Ken Livingstone's Socialist Economic Bulletin is back with more answers to the economic crisis. Livingstone (or one of his blogging minions) begins by attacking Conservative plans to help small businesses. This is fine in principle, he writes, but the priority must be investment, which small businesses do less of.
It's actually a perfectly respectable view that investment packs the greatest economic punch, and can make the biggest difference in circumstances like these. That's why the Bush Administration cut taxes on investment after America fell into recession in early 2001. Ken Livingstone calls for cuts in capital gains tax? Alas not - nationalisation of parts of the construction industry and government 'investment' in major public works projects is more what he has in mind. Given that choice, I suspect measures to help small businesses stay solvent and keep people on will do far more economic good, short- and longer term.
Meanwhile, Ken (or one of his blogging minions) is celebrating an internet poll, currently showing 50% saying Karl Marx was right. I suppose that given how much drivel is now being spewed on this by every economically illiterate blowhard given a microphone, who can blame them? But one wonders how many of those who voted this way have plans to put their money where their mouth is and put their savings in socialist countries like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and Zimbabwe?
Once again, I refuse to believe that these ridiculous advocates of the planned economy have anything much to offer today. The IEA blog highlighted this week Argentina's unbelievable decision - hailed by socialist parties - to nationalise all the country's private pensions, worth 13% of GDP. I'm sure the government has plugged a revenue gap very effectively, but at the cost of twelve million people in Argentina losing their pensions. However modish it may currently be to say that the socialists were right all along, it's worth remembering that is what their policies always mean in practice: millions denied their liberty and their property. Who would prefer that to the risk of an occasional market crash?
