Have discovered a new blog called Labourlist. UK. Interesting writers. This post, by a chap called Stuart Lansley, talks about how soaring inequality contributed to the crash.
He contends that
Although global imbalances, excessive bank leveraging and reckless financial risk-taking helped trigger the meltdown of 2008/09, the crisis has it roots in the rising income and wealth gap, and the way a new domestic and global super-rich elite created economic fragility.
And he argues that the most urgent task now is to rebalance the real economy. Which means halting and reversing the sliding wage share, reducing the gap between rich and poor, shrinking the size of the financial sector and increasing the flow of funds into productive and sustainable economic activity.
Not really where National’s heads are at!
Inequality is incredibly socially destructive, it’s now tied to crime rate, mental illness, life expectancy, education (especially) and more – even the US is taking note of the recent research around it. It’s not just economics or society either , disparity in nature leads to “fragile” systems unable to cope with trauma. The tax shakeup – everyone agrees – INCREASES disparity 8(
Careful Clare and SteveO next you’ll be suggesting that getting more money isn’t the basis of a healthy functioning human being…
There will always be a rich poor gap of some degree as that is the nature of the human condition. Marxism only works in theory.
People who have worked hard to scrape their way up the ladder of financial prosperity should feel validated and not like someone is always trying to take something from them.
I believe that where the rights of this group are vs our obligation to help those who are struggling, National is at least attempting to get this balance right.
I would be interested to hear Labour’s actual solutions to the current imbalance we have in the economy especially considering that the rich list went up by something ridiculous like 300% when Labour was in office…
Rebecca “National is at least attempting to get this balance right” Really? By balance you mean reducing the tax burden on the top “10%” I quote Mark who keeps using this figure.
Perhaps It was Labour seeking to redress the imbalance you speak of, hence the rich list went up by 300%? However they also raised minimum wage, which National voted against every time…
Until the Budget is actually announced we don’t know what, if anything national is doing to balance the right of people to make money versus the rights of those who have to work at lower levels to enable the accumulation of that wealth.
I’m sick of having to write this but I will. I am not a wealth hater. I absolutely recognise the place of wealth generation. In fact I come from a household which earns (combined) over 100k.
I also recognise that there is some fortune involved in this. My family background, my opportunities, my colour amongst other things.
I also recognise that Capitalism is not synonymous with equality any more than Socialism is. To succeed as a model Capitalism REQUIRES a large low skilled workforce, it is simply impossible under this model for everyone to attain “wealth”.
Where the left are oft accused of hating the rich, National are oft accused of scorn for the poor. Blance, Rebecca, is the key. I believe we began to see it under the last Labour Govt (just because the top tax rate was higher than many would like did not mean the “basic” standard of living of that section of society suffered).
I have yet to see national’s intent to create balance at all parts of the spectrum. They claim they are about to make winners out of everyone in the work force and on benefits and retired. I will wait and see how this is actually achieved (as opposed to rhetoric). Kudos to them if they can achieve it.
In the meantime could they please remove the ability to voluntarily liquidate to avoid possible liability… this affects the middle class enormously.
Hear Hear Tracy.
A balanced society required both beef and cheese!
//www.cheeseandburger.com/
and increasing the flow of funds into productive and sustainable economic activity.
… and the easiest way to do this is (drum roll please) with a strong financial sector!
@ Phil
You mean like the strong financial sector that just caused a global recession?
A bit different in the UK Clare. Blair/Brown have actively encouraged a booming financial sector in the UK, the city of London has in fact supported and driven the British economy over through the boom years and given the means for vast public expenditure. The irony now being they are using a successful sector as a scapegoat for their own fiscal incompetence.
One thing we need to do is direct and control the flow of local and foreign capital into creating productive advanced industries and advanced services in NZ. Very few countries have been able to create and sustain a high level of wealth for ordinary citizens by relying on the export of primary goods(and this includes mined rock).
@Tracey, quite the opposite IMHO: this country needs to get very rich. And it needs to do so in environmentally sustainable ways congruent with our values as a people. Being a financially wealthy country is the only way that we can afford the means to look after our citizens, our communities and those most vulnerable the way that they really deserve to be looked after. NZ as a country must make much more money than it does now and it should do so under Labour leadership. If NZ does not have wealthy financial means we won’t be able to give New Zealanders all the benefits and advantages which they deserve.