Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Jess on Say’s Law and the Tory Denial that Increase in Food Banks Represents Genuine Demand

Jess, one of the commenters on this blog has posted a detailed critique of the economic law behind the Tories’ refusal to admit that the rise in food banks is due to a massive increase in poverty. The Tories cannot admit that there is mass starvation in this country due to their austerity campaign. They therefore claim instead that food banks are increasing simply because there are more food banks, and their mere existence attracts more customers.

In her comment to Mike’s post on Vox Political, ‘Food bank blow is new low for the Mail on Sunday’, Jess attacks this assertion, and shows that it is based on Say’s Law, an economic doctrine that has now been comprehensively refuted in the form it has been adopted under Lord Freud to justify the attacks food banks. She states

“Another claim – that “volunteers revealed that increased awareness of food banks is driving a rise in their use” is unsubstantiated, and is clearly an attempt to support the government’s claim that this is the case. But it is silly. Of course starving people will go to a food bank after they have been told it exists; that doesn’t mean they aren’t starving.”

The DWP appear to be pushing this line rather hard, as their response to the public’s growing awareness of the scandal of food banks. Their argument, based on Say’s Law, is utterly fallacious, and they must know it is.

Say’s Law, roughly formulated, is “”Supply creates its own demand”[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_creates_its_own_demand].
In the present context it seems to have been first invoked by Lord Freud, and then taken up by his department. EDITOR GF (and our own poster here on this thread HAYS)

It will be familiar to most people through its mention by Keynes in his ‘General Theory’;
“From the time of Say and Ricardo the classical economists have taught that supply creates its own demand; meaning by this in some significant, but not clearly defined, sense that the whole of the costs of production must necessarily be spent in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, on purchasing the product.” [http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch02.htm]

But even the free marketeers regard Freud’s interpretation of Say as ridiculous;
“W. H. Hutt once referred to Say’s Law as the most fundamental ‘economic law’ in all economic theory. In its crude and colloquial form, Say’s Law is frequently understood as supply creates its own demand, as if the simple act of supplying some good or service on the market was sufficient to call forth demand for that product. It is certainly true that producers can undertake expenses, such as advertising, to persuade people to purchase a good they have already chosen to supply, but that is not the same thing as saying that an act of supply necessarily creates demand for the good in question. This understanding of the law is obviously nonsensical as numerous business and product failures can attest to. If Say’s Law were true in this colloquial sense, then we could all get very rich just by producing whatever we wanted.” [http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/understanding-says-law-of-markets]

How then, did this silly ‘aphorism’ creep into the language of the DWP?

One route may have been through the IEA and it’s then Director David G Green.. He wrote a couple of pamphlets in the late ’90′s advocating the demolition of Social Security, and a return to the Friendly Societies of Victorian England [Benefit dependency : how welfare undermines dependency.1998; An end to welfare rights : the rediscovery of independence 1999]

Most people, at the time, thought Green was ‘off his trolley’, It is tragic that Say, and Green is being used to attack food banks. The last refuge of the destitute.

This last paragraph, where she mentions IEA and its director, David G Green, is also important. I remember back in the 1990s the Daily Mail criticising the establishment of the modern welfare state for the way it sidelined the Friendly Societies. The Daily Mail had clearly been influenced by Green’s bonkers views, and it shows just how extreme and reactionary the Mail is.

that would not explain "significant" i think, though it may explain a spike
strange as it may seem and unlike you, i have no silly political axe to grind, but merely try to wade through at least some of the garbage to retrieve a sensible explanation - but that may well be beyond your comprehension

=============

as an aside, there was a very interesting piece on long-term unemployed going through a very short army course followed by short work placement
i admit i didn't pay huge attention, but a non-uk chap was offered some full time employment, which he grabbed, whereas the english bloke decided he really didn't fancy that particular job so opted to stay on benefits
says a lot

"and short army course followed by short work placement"??????????

Bailiffs or Bouncers at the local Cons Clubs!

He he.

Was going to say which twit wants to join the forces now that cuts are rife.

Not only that but forces are paid so badly perhaphs benefits are more.

I see that TopGear are in trouble again....it's more about the personalities than the cars that program !....very watchable most of the time...(they go to some great places !).....the only thing wrong is that the car testing is mostly crap !....it's always about rich people's vehicles...well I suppose it is called : "topgear"....so there...just don't expect them to give a proper test report for smaller sporty cars.. GTI's..small 4/4's.. etc....(for that : they never get it right).....but for Aston's, Maserati's : they are ...how shall I call it ?...the top....

I like watching that prog although Im not into cars, transport etc etc. Very good watching.

Their trips abroad are superb...but I find the smaller car testing is not what it should be....screeching wheels....and clocking up times on racetracks is not the way to test cars...

Gf

That nonsense about Say's is completely wrong. It is not a case of supply creating demand, although that is an economic law which does work in special circumstances.

The food bank situation is that increased supply is supplying a latent demand that was there anyway. Most importantly, it still does not imply increased demand.

stick+fred - typically stupid comment as expected, and of course a zillion miles wide of the mark

Hays says.........Latent demand that was there anyway.

Stop talking silly hays, the increased demand over the last 18 months as come about by 2 reasons

1. a massive increase in benefit sanctions which leaves people with no money

2. bedroom tax which is crucifying the very poorest, just look at the social cleansing going on in london.

And manuel educate yourself on the situation before making silly comment like that.

GF.

Manuel was a porter at Eton.

He wasn't educated, but indoctrinated!

-------

God only knows what happened to the Hazier One after birth!

8-)

I thought this cartoon referred to the greenest Prime Minister in history Wavy Dave, but it doesn't.

But could do with the recent retreat on Green Energy due to pressure from the Shires.

What a bunch of creeps!

Benefit cuts creating new generation of entrepreneurs, Bank of England suggests

Iain Duncan Smith hails Britain's 'entrepreneurial spirit' after Bank of England suggests welfare reforms are encouraging people to become self-employed





By Steven Swinford, Senior Political Correspondent, and James Kirkup

10:00PM BST 23 Apr 2014



Benefit cuts are pushing more people into self-employment and helping to create a new generation of entrepreneurs, the Bank of England has suggested.


The Bank announced that one of the most “striking” features of the economic recovery has been the record 4.5 million Britons who are now self-employed.


According to official figures, the number of self-employed workers has risen by more than 600,000 since 2010, accounting for more than a third of the 1.5 million new jobs created since then.


The Bank said the trend was partly down to government welfare reforms, such as the £26,000 benefits cap, pushing people back into work. Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, claimed that the figures were evidence that the Coalition was reviving Britain’s “entrepreneurial spirit”.


He told The Telegraph: “Every one of our welfare reforms has been about getting Britain working, so it’s encouraging to see the Bank of England explicitly linking our reforms with the strength of the UK labour market.



more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10783556/Benefit-cuts-creating-new-generation-of-entrepreneurs-Bank-of-England-suggests.html

Max,


IDS reminds me of Mussolini in two ways.

1) looks!
2) he ought to be strung up upside down from a lamp post!

----

The thought of the present bunch of Neo-fascists getting back into power is horrendous!

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

I watched SKYs newspaper review at 11.30pm last night and Pis-ed myself laughing at that article from the telegraph, its obvious some of these newspaper reporters and more importantly editors are not looking behind the figures and doing their jobs properly.

Id's is trying to blow smoke up peoples asses.


As a rule "self employed" = unemployed.

Try getting a proper loan without at least three years accounts.

Hard to do if you are on £7 quid an hour.

Mass Workfare Begins Next Monday … Or Does It?
Posted on April 23, 2014 by johnny void | 66 comments

bhf-workfareWith less than one week to go until the launch date of the DWP’s woefully misnamed ‘Help To Work’ and details of the programme are still shrouded in secrecy.

‘Help To Work’ is the mass workfare scheme announced by George Osborne at last year’s Tory Party conference. Those leaving the Work Programme without a job – which is almost everyone – will either have to sign on every day or be forced to work for no pay for a ‘community’ organisation for six months. The whole package is expected to cost almost a third of a billion, with most of that money lining the pockets of private sector profiteers running the scheme.

The problem is no-one knows who those providers are yet, including the DWP themselves. A response to a Freedom of Information request dated April 10th said that the tender for ‘Help To Work’ was still ongoing. The DWP have also said that the guidance for companies running the scheme will not be published until the launch date, 28th April.

What we do know is that Help To Work is already mired in chaos. Several high profile volunteer’s organisations have condemned the plans whilst three of the largest supporters of other workfare schemes have said they will not accept placements. Both The Conservation Volunteers and The Salvation Army were expected to bid for Help To Work contracts or sub-contracts, and neither of them have. YMCA have also said they will not accept placements on the scheme, whilst even workfare quango Groundwork are wobbling.

This is more than just an embarrassment for Help To Work, it is a fucking disaster and one was that was entirely predictable. For years workfare programmes have come close to collapse due to a lack of available work placements. Despite what politicians would like to think, the charitable sector has no need for hundreds of thousands of forced workers. The truth is that there isn’t enough workfare to go round for everyone on benefits, let alone real, paid work. The Community Action Programme pilot - a similar workfare scheme to Help To Work - found that placements could only be found for 63% of participants. This took place before scores of charities distanced themselves from workfare due to huge pressure from their supporters who turned out to be disgusted that these organisations used unpaid forced labour.

Help To Work is not the only DWP scheme that looks to be in trouble. Remember Iain Duncan Smith’s plan to warehouse unemployed people for six months at a time on full time job search? No, well it seems neither does he. There has been no sign at all of this scheme, which was also announced at the Tory Party Conference.

It will the the demise of Help To Work which will be the biggest embarrassment to this Government however. This is their latest big idea to fix unemployment after the disaster that has been the Work Programme. It already appears to be yet another shambles. Whatever is announced next Monday – if anything at all – the Help To Work scheme is unworkable.

Lib Dems granted 'national minority status' to save them from extinction


By Tim Stanley Politics
Last updated: April 24th, 2014

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100268930/lib-dems-granted-national-minority-status-to-save-them-from-extinction/




They once had thousands of members and could boast that they were “breaking the mould of British politics”, but with numbers in fast decline the Government has been forced to act to save the Liberal Democrats by giving them “national minority status”. Nick Clegg, who made the announcement from a phone box in Cornwall on Thursday morning, said, “This might be the only way to save us from extinction. Will you accept reverse charges?”

The Lib Dems are thought to date back to the late 1980s and their population is scattered around Twickenham and Truro. A surprising number of celebrities are thought to be Lib Dems, including Honor Blackman, star of The Upper Hand, and Daniel Radcliffe, famous for playing children and very short men. Professor Andrew Spode of Cosmopolitan University says that their culture is unique: “The Lib Dems speak a language full of unusual words, like ‘proportional representation’ and ‘vegan buffet’. Often, the words they use mean something very different to how they sound. So when a Lib Dem tells you that they support something ‘100 per cent’, that actually means that they are opposed to it – and vice versa. This can lead to cultural misunderstandings and is probably why they are so unpopular.” Lib Dems will often move into an area, irritate the locals with u-turns and be driven out a few years later with pitchforks. One anonymous Tory councillor described them as “More trouble than they’re worth. They ruin the neighbourhood with their smelly recycling.”

The Lib Dem cuisine is wholly vegetarian and they even have a national dress comprising sandals, beard and a smell of self-satisfaction that the unnamed Tory councillor describes as “ungodly”. There have been several attempts to promote Lib Demery in recent years, including the establishment of a Lib Dem Cultural Centre in Dorset. Visitors could engage with an animatronic Shirley Williams who would tell them all about the benefits of loft insulation and the alternative vote. The Centre closed down last January due to lack of interest.

The political response to the Lib Dems gaining national minority status has been mixed. Ed Miliband, who is avoiding Britain during the Euro elections, sent a telegram from an undisclosed location to say that the policy was “under review” until 2016. Nigel Farage, canvassing in a Threshers in Chigwell, said that it was “time to send the Lib Dems back where they come from. If they like Brussels so much, why don’t they live there? Instead they hang around on street corners stealing British jobs from British people. Jobs that ordinary, decent Brits wouldn’t do – like appearing on Question Time and pretending to have opposed Iraq.”

Paddy Ashdown was available for comment, but no one could understand a word he said.

Manchester United should not have sacked David Moyes, Arsenal supporter Nick Clegg has said.

The deputy prime minister told LBC radio this morning that the former manager had not deserved to be out of a job after less than a season in charge.

"I thought they were just going to let him try and make the best of it, and then take on the new signings," he said. "Personally I think they should have held onto him - but it's a personal opinion."

Cynics might argue Clegg would naturally take the side of an under pressure leader whose team is lagging behind other teams in points.