Why I don’t like get-rich quick economics.

The media and some politicians would like us to accept that a virile and headstrong economy, what we used to call a “bullish” economy, is good for us all because we all benefit from the wave of affluence that it creates.  Bullish? I say bullshit!    What has really happened in the years since the Keynesian theories adopted by Thatcher were foisted on us is that those who through no fault of their own were, or have been, unable to find a place on the economic ladder  (such as buying a house or inheriting a similar value; winning the lottery or simply having the good fortune to become an elitist manager and there are far too many of these) have been left progressively further and further behind.

On the other hand a large number of people have been given an unequal opportunity to further profit from this disparity by taking low risk capital ventures such as is afforded by advantageous buy-to-let mortgage rates.   As this sector multiplies its profit, and recent figures show that buy to let landlords have increased their stake by 1400 per cent in a decade and a half, it further widens the gap between the haves and have-nots.

In times gone by, such social divisions were limited to the descriptions of “working class”, “middle class”, and “Upper class” and there was a level of contentment about each sector.

The social mobility factor changed all that and for the first time a large number of working class people had access to the ladder of wealth, many of them starting up businesses, often with dubious credentials, and often in an exploitative way, using cheap labour provided from the pool of students, working mothers, pensioners and immigrants. The advent of The Internet accelerated the process  and the phrase “call-centres” entered our lexicon.

The priority for many, if not most, of these skyward entrepreneurs was to be seen to have the trappings of wealth that went with the banner of success.  A large house, flash 4x4s and sports cars, a boat, horses, that kind of thing. Any level of care for their employees is regarded as a sign of weakness. Any level of care for tenants by their landlords is regarded as letting down the club and letting agents form protective circles to prevent this happening.

As the 90s became the Noughties, these nouveau riches  were joined in their elitist club by the other new players on the playground, the wealthy immigrants who were making large amounts of money in new and diverse ways connected with their ethnicity.  

Meanwhile, at the top of the tree, the rich monkeys whose ancestry had put them there, were busy making mischief with unbelievably large sums of (often other people’s) money in the international money and commercial markets.

And somewhere in-between, almost by an act of sleight of hand, the “managing class”, the CEOs and quasi managers running quangos and public bodies, gave themselves very hefty increases worth many, many times the wages of their lowest-paid, hard working staff.

The two-class society was born.    The haves and the have-nots.     Well all of that is OK if you are one of the “haves”. But for the rest, look at what has happened. The caring network we used to call Social services has all-but collapsed.  Charities have sprung up in enormous numbers (thus creating yet another channel of wealth for a fortunate few) and volunteer workers shoulder a large proportion of the physical tasks.

Our housing stock comprises an enormous number of homes that even in the 70s we were demolishing as slums unfit for habitation.

Transportation costs for non-car owners have become prohibitive.

Supermarkets dominate the food price structure and force people to eat unwisely.

Old people are forced to squander their meagre accumulated wealth on care costing hundreds of pounds a week.

Those made redundant from badly-managed firms forced into closure are unable to find alternative employment at a similar and commensurate rate and fall into depressive illness and marital breakdown.

Prisons are bursting at the seams. Prisoners’ families remain a burden for the State.

I feel sure that every time the major media outlets, led by the BBC, focus on a news agenda of Savile and Hillsborough and the latest global geo-physical catastrophe, the senior politicians in power breath a collective sigh of relief as the spotlight falls away from them and their failings.

Even now, just hours away from a major opportunity for change, the dumb-down-obsessed news editors are concentrating on the trivia of personality clash and speculation of post election confusion.  The real issues such as I have outlined here, are ignored and remain undiscussed. I have a champion here in Jeremy Paxman who, it seems, has become disillusioned with the BBC’s new way of doing things and has quit the stage.

If there was one good thing about the constant industrial strife of the 60s and 70s it was that minds were focused on the reality of the day-to-day life of a majority of our citizens.  Is it time now for a reality-check? Or is it too late?

David France 2 May 2015