collapse. We need to embark on it also to avoid revolutionary violence on an unprecedented scale."

Finally someone gets it.

People are no longer leading lives of quiet desperation.

They are leading lives of more and more desperate desperation.
All the while they see the more fortunate living a better and better life.
It won't take much to reach the tipping point (We've seen it all over the world) that will ensure revolutionary violence on an unprecedented scale.

What we need is for wealth earned to be more proportional to wealth created: ie. A fair system.
But there is Buckley's chance of that. Just look at Australia's middle class and corporate welfare, and the winners from property inflation. Folks feel no guilt whatsoever for making money without working for it. Get rich quick is now an acceptable attitude, and folks are shocked when they have to pay the piper. ("Isn't that why God created the poor countries?" say the Righteous)
Now we are due for a justice rebalance. Alas, the struggle will not be pretty.

Economists of all pursuasions live in a fantasy world of theory and prediction - even those of the Austrian School who somehow believe they are different (they still make broad ranging assumptions which are based more on faith than evidence).

There is a huge disconnect between theory and actual impact on people's lives. Most theories deal with the good of the country...this is all very well...but the impacts on individuals are often unpredictable, in particular those who suffer most. Austerity measures might work in theory, but the collateral damage may well be too much for a country to bear.

Time will tell.

Mr. J Cumes,

Since my first encounter with your writings, you gained my respect and unbound admiration.

While reflecting on your article in the library, the book ‘Pere Goriot’ by Honoré de Balzac, idly lying on the table, caught my attention and roused memories of adolescence.

The blurb on the back cover read:” This novel marks Balzac’s “real entrée” into La Comedie Humaine to depict feelings, social crises and the whole pell-mell of civilization. In it he probes the bourgeois tragedy of power, money and despair, from different directions”.

This intrusion said that the social castle of today has roots well back in time.

You mention Academics, Economists, Bankers, Businessmen, Journalists, Bureaucrats, Treasurers, together with Governments, OECD, IMF, Central Banks, Treasurers, Magnates, Philanthropists and the King-pin of them all; the Holy Dollar.

Haven’t these entities been with us for a very long time, even if under other names?

Or, as the blurb says: since the beginning of civilization, which I take to mean ‘The birth of cities’?

Or probably before; since man found caves where to store and protect from animal and fellow-man what he hunted, gathered and…robbed?

Sir,

If Logic is a tool for analysis we’d better try to use it to chart our past in the hope of finding our way to the future, if there is still a future for us

Phil: You are spot on. Economic theory is only half the problem though. Theory says that maximum utility is achieved by minimising profits. Creative destruction and minimising monopolies is critical to keeping an economy efficient. Market mechanisms *do* work (certainly far better than corruptible committees!), but they only work where honest market price signals allow for constant adaptation.
High profits are now "good" regardless of employment, societal and environmental outcomes. While most real wages have stagnated, a very small sector of society has seen their wealth surge.
These two theoretical considerations are very unpopular as the first annoys industry lobby groups, and the second is ignored for the most important price signal of all: the rental price of money, aka, interest rates. These are set by a committee, not a market and so tend to benefit powerful interests over the great voiceless masses. Hence the rise of massive unearned profits in a sector that contributes zero real wealth to the economy...eventually the faux "boom" must be paid for...and the middle and poor are now paying disproportionately for the excesses of the credit boom years. Throw in some demographics and you have a scary situation.
The versions of theory that are acceptable to governments and lawmakers is not one that will lead to correct action (paying off debt with more debt?), so unpredictable consequences are inevitable.