Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Economy’

“Wealth Management” / Tax Dodging 101

24/01/2011 2 comments

So I have managed to get my hands on an interesting letter from a firm in London which specialises in the “wealth management” of financially comfortable people.

The letter is an invitation to a seminar on how to consolidate capital and lose none of your wealth to the already lenient and sloppy British tax system. Now, the letter bothered me not only because of the nature of the event, but how the company lauded itself as something recognisably mainstream. It may well – I wouldn’t know – but is that even right?

Naively, I was unaware that such companies operated on this kind of level. The recipient of the letter is hardly what I would call well-off, so it was surprising to see how low the bar was on the matter of income. If the country were deprived of the tax generated by those on middle as well as higher incomes, public services would turn into a privatised mess.

Here is the letter:

 

WealthManagement1

 

The key points of the seminar are the ones I have highlighted in the blood of the poor, and are worth repeating.

 

How to increase your income from your investments in spite of very low interest rates.

A completely legal strategy for paying no tax on your income and protecting your capital from taxation.

Mitigating Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and Inheritance Tax without losing control of your capital.

An overview of the current financial environment and the view ahead for 2011.

 

It has to be said, the first point was a large component of the recent financial crisis.

The second and third points are what have inspired widespread public anger not only amongst grassroots networks such as UKUncut, but normal people around the country.

And the fourth will likely be a baseless assessment of the economy, built on flawed assumptions and an blinkered view of growth and prosperity from the company’s self-interested sales perspective.

This isn’t happening in some far away tax haven either – this is happening under our noses, in buildings we walk passed every day filled with normal people. To add to this, such companies are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The problem is more than the greed of a few top businessmen – it is a culture which is plainly accepted.

The company markets its investment “products” as tax avoidance, which is how the small guy can play the money game. Again, this was a large part of the last financial crisis, and will likely precipitate another one in the not too distant future.

 

failboatBecause the gravy train inevitably turns into a… failboat.

 

In order to win the argument that tax “avoidance” is wrong given the true necessity of preserving public goods such as health and education, we have to acknowledge that many normal people exacerbate the problem, not just multi-millionaires like Philip Green and the Arcadia Group.

So Neil Taylor, your company St James’ Place may have been nominated the best tax dodging strategists in three recent years by the Daily Telegraph (yes, there was actually an award for it issued by a daily national), you will not win the wider argument in the long term. This is boom and bust with a suit and tie.

Advertisements

New British Slasher Film, Starring You.

26/10/2010 1 comment

slasher1Didn’t we sack you two days ago…? 

So we’ve seen the vision George Osborne and the rest of the Tory party have for this country (the full version can be found here – it isn’t pleasant). We were never in any doubt of the severity of the cuts, but that doesn’t make it any less worse as they go deep into the fabric of our society.

I want to mention three things which our coalition government are adamant about, ignoring, or intentionally following through with. There is the constant reiteration that these particular cuts are “necessary”, contrary advice from world renowned economists, and the consequences these cuts will have for the majority of the public, respectively.

 

“Necessity”

OK, lets break this down. Osborne has said these cuts are “necessary” to correct a deficit the previous government created. Policies are never necessary. There is always a choice. The Tories and Liberal Democrats are pushing an agenda of having no choice to firstly try to mute other solutions, and secondly to relinquish any responsibility they will have for bad outcomes.

By saying there is no choice, they are in the right if the economy magically recovers through random innovation. If it slumps and we enter a double-dip recession, they can argue that, at the time, this was the only option and thus inevitable whatever course of action undertaken. It smacks of irresponsibility and, to put it bluntly, lies.

Basic economic theory suggests that in hard times, one should invest and not cut savagely. To give a simple picture: there are assets, which are profitable entities and contribute to society, taxation, and business. Then there are liabilities, which is the jargon for irretrievable costs paid by the spending entity.

In a recession, heavy investment is needed to drive an economy and fund the very things which will ensure economic growth. Sure, debt will be accumulated, but governments have an incredibly good rate of return for their loans as interest rates for developed nations are low, while the benefits associated with spending the money is relatively high.

The assets acquired by a government which chooses to maintain funding include keeping unemployment low to ensure a decent quality of life and greater tax revenues. The liabilities of cutting deep are horrendous and would entail massive swathes of unemployment, an increased welfare bill for those who are unemployed, and a likely rise in crime levels.

These things are costs which have no return other than “satisfying bond markets” or tentative investors who will be attracted to prices being lowered. The investment relied upon will be mostly foreign, as local investment depends on reluctant banks who aren’t willing to lend to small business due to the risks, and would rather deal with already wealthy clients.

 

slasher2Danny Trejo is set to star as George Osborne in the upcoming sequel to Hollywood blockbuster, Machete 2: Cutting Deep in Croxteth

I think George Osborne and his team must be relatively intelligent and thus I am unable to call them incompetent. Additionally, I do not think he now believes himself mistaken about the legislation. This can only mean one thing: this is an ideological position, and one which only presents itself as pure necessity. It is a choice, a policy, and a traditional one of the Tory Party.

 

“Don’t do it!”

We’re all sitting here and wondering how its going to pan out – it is a gamble after all. We’re not experts, and nor is George Osborne for that matter. However, two experts, who also happen to be Nobel Prize winners – Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz – have both voiced their concerns over proposed austerity plans.

Paul Krugman states:

In short: the demand for immediate austerity is based on the assertion that markets will demand such austerity in the future, even though they shouldn’t, and show no sign of making any such demand now; and that if markets do lose faith in us, self-flagellation would restore that faith, even though that hasn’t actually worked anywhere else.

The Bad Logic of Fiscal Austerity, New York Times, June 14th 2010

And it hasn’t, as Joseph Stiglitz here recalls:

Thanks to the IMF [International Monetary Fund], multiple experiments have been conducted – for instance, in east Asia in 1997-98 and a little later in Argentina – and almost all come to the same conclusion: the Keynesian prescription works. Austerity converts downturns into recessions, recessions into depressions. The confidence fairy that the austerity advocates claim will appear never does, partly perhaps because the downturns mean that the deficit reductions are always smaller than was hoped.

To Choose Austerity is to Bet it All on the Confidence Fairy, CiF, October 19th 2010

Austerity and methods suggested by organisations such as the IMF have proven to be detrimental to the recovery of an economy in dire straits. In East Asia, countries such as Malaysia, who greatly ignored the economic advice the IMF gave them, proved far more successful at maintaining its market integrity and ensuring recovery after the crisis.

Other countries like Thailand, who followed and implemented IMF programs almost perfectly, had the most disastrous time. More than three years after the East Asian crisis began, it was still in recession with a GDP roughly 2.3% below the pre-crisis level. This makes logical sense if you rightly consider a recovery meaning a good employment rate and fairer wages.

Of course, the IMF doesn’t care about employment or quality of life. Its interests are dictated by the Washington Consensus, which among other questionable policies, promotes free market fundamentalism and intensive (and immediate) trade liberalisation to suit the business interests of Western corporations who want the best possible return for their investments.

Our government has done its best to weave this false web of necessity regarding austerity while ignoring not only contrary advice from economists who have dedicated their career to mapping economic activity and analysing consequences, but hard evidence which makes a strong case against fiscal austerity as a response to economic crises and a high deficit.

 

slasher3Caroline Lucas does not approve. 

“We’re all in this together.”

This is the mantra of our current government. It is however nothing more than a vacuous soundbite repeated over and over in a rather Orwellian way. The key to this statement is recognising that it is trying to project fairness onto the policy rather than actually letting it emanate from the policy itself. I shouldn’t have to be persuaded it is fair.

Lets look at the details. Who suffers the most? George Osborne states that within this “progressive” spending review, the richest will suffer the most. However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies (you know, the group the Tories love quoting when it suits them, and don’t when it doesn’t), specifically state that it is the poorest who will suffer the most.

Students too will have to endure market forces as young as 18 when it comes determining their life choices with the imminent removal of the tuition fee cap. The government continue to say they are doing this so the next generation does not have to suffer because of the errors of this generation, but their policies are much to the contrary.

The whole spending review was undertaken already with the intention of making wholesale cuts to public services and investment. This effectively rebrands the “review” as merely a dossier expounding an ideology which has time and time again failed the majority of people wherever it is put into effect.

What really happens? Why do it if its destined to bring about mass unemployment, poorer wages and regional impoverishment? Again, it is to serve the elites in the long run. Business can be even more selective about their workforce, and will have an excuse to pay less, offer fewer benefits, and finally, try and shape education to suit their needs.

The very value of having a job increases as they become scarce. By ensuring this, more people will be open to exploitation by companies invoking the “bad times” card we’re being dealt by irresponsible media, political cronies and the very businesses themselves.  More people will not speak up about dissatisfaction, slave hours, poor pay and poor conditions.

Austerity is a mechanism for private interests to engineer our society by making it more desperate for what they offer us, more receptive of a particular political agenda, and more understanding of their greed by “looking at the bigger picture” – you know, the picture they draw for us too, not the actual one.

It maintains the status quo, further destroys social mobility, concentrates investment to low-risk already affluent areas, shapes education, and maintains the influence of business interests in public life. We can afford to maintain investment to facilitate growth. What we cannot afford are the austerity measures we will be made to feel in the years to come.

I’ll end with another quote from Krugman: The Myths of Fiscal Austerity:

So the next time you hear serious-sounding people explaining the need for fiscal austerity, try to parse their argument. Almost surely, you’ll discover that what sounds like hardheaded realism actually rests on a foundation of fantasy, on the belief that invisible vigilantes will punish us if we’re bad and the confidence fairy will reward us if we’re good. And real-world policy, policy that will blight the lives of millions of working families, is being built on that foundation.

Debt Management to Become a Standalone Course in High Schools.

19/10/2010 6 comments

Come on, it might as well be.

Lord Browne and his team issued a report on October 12th detailing the direction higher education must go because of this economic climate. We have just seen a defence review today which is cutting 42,000 jobs in the Ministry of Defence, affecting RAF, Navy, Army and civilian positions. Where do they go? Who cares! Oh, you do.

The country is on a downward downsizing spiral because of the gluttony and risk taking from the guys at the top.

Our education system has long been identified as a sector in dire need of reform, yet has gone without the attention it deserves because of the turbulent decade we have just experienced. We have been involved in two messy wars, terrorism on our shores and endured a recession so huge the effects will be felt for many years to come.

What do we know about this system which is responsible for moulding the next generation of workers, thinkers, innovators, and moralisers? Its benefits include a tuition fee cap that normalises the financial circumstances in which one can enter higher education. Then there are drawbacks, such as the rigidity of assessment procedures and the linearity of teaching.

Browne’s report aims to address the impending spending cuts which will affect higher education institutions. The cuts, which will be announced formally tomorrow, will severely squeeze an institution’s funds for teaching and research, so the impetus is on the universities to generate their own funding through private means.

I agree with the purpose of this report – to reform higher education, and later hopefully secondary education – but this effectively means the marketisation of the higher education sector.

This is a kind of a big deal. For a country which did not even charge students tuition fees a little over 12 years ago, we have rapidly got to the point where we are thinking of removing the fee cap altogether. How can something as important as a fee cap, in terms of contributing to social mobility and offering something towards building a true meritocracy, be scrapped?

 

System not responsive to the changing skills needs of the economy.
Analysis from the UKCES suggests that the higher education system does not produce the most effective mix of skills to meet business needs. 20% of businesses report having a skills gap of some kind in their existing workforce, up from 16% since 2007.

The CBI found that 48% of employers were dissatisfied with the business awareness of the graduates they hired. This evidence suggests there needs to be a closer fit between what is taught in higher education and the skills needed in the economy. It also adds force to the argument for helping existing workers to enter part time study and improve their skills.

 Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education in England, p.23

On the face of it, all this means is that higher education must adapt to the business market and provide a business friendly skill-set. This is one of the underlying assumptions of this report, and one which it is guided by the will to massage the various business interests which would like to see students develop skills the businesses want.

This is vitally important. The question which is ignored in this report, and any report which first considers the requirements of current short-term gains focused business first, is what should be dictated by what? Should what we study determine the jobs which are created, or should the existing jobs created by existing managers determine what we study?

Again, on the face of it, it is ridiculous to consider someone graduating from a philosophy degree starting a career as a full-time philosopher. However, isn’t it equally as ridiculous (to add very unjust) for someone who has an incredible grasp of history to enter employment as a sales representative, assuming that isn’t their burning desire?

Business can never be allowed to dictate our education because a homogenised education system, i.e. one tailored to meet the demands of business, will destroy diversity and positively halt innovation, condemning us to endlessly trying to meet unrealistic targets which exist in some areas of the working world.

What about employers who value employees with unique skill and knowledge sets, who are able to contribute creatively, rather than mechanically?

But no, lets roundly blame the beleaguered education system for not producing them while largely ignoring the employment market which does not welcome them. Schools are flooded with restrictive paperwork from the government while university leavers have to endure the rhetoric of business interests. We are being made to focus on only one of the two fronts.

 

Quality.
Students are no more satisfied with higher education than ten years ago. Employers report that many graduates lack the skills they need to improve productivity. Institutions have no access to additional investment to pay for improvements to the courses they provide. In any case the incentives for them to improve the student experience are limited.

p.23

 

Why is that? Well, it is easy to see that the blame for a graduate’s frustration falls squarely on the institution or course he has just left, either by misinforming him about prospects, or teaching him self-indulgent skills which are not easily transferable. We never really look at the employment sector to identify the great disconnect between it and our education too.

Business must be put in the spotlight. Also, we must stop using the word “economy” interchangeably with “business” in the first place, as, rather cannily, “economy” seems to have this more inclusive connotation, whereas “business” seems to describe some arbitrary organisation apart from the consumer, and crucially, with little interest in the consumer.

All in all, just another marketing ploy the government and big business utilise to dull our sensibilities when faced with their simplistic solutions (to their problems). Before even looking at the outrageous numbers, the first principle underpinning this report fails quite astonishingly:

 

Principle 1: There should be more investment in higher education – but institutions will have to convince students of the benefits of investing more.

p.24

 

I have emboldened the word “convince” not only to draw attention to it, but simply to underline it’s boldness. Students evidently are not willing to pay any more for their education, but will be powerless if universities impose higher fees to generate funding. There are a lot of problems with this strategy, never mind the numbers it entails.

Firstly, government officials and the people who are behind this report actually believe universities will give their persuasive efforts some meat and backbone. Persuasion can always be simply that: persuasion. Convincing a student of the supposed benefits of studying at a particular institution could merely accelerate the growth of the universities’ marketing arms.

Secondly, every university already outlines, in paper with a high GSM, that they are incredible and innovative. Giving a university the freedom to raise prices like a business will negatively enable it to behave like a business in other areas. Costs will be minimised regardless of quality of output, and prestige will play even more of a prominent role than it already does.

 

“Increasing competition for students will mean that institutions will have stronger incentives to focus on improving teaching quality.”

p.48

 

Creating “competition for students” through a private market would be catastrophic for society on many levels. Incentivising universities with a profit motive will see profits increase at a rate disproportionate to the standards of education. When taking into account matters such as social mobility, vast debt, and regional insensitivity, the new model leaves a lot to be desired.

Browne’s report models fees up to £12,000 per year, with fees in the region of £6,000 being earmarked as the most common sum to be requested. However, they concede there would be no cap (music to the Russell Group’s ears). It is also conceded that for most universities to break even, fees in excess of £7,000 would need to be charged.

The government, the group who have produced this review, and the universities have all remained relatively tight lipped about the ramifications of removing the cap. Of course they would! The government can make savage cuts, the universities are given the freedom to extort their students, and the this group can add a popular report to their portfolio.

Everyone wins! Except us, as always. Lets live the nightmare for a moment:

 

Higher_ed_bubble_9-3-2010_10-20-44_AM 

 

To illustrate what removing the cap could (and most likely would) do, I have obtained a graph with data from the Bureau of Labour Statistics in the U.S. Browne’s review and the support it has drawn from the coalition government is explained by satisfying all the parties except the new generation of students.

By adopting more of an American model, we are in danger of letting universities, the crucial institutions which (should) shape employment, innovation, and aid social mobility, concentrate on boosting profits, employing even more administrators to do so, and lumping students with horrendous mortgage style debts before they have even begun their careers.

The mantra of it being an investment for the future is unravelled by our economic cycles of boom and bust which entail little or no job security. Our volatile economic climate is controlled by business interests, and the governments elected to appease them. Employment is slashed at whim, while credit ratings are protected religiously by incompetent regulatory systems.

My cynicism is informed by our neighbours across the Atlantic, whose free market dogma has revealed itself to be a bitter pill to swallow for society at large. Institutions such as Harvard charge as much as $50,000 (£34,000) a year, over 4 years, not 3. The total comes to $200,000. How is this justifiable, other than by regressing to matters of prestige?

George W. Bush, probably the most incompetent president in recent history (and beyond), attended Yale, a renowned university in the U.S. How? Through heavy private contributions – the same contributions we are going to be asked to make to fund our institutions. That’s fairness right there in all its star-spangled glory.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I am not keen for us to produce clowns like that, reassuring English accent or not.

Vote for Change

Vote for Change - 9.9.10

The “Win-Win Situation” That Destroys Social Mobility.

20/08/2010 2 comments

I sit here a bitter man. Not because I have been recovering from a bout of food poisoning which has hampered my contributions to this space or an unexpected computer virus which compelled me to format my computer, but more crucially, unpaid internships continuing with no real sign of being reined in.

Graduates gain an experience and employers gain free labour – what’s the problem?

Unpaid internships ruin the chances of graduates from poorer families gaining valuable experience during their course and after they finish university. They contribute greatly to the very real brick wall that manifests as companies look for individuals who can basically pay them for the “experience”.

What good is it graduating from university with a degree which was at least part subsidised by the state through capped tuition costs and helpful low interest loans, only to emerge looking for a job in an employment environment populated by organisations who largely offer only unpaid internships?

The result of this process is the creation of two working worlds – one for the rich and one for the poor. Both the public and private sectors are guilty of this practice.

Below is the job description of a post I have recently found.

 

jobdesc1 …and make us a coffee. Cheers.

 

Now, that seems like a decent amount of work suitable for a graduate in their second role. The above is actually a position advertised on a British website inviting graduates to apply to an internship in the heart of Berlin. To compensate the graduate, a monthly “honorarium” of 500 EUR is offered to cover costs. Clearly, 500 EUR is not nearly enough to cover rent in the heart of Berlin, let alone the flight there and living expenses (nevermind actually doing the above).

This occurs everywhere, and nobody is really that bothered. Given the saturated job market due to the number of graduates, there must be some mechanism to filter out the applicants who do not make the grade required yet(?). This is necessary in today’s working world, but I believe the practice of unpaid internships unfairly discriminates against those who cannot even apply because they know they cannot afford it.

I don’t have to go to Berlin for such an example either, there are plenty much closer to home. With Thatcher’s realignment of everything valuable being in the heart of London and nowhere else, businesses have had to “go where the money is” and set up base in London, depriving the rest of the country from outlets graduates can apply to to practice their skills.

For example, a graduate from the North East of England who wants to start his career must be able to afford an internship in London to gain a foothold in their industry of choice. They cannot compete with those who are from London because Londoners simply have more opportunities to start and grow their career through unpaid internships they can afford.

This is not meritocratic; it is basically dynastic.

There remains little incentive for businesses and organisations to offer paid internships when there are affluent graduates who can depend on their parents to subsidise the “impressive” unpaid work they can choose undertake home and abroad. This is especially true in the nigh impregnable NGO sector where elitism is rife and managers tend to “revert to type”.

Many such organisations more recently complain of the economic downturn as the reason for the cycles of free labour they employ. Plain lies. I have seen very small organisations who comply with law by granting the National Minimum Wage, and I have seen some of the largest organisations make it explicitly clear they will not even pay expenses.

None are more guilty than the United Nations. Their internship offers no expenses whatsoever, despite the requirements of a flight to New York, rent and living expenses (a quoted sum of $5,000 for the internship in total). Not only do you have to pay this hefty fee to work for them for nothing, you have to be currently enrolled in graduate study.

This means the student will just have to have the money if they want the experience, with no option of working to save up for it available given the requirement to be already in full time education. Daddy’s wallet comes into play and the affluent graduate has their edge against the competition. If this isn’t simply buying experience, I don’t know what it. How is this fair?

 

UN Internship “Thanks dad!”

 

The simple fact is this: nobody should have to pay to be employed. When someone has parted with money to gain experience, a market system is in place where none should be. Of course the demand is high for careerists to scribble “United Nations” on their CV, but the supply of that experience should never be determined by how much money the applicant has to offer.

This is why interns must be paid at least the National Minimum Wage.

The employment process has lost its integrity given its marketisation. Tuition fees are capped for a reason – so the top universities in the country cannot charge more than the smaller less established universities. This is fair because admission should be primarily based on merit, not quantity of payment. Employment should operate similarly, but it doesn’t.

Whenever there is an avenue to influence, to gain and demonstrate power, and to accumulate wealth, the rich will devise ways to segregate the population and distract us with other problems. Powerful positions are simply reserved for those who have the “material pedigree”. Social mobility is intrinsic to what a democracy actually means, but it is lying dead in the water.

It must be said, the common myth is that social mobility has been in sharp decline for the last 20 years. This isn’t true; it has merely stabilised – not improved or worsened noticeably. The sharp decline commenced because of the free-market religion created during the height of the Cold War, with the unholy alliance of Thatcher and Reagan, its two most prominent advocates.

What we’re experiencing now is a “don’t rock the boat” approach undertaken by market-speak neo-liberals who are bereft of ideas. The answer always seems to be “charge for it” if it is free, or “charge more” if it is supposedly in high demand. The only market regulation which seems to exist is to deprive the poor of the product or opportunity to maintain its value.

Fairness is must be rooted in equal opportunities. It is those first few jobs which shape our attitude to life and help us identify what we truly want to do. When opportunities are unnecessarily limited at this stage, we “settle” for things we otherwise would not settle for. Our dreams become distant and naive, and we accept exploitation as if it defined maturity.

It doesn’t; it simply defines exploitation.

An old funny tweet created to rib conservatives goes: “if you have inherited hard all your life, you should be able to pass it on to your children”. Too right; here’s a load of money, my mansion, the keys to the BMW and your first job. None of these things bother me at all apart from the last gift enabled by our “job market” – that phrase alone is turning my stomach again.

Big Fish Eat Little Fish

pieter_bruegel_the_elder-_big_fish_eat_little_fish

As something of an introductory post, I will only touch on the concepts and ideas I will be writing about in depth in the future. May you find it all worthwhile.

The 16th C drawing above is by Flemish artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder. I first saw it during my teenage art studies and thought it fascinating for some then intangible reason. While a lot of profound renaissance pieces do well to capture the grandeur and the vibrant decadence of the time, the smooth lines were too well purchased for me and most didn’t affect me nearly as much as this grubby drawing. It appeals to me so much because not many things I can think of better depict the corporatism that is so prevalent in our mishmash of a neo-liberal, neo-conservative, proto-ludicrous modern culture.

This drawing is what I see before me when I step outside. I see the rich bending the rules so that our infantile democracy better serves them than us – the people, the baying crowd, “the beast”. I see the poor being pitted against each other, so that whatever scrap of wealth they have becomes a jealous burden for their neighbour. I see violence of the most insidious, transformative kind being employed against us. I see us being individually gutted by others sporting smiles. “That’s the way things go” echoes in our ears as we look at our entrails. Finally, dispirited and downtrodden, the carcass of our dreams washes up on the shores of the concrete jungles we live in.

Then we show our children how to bear the process.

The best way to keep any group down is to keep them dependent. This is what our corporate masters do to us. We are promised choice, freedom, and equality – we get wars, slave labour, and wage theft – all made possible by engendering apathy and detachment amongst the population. The clash of civilisations is a smokescreen for an impermeable shield the wealthy have erected around their assets. Sure, I might not understand a certain ethnic custom or tradition, but these are the things I can appreciate aesthetically or refer to secular law for.

On the other hand, the economy is completely ambiguous. It is something we vaguely hear of every now and then, usually alongside huge barely recognisable numbers we have no real experience of. The real war is and never was between the “East” and the “West”, but between the “North” and the “South” – this is why we are flooded with information and opinion regarding the former, and only hear whispers about the latter. The rich exist in every country, and in every country, they are propped up by the poor. It is only the rules of this arrangement which appear to differ. Globalisation is merely standardising the rules of any success.

Sometimes though, there can be too much. Boom, bust, crash… help? Hold on, “we are all in this together”. This is the gospel of the ruling Tory party in Britain. Of course we are. The banking system failed all of us, then public money was used to bail out the irresponsible banks who concentrated on their more profitable investment arms. Failed bankers and businessmen are hired elsewhere (or left willingly), while public servants must now suffer redundancies, sector cuts, and pay freezes.

But hey, the champagne is rolling again in “the city”, so everything must be getting better. Everywhere else is supposedly unprofitable wasteland – I mean, why pay someone to make something here when you can a) make it abroad with cheap slave labour, poor working conditions and no benefits or b) not make anything at all and just make money with money in some game with numbers somewhere in “the city”.

It was not our teachers, our secretaries, or our youth workers who scandalously betted with and lost our money, it was our bankers and business elites. Yet, we live in a system where they have become the barometer of our economy, our employment, and ultimately our livelihoods. Bosses are not more important than their workers, they just pretend to be and we seemingly go along with it.

“Look, child, this is how you gut a fish”.

The public sector has recently been a stable source of employment for many of us here, and that is what matters – employment. Employment determines peoples livelihood. The Tories naively want discarded public sector workers to migrate into the private sector. They want state workers to reprogram themselves into money-centric robots – what they tentatively call “entrepreneurs”, or more realistically, “failed entrepreneurs”. There can only be so many bosses, after all.

Anybody who works in the public sector in the first place was probably dismayed by the conditions and erratic behaviour of modern business practice, hence their choice to serve the permanent state in some way. The job may have been superfluous (through no fault of their own), but at least it was honest. The fact of the matter is, the money isn’t across that bridge the government is telling us to cross anyway. The invisible hand plays with an invisible deck most of the time.

Schools and universities have also, for the most part, become cloning centres teaching subjects that are cute but not deemed employable. A quick look at the graduate section of all jobs sites will land you in a deluge of sales, marketing, and recruitment consultancy roles. “So”, the graduate reflects, “my options after leaving with a degree is either to directly sell something, indirectly sell something, or help someone else get a job selling something, or indirectly selling something”.

Our economy is built on jobs that compel people to forsake their youthful ambitions and their true passions. We must now, having seemingly failed at being architects or archaeologists for example, make a living shovelling the dirt away from the river of capital flowing into our masters’ well-tailored deep pockets. This is sometimes euphemistically called “growing up”. Bollocks to that, this is more like “growing down”, or growing a hunch on your back.

The wealthy are protected from such harsh realities through mounds of inheritance, being paid more attention to at school in smaller classrooms and being paid more attention to at home from their affluent parents. When it comes to starting a career, they can afford prestigious unpaid internships (again, daddy’s wallet) at organisations whose reputations sell themselves and need offer no expenses whatsoever, even with relocation involved (winking at the United Nations here).

We are weaved this illusion that the poor must be lazy benefit cheats who use Britain and are jealous of the rich. We despise them for it. We start looking down at “them”, these vile citizens of our beloved righteous country, to feel that ugly but intoxicating feeling of superiority that is so rare. We do this rather than look up to see the real culprits who make us feel powerless.

The government too is something we are meant to elect to serve us, to be on our side, but it has become a shadow of corporate nepotism, together forming a tag-team of oppression with business for mutual preservation. We have been lied to forever; by our schools, by our government who control our schools, and by those who tell us our reliance on a market controlled by invisible forces who only have to buy you when you’re down to win you is the only way to prosper.

We are only useful insofar as we become obedient cogs of this alien machine we live within. We must never lose the unfamiliarity of it all – of being in this construct. We must never accept our bitter toil as sacrosanct. Oiling the wheels of this tyrannical machine with all its distractions we live under is unacceptable; we need to change the wheels altogether and burn the old dysfunctional motor down to the ground.

This little space on the internet will be devoted to ripping apart the webs we live in. Our “knowledge economy” is bankrupt because freethinking is not cultivated in our youth. What we need is an “ideas economy”, with a realigned education and value system emphasising the dignity of life and labour, rather than the religion of “maximum profit at minimum cost”. The latter has seen the erosion of the classical market system into one where wealth simply begets wealth, regardless of product.

Many of us hope to break into this game with good intentions and change it from the top. This is impossible. For one only makes it into the boardroom precisely because one has no intention to change the way things are done. Things change because the people want them to change. The rich have fantastic defence mechanisms in place to prevent this and deflect attention away from the real problems.

They cultivate animosity between those they see as beneath them. They have eager government lackeys and lawyers who do their bidding. And the most powerful of all – a pen and a blank cheque. If you can’t beat them, buy them, and have them for dinner later with a bit of tartar sauce.

No more.