Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study

[anticap]

Hospital cleaners are worth more to society than bankers, a study suggests.

The research, carried out by think tank the New Economics Foundation, says hospital cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid.

It claims bankers are a drain on the country because of the damage they caused to the global economy.

They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8410489.stm



Our report tells the story of six different jobs. We have chosen jobs from across the private and public sectors and deliberately chosen ones that illustrate the problem. Three are low paid – a hospital cleaner, a recycling plant worker and a childcare worker. The others are highly paid – a City banker, an advertising executive and a tax accountant. We examined the contributions they make to society, and found that, in this case, it was the lower paid jobs which involved more valuable work.

The report goes on to challenge ten of the most enduring myths surrounding pay and work. People who earn more don't necessarily work harder than those who earn less. The private sector is not necessarily more efficient than the public sector. And high salaries don't necessarily reflect talent.

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/bit-rich

[Holden Caulfield]

Yep.
Self important doctors would be fucked without the work of cleaners and other sanitation workers.

Look at the black death for example Milan (I think, it was somewhere around that kinda area) was one of the least affected cities in Europe as it had street cleaners.

[RedAnarchist]

It's always those behind the scenes who are the most important, the people who improve and maintain society without getting an appropriate wage.

[Q]

Good that we have this clear now. Now to take the logical conclusion and fire all bankers.

[NecroCommie]

I don't even get it how banking is legal. If I were to say I want to start a business that is based entirely on the fact that people give me money for nothing, they'd laugh me away! However, if I say that they first receive money and then they pay me more money bit by bit, it's allright for everyone. I'm giving up on society. :(

[Q]

I don't even get it how banking is legal. If I were to say I want to start a business that is based entirely on the fact that people give me money for nothing, they'd laugh me away! However, if I say that they first receive money and then they pay me more money bit by bit, it's allright for everyone. I'm giving up on society. :(

Don't give up on society. See it as an extra motivator to change society!

[RadioRaheem84]

Hospital cleaners are worth more to society than bankers, a study suggests.It took a study to figure out that productive work is more important to society than destructive speculative "work"?

[NecroCommie]

Don't give up on society. See it as an extra motivator to change society!
Well I was only half serious about that last part. Sure it is depressing, but not really that depressing.

[RadioRaheem84]

Its a good thing someone brought this up because I was thinking the other day about a debate I had with my conservative soon to be father in law. He said that you can't raise the living standards in the US because we've lost most our manufacturing economy and are now a service economy. Service workers (retail, cleaning, etc. ) can't be paid that high because then no one would want to work in a factory or become a doctor when they can work in a department store or clean hospitals for a livable wage. The wages must remain low so as to create an incentive for people to move upward (tough love).

[anticap]

It took a study to figure out that productive work is more important to society than destructive speculative "work"?

It's a "Duh?" statement for us, but it runs counter to everything the public has been led to believe. It's pretty good stuff, and even dares to mention Marx. Seeing it in the BBC is positive. Now we need a similar study in the US. (LOL)

[anticap]

Its a good thing someone brought this up because I was thinking the other day about a debate I had with my conservative soon to be father in law. He said that you can't raise the living standards in the US because we've lost most our manufacturing economy and are now a service economy. Service workers (retail, cleaning, etc. ) can't be paid that high because then no one would want to work in a factory or become a doctor when they can work in a department store or clean hospitals for a livable wage. The wages must remain low so as to create an incentive for people to move upward (tough love).

Call off your wedding and just shack up; it'll cost you less when he drives the inevitable wedge between you and your fiance.

[RadioRaheem84]

Call off your wedding and just shack up; it'll cost you less when he drives the inevitable wedge between you and your fiance.

:D Oh he's accepted that his daughter is with a die hard lefty. We get into debates all the time. Just the typical 'government off my back' type. He puts up with me because I am not a "bum" like the guys his other daughters date.

[RadioRaheem84]

People who earn more don't necessarily work harder than those who earn less. The private sector is not necessarily more efficient than the public sector. And high salaries don't necessarily reflect talent.


From the study summary.

Interesting. I wonder who saidthese things a while back, oh I don't know, maybe more than a century ago.

[robbo203]

Actually, I think we need to clarify how we go about assessing "worth" here. The conclusions of this study - that cleaners are worth more than bankers - may well accord with our subjective and ethical judgements of what constitutes "worth" but the issue is a little more complicated than that.

I mean for example how does it square up with Marx's labour theory of value? Marx argued that the wages of skiiled workers would inevitably be higher than those of unskilled workers because of the greater value involved in the production reproduction of skilled labour. As he noted in Capital Vol 1, Ch VI, "The expenses of education enter pro tanto into the total value spent in its production" (Capital Vol 1, Ch. VI). Wage differentials also involved what he called a "moral" and "historical" component

Note that Marx was not saying this is morally justified or that a banker "deserves" to get more money than a cleaner. He is simply pointing to the process by which the system itself deems one form of labour to be of greater value than the other and remunerates each accordingly.

The problem with this survey is that it presumes to take on air of pseudo-objectivity when it is far from that. In fact, it encourages a kind of moralistic approach to wage differentials which is utterly ineffectual (and timewasting) in the face of capitalism's own dynamics. Let me explain

The New Economics Foundation maintains that while hospital cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid bankers destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn. You might well want to ask yourself why in that case would any bank want to set up in buiness and employ staff on that basis when the whole point of business in capitalism is to make a profit.

It appears that the basis for this startling figures produced by the New Economics Foundation lies in the allegedly devastating external effects of the banking industry in causing the current economic crisis As the article points out, the New Economics Foundation "claims bankers are a drain on the country because of the damage they caused to the global economy".

This is absurd. Apart from the fact that it employs a totally arbitrary and abstract yardstick of worth, the assumption being made here is that the economic crisis was somehow the "fault" of the banking industry and for which bankers need to be morally rebuked. This is quite misleading. Recessions are not the consequence of the moral shortcomings on the part of bankers or anyone else. They are systemic phenomena that arise from the disproportional growth between different sectors of the economy, as Marx showed, that is bound to happen for as long as we have capitalism.

Dont misunderstand what I am saying here. Far be it from me to defend the disgustingly high income some in the financial services sector enjoy - some between £500,000 and £80m a year, according to NEF study. I can be as morally indignant about it as the next person. But what I am suggesting here is that if you really going to make an objective evaluation of the worth of bankers this needs to be done from a perspective that transcend capitalism itself.

Socialism will be a society without bankers, without money , without buying and selling. Production will be undertaken for one purpose only - to directly satisfy human needs. In capitalism, needs are of course satisfied to an extent but this is not the primary purpose of production. That purpose is to sell what is produced on a market with a view to profit. To faciliate the effective functioning of capitalism as a system qua system , a whole raft of occupations and jobs have developed over time which have absolutely nothing to do with the satisfaction of human needs and do absolutely nothing to enhance human welfare as such. Banking is one such occupation.

The problem iwth the New Economics Foundation is that it actually takes a pro-capitalist perspective. It does not question the necessity of banking but merely condemns the alleged consequences of the decisions of bankers. It implies that bankers are actually "worth" something to society but that the value of what they create is greatly exdeed by the damage they cause.

Socialists would contend otherwise. The entire banking indsutry along with a thousand and one other occupations that go to make a huge and ever growing burden of "strucutural waste" of capitalism would completely vanish in a society where production for use was the only aim . The elimination of all this waste would at the very least double the amount of labour and material resources for socially useful production at a stroke.

Therein lies the real difference between the worth of a banker and a hospital cleaner. The latter is socially useful while the former is not

[anticap]

To be honest Robbo I never even considered Marx's LTV here because I think it's beside the point. I accept Marx's LTV and I don't disagree with your points, but the fact of the matter is that we're not in a position to quibble over details when there's anti-capitalist murmuring, however faint, in the mainstream press. You're reminding me of the people who took Michael Moore to task for his recent movie. The value of these simmering sentiments is that they have the potential to come to a boil -- but only if we don't keep taking the lid off to complain about the ingredients.

I guess I'm just too pragmatic to let Marx get in the way of getting things done, much as I love him. I don't want us to live our entire lives under radical neoliberalism. I'd like to see some progress, even something vaguely Keynesian would be welcome at this point (and yes, I have to spit that through me teeth, same as you). That doesn't mean I'm not a radical, it just means I'm capable of donning different caps. I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Your point about their pro-capitalist perspective is accurate, but irrelevant, because every proposal under capitalism must be so, if it wants to get a hearing. Remember: this isn't revolution we're talking about here -- it's walking on eggshells in the presence of our masters and their still-indoctrinated dupes. I don't like it any more than you do, and I wear that cap loosely, but it does come in handy when trying to reach out to people.

[RadioRaheem84]

The problem iwth the New Economics Foundation is that it actually takes a pro-capitalist perspective. It does not question the necessity of banking but merely condemns the alleged consequences of the decisions of bankers. It implies that bankers are actually "worth" something to society but that the value of what they create is greatly exdeed by the damage they cause.

Would you view this as another liberal report that points out the problems of capitalism but doesn't quite point out that the problem is capitalism. Much like environmental organizations, poverty organizations, etc?

[Pogue]

The worst thing the NHS ever did was privatise the cleaning. Thats what the nurses say, and I think they know what they are talking about more than the profit-driven quangos they 'consult' on this shite. Alot of these cleaners tend to be from overseas as well, i.e. those dreaded 'immigrants', and here they are, as part of the vital chain (nurses, porters, receptionists, paramedics, everyone but management basically) who actually keep the NHS running.

[Pogue]

In before BNP:

Fucking foreigners, coming over here and killing our MRSA!

:lol:

[bricolage]

Good that we have this clear now. Now to take the logical conclusion and fire all bankers.

Out of a cannon?

[Pogue]

They say they need the bonuses otherwise they'd leave the coutnry. I've always maintained a line of let em fucking leave and ban them from ever coming back. Scum bags.

[cyu]

:D Oh he's accepted that his daughter is with a die hard lefty.


You got a good girl there - try to hang on to her while you still can :D

...hmm, or maybe she should try to hang on to you while she still can :lol:

[Red Rebel]

Wait so capitalists accumulating wealth doesn't help society?

Fascinating concept. I like it. :thumbup1:

[NecroCommie]

Wait so capitalists accumulating wealth doesn't help society?

Fascinating concept. I like it. :thumbup1:
I know! Some people seem to have problems to get such a simple fact though... :sneaky:

[robbo203]

To be honest Robbo I never even considered Marx's LTV here because I think it's beside the point. I accept Marx's LTV and I don't disagree with your points, but the fact of the matter is that we're not in a position to quibble over details when there's anti-capitalist murmuring, however faint, in the mainstream press. You're reminding me of the people who took Michael Moore to task for his recent movie. The value of these simmering sentiments is that they have the potential to come to a boil -- but only if we don't keep taking the lid off to complain about the ingredients.

I guess I'm just too pragmatic to let Marx get in the way of getting things done, much as I love him. I don't want us to live our entire lives under radical neoliberalism. I'd like to see some progress, even something vaguely Keynesian would be welcome at this point (and yes, I have to spit that through me teeth, same as you). That doesn't mean I'm not a radical, it just means I'm capable of donning different caps. I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Your point about their pro-capitalist perspective is accurate, but irrelevant, because every proposal under capitalism must be so, if it wants to get a hearing. Remember: this isn't revolution we're talking about here -- it's walking on eggshells in the presence of our masters and their still-indoctrinated dupes. I don't like it any more than you do, and I wear that cap loosely, but it does come in handy when trying to reach out to people.

I understand where you are coming from and the feeling that we should not rock the boat too much. When a report such as this gets into the mainstream there is always the temptation to go along with it less critically than we would otherwise do and for the reason you so colourfully suggest

The value of these simmering sentiments is that they have the potential to come to a boil -- but only if we don't keep taking the lid off to complain about the ingredients.

With respect, however, I think this approach is deeply flawed. There is no merit in walking on eggshells either in the presence of our masters or those whose liberal criticisms of these self same masters stem from a mistaken belief that capitalism is system that needs mending rather than ending.

In fact if I might say so, your approach reminds me somewhat of the old SWP tactic to electoral politics in the UK. There was a time when it used to urge workers to vote labour "without illusions" on the pretext that this was the lesser of two evils. I have no idea if the SWP still maintains this disastrous policy but if I were a member of the SWP I would probably blush with embarrasment at the very thought that it could ever have done so.

I know this somewhat moving away from the subject of this thread but you raised a number of points that I cant really let you get away with. In particular this one

I don't want us to live our entire lives under radical neoliberalism. I'd like to see some progress, even something vaguely Keynesian would be welcome at this point

No, Anticap, this is exactly what we do not need. Do you not understand that it was precisely the inevitable failure of keynesianism that set the stage for the rise of monetarism and neoliberalism. What you are proposing is that we should once again go through this whole cycle of action and reaction while learning nothing from history. Keynesian does not work anymore than does neoliberalism. Its fallacious underconsumptionist assumptions about the economy foredoom it to failiure and in its failure, the ground is prepared for other approaches less to your liking but nevertheless the equally inevitable upshot of all this keynesian tinkering and pump priming.

You see, I think the time is long overdue to stop walking around on eggshells and to grab the bull by the horns (if you will excuse my horribly mixed up metaphors). It is high time we were uncompromising and forthright. We need to say what we mean and mean what we say, not mince our words and accommodate ourselves to the political sensibilites of some just because we think they are somewhat more pleasant than the "other lot". Im not suggesting being rude and tactless, just telling them like it is is what I advocate. Instead of accommodating ourselves to their agenda, we should bending them to our own. That wonderful slogan from the impossibilist tradition of revolutionary politics really says it all "Be realistic - Demand the impossible!". Because realistically by not demanding unequivocally what we want we will find ourselves sooner or latter coopted to what they want. And that is certainly not to over throw capitalism.

OK Ive rambled on a bit more than I intended but getting back to the New Economics Foundation study, yes it certainlydoes need to be seriously and robustly criticised. It is precisely this kind of well-intentioned but sloppy analysis , replete with its moralising subtext, that dangles the alluring but always illusory prospect that capitalism can somehow be managed more equitably and fairly and that there really is, after all , no pressing reason to want to get rid of it. It comes from the same stable as those argue for a "fair days wage for a fair days work" so brilliantly countered by Marx with the revolutionary slogan" abolition of the wages system!"

Becuase like it or not, the wage system cannot be made "fair" and the remuneration of workers within it , "equitable". The criteria by which the system itself judges "worth" are not those by which these well meaning reformists in the New Economics Foundation evaluate such a thing. Their error is to think that an economic system responsive first and foremost to demand for profts can somehow suspend what Marx called its economic "laws of motion" in favour of some vague moral appeal

[Drace]

Can someone explain how bankers destroy value?

[robbo203]

Can someone explain how bankers destroy value?


I think from the NEF study itself what is being claimed is that banking system somehow "caused" the economic recession so that the loss of output this entailed can be equated with the "destruction of value". Thats how I read it at any rate but I think the argument is a bogus one for the reason I earlier gave

[Die Neue Zeit]

:D Oh he's accepted that his daughter is with a die hard lefty. We get into debates all the time. Just the typical 'government off my back' type. He puts up with me because I am not a "bum" like the guys his other daughters date.

And is his daughter a conservative too?

[RadioRaheem84]

And is his daughter a conservative too?
No she is a liberal. Not a leftist, but a liberal.

[Sendo]

Great study. Having a grandfather who had gotten laid off when the mines packed up and went to West Virginia to save money with mountaintop removal and was "stuck" with a janitor's job in the small town, I can really appreciate this. Good for use arguments about peopl'e usefulness/dignity, etc.

[Drace]

Also, how did they calculate how much value a cleaner produces?

[NecroCommie]

Also, how did they calculate how much value a cleaner produces?
They are capitalists. They live in this dreamworld where money is an accurate way of measuring labour value.

[Sendo]

They are capitalists. They live in this dreamworld where money is an accurate way of measuring labour value.

It's the best thing we've got. Every (hopefully only temporary and transitional) socialist government has had finance ministers and money and international trade. We can't switch over to blood, guts, and sweat coupons nor freely give one's labor and take it's fruits right away.

Scienctific people don't wait for utopias. There's much to learn from Economics courses. Even if the material is out of history and taught by "autistic economists" (some label come up with in colleges, not meant to deride non-typical neurological whatever have you) the actual number crunching is applicable. Minqi Li, published a fantastic book out of Monthly Review Press. He was a neo-liberal turned Maoist, but he applies his bourgeois number crunching to derail capitalist fantasies. In fact, using Capitalism's own formulas correctly* cna be used to poke holes in the ideology. We can't forego working with money just because we don't like the idea of it.

[robbo203]

Scienctific people don't wait for utopias. There's much to learn from Economics courses. Even if the material is out of history and taught by "autistic economists" (some label come up with in colleges, not meant to deride non-typical neurological whatever have you) the actual number crunching is applicable. Minqi Li, published a fantastic book out of Monthly Review Press. He was a neo-liberal turned Maoist, but he applies his bourgeois number crunching to derail capitalist fantasies. In fact, using Capitalism's own formulas correctly* cna be used to poke holes in the ideology. We can't forego working with money just because we don't like the idea of it.

It sounds a bit like you are a bit of a neo liberal yourself - unless i have seriously misunderstood you - deriding utopias and blithely asserting that "we cant forego working with money just because we dont like the idea of it". This is the core dogma par excellence that runs through bourgeois economics and ideologically upholds the entire system. Ludwig von Mises would have embraced you as a follower.

I hate it when people knock utopian thinking. Nothing of substance was ever achieved in history without the utopian impulse to imagine what could be instead of just accepting what we have. As Steve Coleman puts it in an excellent book I am currently reading

The power of social vison is specifically human. A cat may purr delightedly at a pot of cream, recognising in its find the most ideal satisfaction, cartoon dogs dream of canine paradises where succulent bones and endlessly cosy surroundings prevail abundantly. The difference between human and our other animal relations is the human ability to imagine constructively, to convert the sensual dream into conscious aspiration. It is out of such an interplay between dreaming and planning that the utopian imagination emerged. (William Morris & News from Nowhere:A vsion for Our Time Green Books 1990)

Morris, whose great utopian work News From Nowhere, a landmark in communist literature, was about a world in which money did not exist. You should read it some time. Where once money might have been considered a "useful invention", the money system today - capitalism -with its bankers, its insurance people, its tax consultants and cash till operators and a thousand and one other useless occupations is the most utterly wasteful device that could ever have been conceived from the standpoint of meeting human needs. We could very easily "forego it".

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

It's the best thing we've got. Every (hopefully only temporary and transitional) socialist government has had finance ministers and money and international trade. We can't switch over to blood, guts, and sweat coupons nor freely give one's labor and take it's fruits right away.

Scienctific people don't wait for utopias. There's much to learn from Economics courses. Even if the material is out of history and taught by "autistic economists" (some label come up with in colleges, not meant to deride non-typical neurological whatever have you) the actual number crunching is applicable. Minqi Li, published a fantastic book out of Monthly Review Press. He was a neo-liberal turned Maoist, but he applies his bourgeois number crunching to derail capitalist fantasies. In fact, using Capitalism's own formulas correctly* cna be used to poke holes in the ideology. We can't forego working with money just because we don't like the idea of it.

There is little to learn in actuality, because the premises are entirely flawed.

Its like learning *theology* - pretty damn useless. I suppose you could learn some argumental and reasoning skills, but then you could do so equally learning something else, that would actually be useful as well.

[Sendo]

all I'm saying is that we have to have some system for determining value.

I have said nothing to advocate liberal or neo-liberal policies. The study in question argues--using money--that workers contribute more than do the elite. This comes from a more in-depth analysis, and runs against the orthodox wisdom that people are paid more because society values their kind of labor more.

I will gladly knock down utopianism. I'm as much as a romantic can be, and I have hope that we can achieve a great society. But we can't pretend that fantasy exists right now and disregard ammo for our leftist arguments just because we disagree with capitalism. You can disagree with capitalism and yet still study how it behaves in practice.

If you're going to argue against say the creation of the Euro and the destruction of national currencies, it'd be nice to study currency exchange, fiat, import/export balances, etc. Or you could say money is the root of all evil, thus removing yourself from the discussion. Hell, what about studying the history of and predicting the effects of IMF/World Bank liberalization: recent examples include South Korea and Argentina. A scientific and practical look at the contemporary data as well as the history of such liberalization would make effective counters.

If you're going to argue ideas in a vacuum you are going to lose. Capitalism creates its own culture and way of thinking with its schools, economic relations, etc. Prevailing or conventional "wisdom" says the more liberal the market the better, but it's not better. It makes the poorer countries poorer and the masses of both poorer and can slow down world progress through resource consumption for transport/loss of self-sufficiency, decreased industrialization of younger nations (see comparative advantage), ...

I'm going down a tangent. Bottom line, don't knock the leftists who support studies like this. Wanting to use an understanding (not embrace) of capitalist economics to criticize capitalism is as valid as advocating the virtues of socialism or attacking the spirit of capitalism.

I like to think about real world effects: here, namely, that capitalism DOES NOT WORK AS PROMISED. It does not (necessarily) reward productive labor correctly.


There is little to learn, in actuality, because the premises are entirely flawed.

Its like learning theology--pretty damn useless. I suppose you could learn some argumentative and reasoning skills, but then you could do so equally learning something else, that would actually be useful as well.

Actually, learning theology can be great. If you were attacking the premises that Christianity should be a state religion and Islam is evil, it's nice to be able to point out passages in the Old Testament, Revelations, or the Quran which make that claim ridiculous. I don't want to waste time debating the finer points of Rabbinical interpretation of the Torah, but I do like to understand the arguments and thought processes of my intellectual enemies.

Sun Tzu said that the man who knows himself and his enemy will be victorious in a 100 battles.

And I learn quite a bit. I read light economics, as well as my usual social history, politics, environmental history, agricultural technology/practices, and that's just what's relevant to this forum.

[NecroCommie]

all I'm saying is that we have to have some system for determining value.
This is where alternative economies come into play.


I have said nothing to advocate liberal or neo-liberal policies. The study in question argues--using money--that workers contribute more than do the elite. This comes from a more in-depth analysis, and runs against the orthodox wisdom that people are paid more because society values their kind of labor more.
No one questions the very fact that workers contribute more to the monetary system than bankers, or that system based on such observation is preferable. Monetary system does however serve the ones with the capital already in their pockets, and therefore makes the society vulnurable to new kinds of ruling classes. (Soviet union anyone?)


I will gladly knock down utopianism. I'm as much as a romantic can be, and I have hope that we can achieve a great society. But we can't pretend that fantasy exists right now and disregard ammo for our leftist arguments just because we disagree with capitalism. You can disagree with capitalism and yet still study how it behaves in practice.
So we agree that the ultimate goal is toppling monetary economy, yes? Does it not follow then that the new economy should be formed according to the capabilities of the (so far hypothetical) revolutionary society? If our only quarrel is about the speed of socialist transformation, then this entire discussion is little more than poor estimates based on bad hunches.


If you're going to argue against say the creation of the Euro and the destruction of national currencies, it'd be nice to study currency exchange, fiat, import/export balances, etc. Or you could say money is the root of all evil, thus removing yourself from the discussion. Hell, what about studying the history of and predicting the effects of IMF/World Bank liberalization: recent examples include South Korea and Argentina. A scientific and practical look at the contemporary data as well as the history of such liberalization would make effective counters.
Again, the exact actions of a future socialist society depend entirely on where the revolution takes place, therefore rendering this discussion futile.


I'm going down a tangent. Bottom line, don't knock the leftists who support studies like this. Wanting to use an understanding (not embrace) of capitalist economics to criticize capitalism is as valid as advocating the virtues of socialism or attacking the spirit of capitalism.
Agreed

You are right that "knowing thine enemy" is important, yet what I fail to see is how this makes money an accurate way of describing society and economy. (which was the original issue was it not?) By the way, many of us communists know capitalist economy better than many capitalists do. Does anyone else find it ironic? :thumbup:

[cyu]

Can someone explain how bankers destroy value?


Well, all capitalists destroy value when they hire more minions to break strikes and prop up regimes like those of Augusto Pinochet and his torturers.

However, even if they don't do something so obvious, when the wealthy spend their money, it's not so much that the economic acitivity "destroys value" but that it diverts economic resources away from producing value for the non-rich.

For example, would society be better off if more economic resources were allocated to building palaces and shining shoes for the rich? Or would it be better off if more resources were allocated to building homes, producing food, and providing health care for the general population?

Would society be better off if more funding were given to think tanks that spend all their time thinking up excuses for why the rich and powerful should stay rich and powerful? Or would society be better off if more funding were given to researching better economic systems to provide for the non-wealthy, or research into new technological / medical breakthroughs that will be given to everyone, instead of being sold only to the rich?

[Sendo]

I'd say bankers destroy value because they concentrate wealth for themselves but with a net loss to the economy. They make enormous profits from "seizing trapped equity". If a worker loses his/her home/means of transportation, then that can affect their ability to work. In the 1930s bankers snatched up much of the land of poor farmers and consequently the land was turned into mechanized plots for cotton gwoing to make a quick buck and move on. Exhausting farmland like that has its effects.

Bankers, in recent years, have been making money (with that money they can allocate more of what society produces to themselves) off of derivatives, speculation, etc, areas of investment in which investment doesn't create more capital.

The more towards the latter stages of capitalism a country goes, the less beneficial a banking system is.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

To be honest I don't think the report linked was very good. I haven't read it but found this response;

http://freethinkingeconomist.com/2009/12/15/nef-how-wrong-let-me-count-the-ways/

[Bitter Ashes]

I saw this on Sunday afternoon and immediatly printed it, took it to work the next day (where I'm a cleaner) and blutacked it onto the inside of our cupboard ^^

I'd have framed it if I could. :P

[robbo203]

To be honest I don't think the report linked was very good. I haven't read it but found this response;

http://freethinkingeconomist.com/2009/12/15/nef-how-wrong-let-me-count-the-ways/


Yes the NEF report does suffer from methodological shortcomings but then so too does this response. Both overlook the real point which is that bankers, whatever their earnings, do not create socially useful wealth in any meaningful sense of the word. The entire banking profession (and many other professions under capitalism) owes its existence to the systemic needs of capitalism and that alone. It has absolutely nothing to do with meeting human needs or enhancing human welfare. On the contrary it diverts massive resources and manpower away from socially useful production which in a sane society would be rationally deployed to meet human needs. In this sense, it destroys wealth. It is parasitic by on the socially useful production performed by others

I can kind of understand the suggestion that has been put forward on this thread that cleaners really are worth a damn sight more than bankers in real terms - even if it is based on an unrealistic view of how capitalism actually evaluates peoples contributions. At least there is a sense in which it is correct - cleaners do socially useful work, bankers dont

[RadioRaheem84]

The criticism seems lengthy and I guess pissed off a lot of bankers. I've seen a lot of right wing or liberal responses to it.

[anticap]

I understand where you are coming from....

Sorry for the late reply, and for the self-bump, but I forgot about this thread. Anyway, I don't want to belabor this, but just to let you know that I read your reply, and, again, we don't disagree overall. But when I say I'm capable of wearing two caps, I mean it: I can operate in different spheres; and when I see a report like this stating basic truths that the general public never hears -- in the mainstream media -- I consider it a positive thing, even though it may not be based on sound theory. I don't know your background -- perhaps you were brought up immersed in the leftist tradition, so that anything unsound appears worthless to you even when it's correct in the broad sense -- but I come from the US-American "constitutionalist" mindset, having grown up immersed in that cesspool, and it was little things like this that would get under my skin and irritate me until I'd look into them further. I know this sort of thing can get through to people. That's why I'm careful not to dismiss e.g. Michael Moore when he says things people need to hear, even though he may only say it in a whisper. I can operate in this frame while simultaneously leveling necessary critique, as you've done, out the other side of my mouth. But it's important, I think, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater! Ideally you would critique the finer points while making it clear that the broader message is correct. I'm fortunate that I never encountered leftists dismissing the leftist tidbits that initially caught my ear, or I might never have bothered looking for more. The thing is, people already know this stuff, intuitively, I think, but they're unsure of themselves because they're told from childhood onwards that the exact opposite is true. It's good to have your intuition validated, and bad to have it shot down by practitioners of dense theory, however correct they may be on the details.

[robbo203]

Sorry for the late reply, and for the self-bump, but I forgot about this thread. Anyway, I don't want to belabor this, but just to let you know that I read your reply, and, again, we don't disagree overall. But when I say I'm capable of wearing two caps, I mean it: I can operate in different spheres; and when I see a report like this stating basic truths that the general public never hears -- in the mainstream media -- I consider it a positive thing, even though it may not be based on sound theory. I don't know your background -- perhaps you were brought up immersed in the leftist tradition, so that anything unsound appears worthless to you even when it's correct in the broad sense -- but I come from the US-American "constitutionalist" mindset, having grown up immersed in that cesspool, and it was little things like this that would get under my skin and irritate me until I'd look into them further. I know this sort of thing can get through to people. That's why I'm careful not to dismiss e.g. Michael Moore when he says things people need to hear, even though he may only say it in a whisper. I can operate in this frame while simultaneously leveling necessary critique, as you've done, out the other side of my mouth. But it's important, I think, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater! Ideally you would critique the finer points while making it clear that the broader message is correct. I'm fortunate that I never encountered leftists dismissing the leftist tidbits that initially caught my ear, or I might never have bothered looking for more. The thing is, people already know this stuff, intuitively, I think, but they're unsure of themselves because they're told from childhood onwards that the exact opposite is true. It's good to have your intuition validated, and bad to have it shot down by practitioners of dense theory, however correct they may be on the details.

Anticap

I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. All I would say is that , probably like most people here, I would tend to tailor my response according to the person Im talking with. In the context of this list I dont think it does any harm to point out certain deficiencies in the NEF report. And also to highlight, of course, what is a massively neglected subject in left wing discourse - the enormous and steadily growing extent of capitalism's structural waste

[Angry Young Man]

No she is a liberal. Not a leftist, but a liberal.

When the first baby comes, start mercilessly pushing her to the left.

Anyway, for a xmas present, I got this book of rants, where one on banking responded to a claim that regulation in the city would turn away all the best talent, which went like 'assuming the new talent have all scored 5 own goals, missed 4 penalties and have been sent off at least 5 times'

Anyway, this is a good step. We just need them to do an experiment proving mathematically that dustmen are more important than people on the business side of the music industry and another proving that teachers are more important than the Queen. But I still think the public knew that hospital cleaners are more important than bankers anyway, they just don't know about Marxism

[NecroCommie]

I would find it awesome if someone would "accidentally" leave this article on a bank counter. Just for the lulz :laugh:

[Bitter Ashes]

I would find it awesome if someone would "accidentally" leave this article on a bank counter. Just for the lulz :laugh:
The best part is that over the summer I was working as a cleaner in a bank

I'm sure that knowing how forgetful I am I would have almost certainly "accidently" left it somewhere the public could view it all day without the bank noticing.

[mlgb]

i would never have expected this.