The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Don't look to François Hollande for inspiration, Ed

The French Socialist leader is a throwback, not a pioneer.

By Rob Marchant Published 05 August 2012 10:17

French President François Hollande with Labour leader Ed Miliband.

French President François Hollande welcomes Labour leader Ed Miliband before a meeting at the Elysée Palace in Paris. Photograph: Getty Images.

On Wednesday, François Hollande’s budget announced the doubling of a tax already planned by Nicolas Sarkozy, giving a sliver to the state of certain transactions executed in financial markets. So what, you say. Banks can afford it, can’t they? Besides, they messed up: they should pay. But it’s not that simple: like VAT or any other sales tax, the cost is simply passed on to the buyer; a paltry half-billion euros will be raised annually and the law is full of loopholes. Plus, the original Sarkozy tax was only scheduled to come into force the same day, so no-one yet knows what the effects are.

Clearly, there is a political point being made that banks must pay for their sins, but: at what cost? The advantages of a financial transactions tax are unproven, to say the least. At best, it seems like posturing: at worst, it adds to the cost of companies, and the country, raising capital, affecting growth and competitiveness. Plus, with a unilateral move, there is always the danger that people will simply take their business elsewhere, which is why no-one here – not even Miliband – is suggesting such a unilateral tax for the City, a financial centre which easily dwarfs Paris.

Perhaps, then, it’s a good moment to take a closer look at the Hollande administration. He has, at least, one sensible positive: his belief that growth is the key rather than austerity. Good. However, unlike the UK, Eurozone rules cap his borrowing, meaning next year he needs to make €33bn of cuts. So one wonders how he can fulfil pledges which require him to spend to achieve that growth.

Then there’s his manifesto proposal for a 75 per cent “super tax” for earnings over €1m, a move not seen in Britain since the days of Denis Healey (that said, his own advisor, Harvard’s Prof. Philippe Aghion, admits it was probably just an electoral sop to the left that he didn’t really mean). But many suggested that Hollande’s manifesto largely comprised things he would not really implement, and which he now has. And these are nothing compared to Hollande’s decision to lower the national retirement age from 62 to 60, which gives an insight into some very flawed thinking, because it doesn’t seem to make sense at the level of basic maths. The explanation is quite simple and goes like this:

If I pay a portion of my salary towards a pension, I create a pot, which the government looks after for me. When I retire, that pot buys me a pension until I die, the level of which depends on the size of the pot. Four things determine the size of my pot: the percentage I pay in from my salary; the number of years; the amount I work each year (working hours, holidays, and so on); and the fourth and final thing is the number of years I’m likely to live – the more years, the bigger pot I’ll need.

The problem is in the fourth factor. Most national pension systems in the western world are broke, and are on the verge of not being able to pay out to all the pensioners. They didn’t quite count on so many people staying alive so long, so they under-provided. Most governments are therefore trying to find ways to fund the “pensions time-bomb”, by getting more money into each person’s pot.

So, what you’ve got to do is change one of the first three factors. But in France, the amount you work each year is already fixed at a relatively low level, because of its uniquely-constricting thirty-five hour week and generous statutory holidays. Then there’s the number of years you work, which in France we have just reduced by two. That leaves only one thing: to increase national insurance; raise taxes on those who are working to pay for those who aren’t – which is not really sustainable (particularly during an economic crisis). For this reason, policymakers worldwide are accepting an inevitability: people will have to work longer.

Ah, but not in France. Not in the homeland of Lagrange, Fourier and Descartes, where mathematics nowadays apparently work differently. Or rather, the raising of pensionable age makes no sense at all, because sooner or later the government will have to reverse it, as will all governments. And, in the meantime, it makes the ticking time-bomb worse. It is a sweetie, handed out to make people feel better: Hollande will give you a sweetie today, but some future government will need to take it back tomorrow twofold.

What is most disappointing for the left about Hollande, then, is that he seems much less the avant-guardiste of a new paradigm for the left, than a throwback to old, ostrich-like ways of the 1970s. It fits, too, because France itself has traditionally been the last big country in the west to accept realities such as flexible labour markets and the death of trade protectionism, as global business moves east.

The danger for Hollande, in short, is that he could end up like Spain's “Crisis? What crisis?” Zapatero, someone many on the left also had high hopes for, and whose career ended in ignominy as he was ultimately forced to take back all the sweeties. Miliband was politically astute in taking advantage of the apparent lack of connection between Hollande and Cameron, and right in going to Paris to make common cause with practically the only socialist premier left. But that, perhaps, should be as far as it goes.

Rob Marchant is an activist and former Labour Party manager who blogs at The Centre Left

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Ed Miliband François Hollande Labour France

More from Rob Marchant

View the discussion thread.

64 comments

Fri, 2012-08-24 21:06 — Iany (not verified)

We already have a unilaterally FFT- Stamp Duty. So when people parrot these claims about how the city will leave, I'm suspicous of who they have been listening to.

Sun, 2012-08-19 17:02 — M. E. (not verified)

He's crazy this guy, even suggesting there's something radical about Hollande, when all he seems to do is to preserve most of what Sarkozy has done and do small things that don't change the big picture (although they can be quite hurtful, like for example gypsy camps being demolished rather than improving the labor market and making it more inclusive).

And ROB MARCHANT gives the false impression that the retirement age has been lowered to 60, but no, that's not the case. You still need 42 years of labor behind you, however, it is now possible for those having begun working at the age of 18 and bascially without unemployment to retire at 60 - something that's very hypothetical given the big unemployment rate for many of those that are young today.

It's sad with lying politicians bought by DAS KAPITAL and the city, isn't it?

Tue, 2012-08-14 17:52 — Romany (not verified)

He ruined Labour with Tony and now has the cheek to insult socialists. No wonder he wants to stay in the party-he can continue to prevent it from changing his condition of privilege and that of his banker pals.

Sun, 2012-08-12 00:43 — Michael Dixon (not verified)

Miliband has, in his excitement to play the statesman, rather cornered himself into the Hollande camp,which like all French Presidents is pro-euro and pro-EEC.

When facing the electorate it is always best to hedge your bets on that one, so Miliband is open to attack.

I agree with the main thrust of this article.

Fri, 2012-08-10 12:01 — Kosimba (not verified)

Rob the problem is not that you disagree, the problem is that your arguments are all the delusions of a vanished age.
1) There is lots of evidence, and a growing consensus among centre left/liberal economists that an optimal rate of tax in western countries would be much higher. Here is an example of a flourishing and very mainstream literature, the most recent paper I read recommends optimal top US taxation at 73%, I would post the link but somehow the computer takes it as spam so will try again later...

The argument that transactions tax will not affect the banks themselves is pure nonsense - like saying VAT does not affect shops because it is passed on to the customer??? I think many shopkeepers, not to say economists would be surprised by your suggestion that VAT has no effect on their business... You then (contraditcting yourself immediately but I digress) say the transaction tax will affect the banks lending but you ignore the fact that (to paraphrase Keynes) the capital development of the west had become the byproduct of a casino. It is only by taming finance as a class (and a transactions tax is a way to do this) and as a lobby that the banks can be forced away from the Casino (where their losses on roulette are backed by us) and back to the capital development role that they held in the post war until the 1970's period.
About pensions, well you may have a point but I suspect it will not make a huge difference, the big costanyway is going to be on healthcare. Unless we find a new path to growth the aging/improving healthcare cost is beyond us anyway and the new path will not come through the more of the same that you propose.

Sun, 2012-08-12 11:13 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

"Delusions of a vanished age" - ah, the argument that everything has changed and the old rules no longer apply. Since when, I am not sure.

There is "a growing consensus among centre left/liberal economists that an optimal rate of tax in western countries would be much higher" - well that's hardly news, is it? Left/liberal economists have always wanted higher taxes. I myself would like higher taxes, however I am also cognisant of the fact that the pesky British public might just not feel the same way. I digress.

A tax passed directly to buyers will affect the business of the middleman to some extent, it's true, as the buyer may buy less. But I am fairly sure it would not have a significant impact on banks' profits. A tax that did go directly to banks' profits (such as a bonus tax or windfall tax) at least makes more sense, if you are out to punish banks.

On your final point on pensions and long-term care, your distinction between them seems spurious, since the first will obviously go in paying for the second.

Sun, 2012-08-12 17:02 — Kosimba (not verified)

No it is you Blairiites that made that argument! Nothing has changed about the political economy of the situation - in that sense your position has always been wrong - but the post crisis politics has changed enough to make your position not just wrong but weird. Nothing is more useless that an unpopular populist or an impractical pragmatist. On taxes your argument was not about popularity, indeed you seem to be partly against Hollande's effort because it is a sop no? (now I am in relpy mode I seem not be able to access your article so apologies if I mis-represent) Though as it happens I think tax on the top would be popular as well as effective. On elderly, no not spurious - dealing with our long term deficit problem is being seriously hampered by people who don't make a difference between effective policies to deal with a long term problem - which often invole the state spending more in the short term - and useless self harm. My point is that paying for health care or pensions requires above all growth, austerity on the old will achieve little and (in this case) really is politically infeasible anyway. Blairite arguments will not deliver that growth lost as they are in the economics of the bubble.
Your argument about VAT etc is still very funny - you are sure it would have no effect! it would clearly discourage transactions, (which more than the money it would raise is the point see below). If it is so irrelevant why do they fight tooth and nail to stop it?
But leaving aside yah boo - on the transactions tax I genuinely think you have made a common and important mis-understanding of the reasons why the left should support the tax. Its function is not primarily to raise revenue but to change structures and behaviour. Tobin and Keynes both advocated this kind of thing to drive speculation, as opposed to investment, out of the capital markets. Taxing the mass of transactions discourages speculation encourages investment as it is repeated short term buying and selling that is punished. And related arguments should be made about curbing the power of finance as a class. Anyway nice arguing with you.

Thu, 2012-08-09 02:42 — DK (not verified)

New Labour are the true dinosaurs. Go away and don't come back! Hollande has many flaws, but being too far to the left and too hard on bankers and finance are not among them. The one percent must pay. Now. And henceforth.

Thu, 2012-08-09 21:27 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

I see you have not noticed that this tax will affect bankers not one jot - the tax will be paid by those trying to raise capital, companies large and small.

This is nothing to do with one per cent of anything, much though that may be a convenient slogan.

Tue, 2012-08-07 14:48 — FTTQuestion (not verified)

I was wondering what you think of the report presented to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament in February 2012 by external experts Stephany Griffith-Jones and Avinash Persaud on the FTT? Find it on the wikiedia page on the European Union financial transaction tax

Wed, 2012-08-08 06:21 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

I haven't read it, but I'm afraid I don't see a Europe-wide tax as that relevant, given that it will never be implemented while Cameron is PM, thanks to the British veto. And, in all probability, not at all.

It is a bit odd, to be honest, for the whole EU to get a say on something that disproportionately affects one country - the UK. And I say that as a fairly staunch pro-European.

Mon, 2012-08-06 20:01 — leonb_09 (not verified)

France has been labelled a "socialist" country for as far as I can remember.
Even the centre-right presidencies were reported as more socialist than New Labour.
Under those circumstances, the UK should have outperformed France in manufacturing, transport, energy production, fight against poverty, political influence decades ago. Why isn't this so?

Tue, 2012-08-07 21:44 — Luna (not verified)

If the Brits think that France has always be thought as a "socialist country",the French would be amazed at such a description!!
What it shows is how right wing British politics have become . You mean it was socialist even under Sarkozy??
And if it is true that even Sarkozy was more left wing than the Labour party, then there is no hope at all for left wing politics in this country. You are sold out from top to bottom to capitalism and there is no way out.
Further more I have no intention of voting for the Labour party again or for any other party until there is a proper socialist party in this country prepared to defend the interests of people as opposed to the interests of big business.
And that is not democracy. Democracy means CHOICE and there is no democratic choice in this country, no more than in America. Democracy is dead. And what must happen when democracy is dead??

Mon, 2012-08-06 20:38 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

It's not quite that simple, though, is it? There are some very good things about the French economy, for example, highly educated workforce, a large number of world-class companies and a supportive industrial policy. On the downside, failing state-owned companies, restrictive labour laws and massive agricultural subsidies. One thing is fairly certain, though: in the open markets, falling labour costs and easy offshoring of the 21st century, time is running out for their model.

Tue, 2012-08-07 12:18 — leonb_09 (not verified)

With due respect, you did not answer my point.
The UK has become deeply anchored in thatcherite philosophy since the beginning of the 80's at a time when France was embracing left wing values with Francois Mitterand. Despite centre right Head of States and governements being elected since then, France has remained a perceived socialist country. This was 30 years ago, and today their state-owned EDF (Electricite de France) is supplying us in energy. How come?

Mon, 2012-08-06 19:11 — Luna (not verified)

Stuart Eels:
Of course Marchant has every right to think what he wants and belong to any party he likes.
What amazes me is that he wants to be in the Labour party at all and that the Labour party presumably calls him one of their own.
It simply doesn't make any sense.
And if he is willing to answer my question, what, Mr Marchant, differentiates you from a Tory analyst of the crisis?

Mon, 2012-08-06 19:29 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

Well, Stuart, pretty much everything, if you would like to check out my blog (sorry I can't post links here, but it's called the Centre Left).

I broadly agree with the "too far, too fast" analysis of Labour, and that growth is paramount. The problem is that we have played the politics of this argument badly (see my piece "Tax: It's the politics, stupid"). I believe that under-regulation was clearly to blame, but think the answer is better regulation (which the Tories are not doing, because of vested interests) rather than attempting to punish banks financially (which Labour is trying to do, and which is counter-productive).

For the record, I have been a Labour member for nearly 20 years and have no intention whatsoever of switching parties. Make what you like of that kind of masochism.

Mon, 2012-08-06 18:51 — Mr Danger

A sensible article by Rob. Oh how they scream when you don't give them what they want to hear!

The biggest irony of France lowering the pension age is that it in Keynesian terms it is utterly useless. These pensions will be received so far down the road that the impact on current and near term spending is zero. But for debt markets, they will be looking ahead and seeing France wreck its long term financial health. So you worsen the sovereign crisis and do nothing to help strengthen the economy.

Mon, 2012-08-06 20:45 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

Thanks. Your analysis is spot on, although I didn't want to get into discounted cashflow analysis...! People seem to think that you can do what you want and the markets will "just deal with it". They won't.

As you observe, the impact on long-term financial health is significant. This is one of the very few ways that a government can actually screw *future* cashflows, and not just present ones. Normal democratic checks and balances mean you can't make spending commitments very far into the future, but this is, effectively, one which stretches out for future generations - that's why it's so pernicious.

It's also why it's so unstatesmanlike to leave the problem for someone else to sort out.

Mon, 2012-08-06 15:45 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Yes Colin Sloss it's good to see Rob Marchant replying to people, very very few do. I have to say that I also agree with him.

Luna, he has every right to his point of view and to which party he is in. It's called democracy.

Mon, 2012-08-06 19:21 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

I generally reply to people unless they are clearly certifiably insane. And sometimes even then, just for the hell of it.

Mon, 2012-08-06 09:05 — Colin Sloss (not verified)

I have a lot of time for Rob Marhant. His piece was not popular but he forght his corner, this is what jornalists are supposed to do. Holande has made some mistakes but people want a change from this right wing stuff. You are right tho, it may not work.

Mon, 2012-08-06 19:17 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

Thanks Colin. I think you're right that "people want a change from this right-wing stuff", if you give them a half-decent alternative. People have chosen the coalition rather by default. The problem is that, in France, a half-decent alternative has not existed for some years. People were fed up with Sarkozy and didn't have much alternative.

In addition, I believe - as I have said below - there is a certain reality-denial which has gripped France, uniquely, in recent years (not visibly present in most other European countries, except possibly those on the Mediterranean coast).

Mon, 2012-08-06 05:18 — Anon3 (not verified)

"like VAT or any other sales tax, the cost is simply passed on to the buyer" er why ? Surely the same argument can be made about any cost, including dividends, managerial salaries.. Etc
Or are these last set in stone in some way!?

Fed up of this lazy, craven trope.

Mon, 2012-08-06 18:55 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

Well, I'm afraid your point about managerial salaries is just wrong. An increase in income tax does not automatically mean an increase in salaries to compensate, although there MAY be some market adjustment if the business is international, say. But it is by no means the same as a transaction or sales tax, where the tax is accounted for *at the moment of billing* as a separate item. 100% is always passed on directly to the customer in such cases.

Similarly your point about tax on dividends is wrong-headed, as well. Companies transparently cannot pass 100% of this on to the consumer directly, although they may choose slightly higher prices to compensate.

These cases are entirely different from sales taxes, and I'm afraid your answer displays a profound lack of understanding of how costs and taxes work.

Mon, 2012-08-06 02:54 — Alfred Schama (not verified)

This article is pure neocon crap of the worst kind. This is an apology to a failed thatcherist economy policies that has brought this country on its knees. It is a shitty sort of argument: "Let the richer get richer and eventually it will trickle down to you" Unfortunately, it does not and Great Britain will have eventually to resort to only printing money. Unfortunately, the British Empire does not exist any longer to absorb an endless money printing. The US can still afford doing it because it is an empire. However, we are also wittenssing the end of the US empire, and all thanks to Roland Reagan, another illiterate neocon.

Mon, 2012-08-06 02:54 — Alfred Schama (not verified)

Mon, 2012-08-06 00:21 — Luna (not verified)

To me this is an article packed with right wing arguments and as I was reading it I was wondering what it was doing in a so-called left wing magazine. But I was astonished when I read that the author is actually "an activist" in the Labour party.
Which leads me to conclude like a few other readers that there is really no hope for the left in this country. Mr. Marchant why are you in the Labour party when your politics and your solutions for the crisis are identical to the Tories? Why on Earth would people vote for a party which has NO principles, NO soul, NO sense of duty and responsibility for ordinary people? What exactly makes you a Labour man Mr.Marchant? I fail to see.
What you are saying is in effect that we can do nothing to redress inequality and nothing to bring social justice to this country.
Mr Hollande will have a fight on his hands and he may fail in his desperate attempts to restore some justice to French society. Labour on the other hand do not even have that faith . They are sold out to the system and quite simply pointless, irrelevant and pathetic.
PS.Have you noticed that taxing the rich apparently brings no money to the state's coffers but taxing the poor always does? Most extraordinary !

Mon, 2012-08-06 19:05 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

So, to summarise, your comment seems to be:
(a) I have an opinion which differs from yours;
(b) I therefore have no right to be in the Labour Party, or at least your idea of what the Labour Party should stand for;
(c) I therefore think that there is nothing we can do to improve the country.

The first one is the only part which is true; the second and the third are patently rubbish.

Sun, 2012-08-05 22:49 — BallsOfFire (not verified)

What a pessimist! He is promoting Thatcher's "There Is No Alternative". Come on. The Left is supposed to be promoting alternatives. Get thee to a nunnery if you are unable to do so.

Mon, 2012-08-06 19:09 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

Hmm, I disagree with Hollande's policies, therefore I support Thatcher. Explain that one to me again, please?

Mon, 2012-08-06 09:11 — Red Rain (not verified)

What are the lefts alteratives? Apart from keep digging..... and hope for the best!!

Sun, 2012-08-05 16:34 — RH47

So what's been so brilliant about the era following the "ostrich like days of the 1970s" - the time of "modernity" and "modernisation" ? Only nooliarbore could consider the time of head-up-the -Tory-arse a time of progress. At least Hollande is daring to have a rethink rather than simply swallowing 0.1% man's propaganda. The idea of 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em - I'm a taxi" has not proved a very productive path for progressives.

Sun, 2012-08-05 17:28 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

But Hollande is not having a re-think - that's the point. He is merely recycling old ideas.

Let's put it another way: if you don't like the idea of raising retirement age, what exactly is your answer to the pensions time-bomb? In practically every other country, raising retirement age is what's happening. What other solution is there? I await your response with interest.

Tue, 2012-08-07 12:06 — leonb_09 (not verified)

Hollande is not being naive when he lowers the age of retirement for workers.
Those retiring free their jobs for the young who are the ones who will buy the most as they start their adult life from scratch (need of a fridge, sofa, etc).
What else? Companies benefit as they end up with a more dynamic, enthusiastic workforce and can also change the working conditions from one generation to another within the legal framework.
In short, what you pay in pension is not paid in unemployment benefits AND is recouped in VAT.

Of course, you could get rid of unemployment benefits and encourage the workforce to be self employed; But we no longer live in a world of small shopkeepers. Big corportations hoovers most consumer spendings. This would only increase the gap between the 1% and the rest of us...

Tue, 2012-08-07 12:06 — leonb_09 (not verified)

Sun, 2012-08-05 22:34 — Jeevan (not verified)

I have yet to fall on either side of this issue, so I'm just musing out loud here. But why should a person's pension pot necessarily pay 100% for their retirement? So what if 90% came from them over their working life (plus employer and government contributions)? Maybe it's acceptable that 10% come from elsewhere, in an effort to reduce income and wealth inequality. Perhaps the government is within its rights, maybe even obligated, to redistribute income to their citizens after a lifetime of toil from bankers et al into pensioners' pockets. Just a thought, at least.

Mon, 2012-08-06 18:38 — Mr Danger

In other words you have no idea and don't particularly care how the numbers work. You just like the idea of it.

Sun, 2012-08-05 14:26 — matthew fox (not verified)

Hollande beat the " Right Wing " candidate. French voters didn't think Hollande was a throwback of the past.

It seems his biggest sin is to raise taxes on the wealthy, as opposed to raising taxes on the working poor.

Element of the " city " have been involved in the Libor scandal, so protecting the city from regulation, seems to be odd.

Sun, 2012-08-05 14:49 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

French voters didn't think Hollande was a throwback because there is a certain amount of denial among the French electorate, too - hence the persistence of the 35-hour week and failing state-owned companies. It is probably the furthest-behind country in Europe in becoming competitive in these two areas. France, you may read elsewhere, has a serious competitivity problem, which seems to be getting worse.

It is not a "sin" - your words, not mine - to put a super tax on the wealthy, merely not a very good way of raising revenue, let alone its potential deterrent effect on investment - even Denis Healey thought that, if you read him on the subject.

On your third point, you haven't grasped what Hollande is doing - this nothing to do with increasing regulation on financial markets, which I'm in favour of. This is about taxation, something entirely different. Finally your comments about the City don't really apply to Hollande - he is only taxing French financial institutions.

Sun, 2012-08-05 16:12 — matthew fox (not verified)

I see the French are in denial, well that is one way of winning the election.

The " wealthy " that you talk about, will be evading tax, unlike the working poor.

Just remind me why the Tories borrowed £264 billion in 17 years of government, they cut taxes on the wealthy, and raised VAT and extended the scope of it for good measure.

So you prefer to tax the working poor and cut taxes for UK citizens who have secret bank accounts in Switzerland?

Sun, 2012-08-05 17:36 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

"So you prefer to tax the working poor and cut taxes for UK citizens who have secret bank accounts in Switzerland?" I'm not sure where I proposed either of those things.

You are also talking about "taxing the rich" as if that's what a transaction tax would do - which is a fallacy. All that happens is you add a premium to the cost of the services that they provide: banks' profits and bankers' bonuses would likely carry on exactly as before. So please, explain to me how a financial transaction tax will be taxing the rich, because I just can't see it.

And if you're referring to a super tax, look at what happened in the 1970s. Lots of money went abroad, and the revenue raised was negligible. It hasn't been tried in the UK for the last forty years because it didn't work then and it won't work now.

By the way, I have nothing per se against increasing tax for the fairly well-off (like the 50p band here) as a short-term measure. But that's a completely different story to super tax.

Sun, 2012-08-05 12:18 — Homo Sapiens

Better early retirement than high youth unemployment. Unemployment pay also has to be financed.

Sun, 2012-08-05 12:53 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

Your assumption is that retiring early leaves "more work" for youth, but it's wrong. This is a fallacy recognised by pretty much all economists, even those fairly left-leaning like Nobel prizewinner Paul Krugman, the "lump of labour".

Sun, 2012-08-05 12:59 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

There is a piece by Krugman, but the comments here don't let me post it. If you go to the NY Times website, you'll find it if you search for "Lumps of Labor".

Mon, 2012-08-06 01:11 — lumpoflabour (not verified)

Invoking the "lump-of-labour fallacy" is just a passive-aggressive way of saying that the unemployed are to blame for being out of work. The thinking is that anyone who really wanted hard enough to work could find a job -- or make their own (at least eventually). And in the narrowest respect that is true.

But practically speaking, those who level the lump-of-labour fallacy claim at others apply a different standard for themselves. Somehow all the special considerations they receive are their due. The rich DESERVE their bailouts, tax breaks, government contracts and subsidies, patents, revolving doors, limited liability, sweetheart deals, cronyism and old boy network back scratching. The poor must content themselves with the consolation that if they try hard enough, they'll probably eventually get a job, no matter how bad and poorly paid.

Mon, 2012-08-06 01:06 — lumpoflabour (not verified)

The "lump of labour fallacy" is just a passive-aggressive way of saying that the unemployed are to blame for being out of work. The thinking is that anyone who really wanted to work hard enough to put it above all other considerations could find a job -- or make their own, at least eventually. And in the narrowest respect that is true. But practically speaking, those who level the lump-of-labour fallacy claim at others apply a different standard for themselves. Somehow all the special considerations they receive are their due. The rich DESERVE their bailouts, tax breaks, government contracts and subsidies, patents, limited liability, sweetheart deals, cronyism and old boy network back scratching. The poor must content themselves with the consolation that if they try hard enough, they'll probably get a job, no matter how bad and poorly paid.

Mon, 2012-08-06 20:49 — Rob_Marchant (not verified)

So, you disagree with all the world's economists, then? Fair enough. Lump of labour is not a fallacy, then.