Share this page!

Patricia Profile picture
Twitter logo
7 Oct, 2 tweets, 1 min read
Many people ask me if I think that mainstream economics is intentionally cruel towards workers.
Of course it’s deeply ideological.
But the most dangerous aspect of it is that its framework is promoted as “scientific” and accepted even by those who mean well.
It’s easier to make those who mean well see how the theory works against them, than it is to change the ideology of those who mean bad.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Patricia

Patricia Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PatriciaNPino

Patricia Profile picture
9 Sep
Reminder that Eliminating excessive wealth (“taxing the rich”) and funding social care are two very important but ultimately completely separate objectives that undermine each other when correlated.
As Randall Wray pointed out. In 2008 the banks didn’t make their bailouts dependent on a tax. That would have been immensely politically foolish. And so is making public purpose dependent on tax revenues.
Politicians advocating for this approach are stuck in the gold standard, when the government fixed the value of the £ against gold/or $ and therefore had to worry about the convertibility of reserves to a commodity/currency it did not issue.
Read 4 tweets
Patricia Profile picture
30 Jul
UBI solves no problems and creates new ones.
There is a lot to unpack here. But let me try and do this here:

1) UBI cannot achieve what it sets out to achieve, namely:
- to free ppl from poverty
- to give people freedom to choose to work or not to work.
It can’t do this bc if it was to provide *everyone* with a dignified level of income it would be financially prohibitive. Causing inflation & denying UBI dependents with access to the goods/services they need to live. This is why UBI income proposals have so far been very low.
Read 8 tweets
Patricia Profile picture
14 May
I don’t know who needs to hear this but Socialists should not “cost” their policies. It gives the Right an excuse to divert attention away from the issues those policies are meant to address and towards dead-end discussions about ‘unaffordability’.
It is predicated on an acceptance of the enforced scarcity generated by austerity. And it forces activists into framing working class gains as an inevitable loss to someone else. As good as Corbyn’s manifesto was, costing it was its weakness, it was unorthodox & unnecessary.
There are some who find the manufactured scarcity instrumental in making a case for taxing the rich. But that is short sighted and unimaginative. There are plenty of ways of arguing against inequality without staking the whole progressive agenda. Fight the two battles separately.
Read 4 tweets
Patricia Profile picture
9 Dec 20
Why conceding the ‘scarce money’ narrative just to tax the rich is a bad idea. They hit back with this

“If we tax those investments we end up with less produced, less produced means lower wages and lost pensions, that means a worse life for all of us.” bbc.co.uk/news/business-…
We see it time and time again:

Right: “we want to reduce deficit”.

Left: “I agree it’s necessary let’s do it by taxing the rich”.

Right: “good you agree it’s necessary, so best make sure we don’t spook the investors who have all the money. Let’s not tax the rich”
Once you concede you are dependent on the rich for investment you also undermine your argument for limiting their profits.

That’s why Thatcher made sure people believed the Government had no money of its own.
Read 4 tweets
Patricia Profile picture
12 Aug 20
I never thought I’d see the Chancellor of the Exchequer predict unemployment and poverty with a smirk. As if he wasn’t directly responsible for any of it. #recession
Raising wages of nurses and other public sector workers could have gone some way into avoiding this recession. They chose not to.

Increasing universal credit entitlements and reducing waiting times could have helped avoid this recession. They chose not to.
Offering emergency cash, rent holidays and job guarantees in the public sector could have helped avoid this recession. They chose not to.
Read 5 tweets
Patricia Profile picture
19 Mar 20
This is excellent.

“The crisis may not be the fault of shareholders but it is the risk they take when investing.”

Suck it up Branson. You shan’t get something for nothing.
A quick translation for U.K.

1) increased funding to local authorities to the tune of £1000 per capita to fill financial holes left by crisis and deal w local effects.

2) nationalise failing enterprises deemed strategically important for public well being. Leave current ppl...
in charge if that is conducive to public purpose.

3) compensate those who have lost pensions due to the crash to ensure pensiones have no money worries.

4) increase unemployment benefit to £400 a week and make it available without restriction.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @PatriciaNPino has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @PatriciaNPino!

Read all threads by @PatriciaNPino

:(