I mean look at this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...fresh-attack/#
Have you any idea how woefully poor one's understanding of our economy has to be to come out with shït like this? He's basically saying he's going to crush this country's most successful industry in order to favour a 'real economy' that hasn't actually existed since the early 1980s. It's old-fashioned Marxism and as such, is predicated on the existence of a vast industrial working class THAT SIMPLY NO LONGER EXISTS.
It's actually fücking insane.
"When private debt is twice the size of the real economy, when traders no longer understand the products they're trading, and banks are funding their own speculation rather than productive investment, something has gone grossly and badly wrong."
He has a point there tbf.
And if the finance sector is the 'lifeblood of the economy' then that economy certainly is out of balance. This is the same sector whose drunken excesses crashed the world economy ten years ago since when it has been bumping along the bottom. I know you blame the debtors rather the banks but the banks are supposed to be the clever chaps who should know better and are, apparently, the 'lifeblood' of our economy. It's enough to make your blood run cold.
I wouldn't disagree that the economy is unbalanced, but it's a peculiarly socialist idea that the way you rebalance it is by smashing the successful bit so it's a similar size to the less successful bit. Most people would suggest trying to boost the less successful bit so it gets nearer parity.
And please don't let's talk about 'the real economy'. It doesn't exist. It's not a thing. Anything that makes money is 'the economy'.
I dont think he wants to smash the successful bit, or make it less successful. The issue is about who it is successful for.
But then you wouldnt care about such distinctions would you. Oh no. Far better to demonise poor Jeremy and indulge your lunatic, fanatical right wing inclinations.
You are a disgrace! And so on....
He quite clearly does want to make it less successful. He's pretty explicit about that. If you seek to hamper a business' ability to make money, you ipso facto are seeking to make it less successful.
And who exactly is business supposed to be successful 'for' other than its shareholders? The state? Fück that.
Well, no, not really. I would point you at how many people are employed by the financial services sector. How many mouths it feeds, how many mortgages it pays, how much disposable income it creates that is spent on goods and services that in turn employ, feed, clothe and house millions.
That's who suffers. Everyone.