Mintball wrote:I don't think that that's the aim, per se.
The ultimate aim is simply the enrichment of his class (including, these days, big business and finance). To that end, a compliant, fearful workforce is helpful. Inequality is more a byproduct – and one that they do not remotely care about. As for the economy as a whole, capitalism has always been short-sighted. This is no different – it's all about short-term power and money (see that JP Morgan stuff).
I don't disagree, the enrichment of his class is the aim and he knows (if he paid attention in the economics lectures) that unemployment, underemployment and inequality are necessary to that task. and he must also know that the widening gap of inequality leads to a stagnant economy.
His party is not called Conservative for nothing, they regard the money in the economy as theirs by right and they are going to damn well conserve it.
The very fact that he (apparently deliberately) is not growing the economy tells us what?
IMHO it tells us that he is more concerned about "his" economy (i.e. the economy that benefits his own small section of society) than he is about the National economy and the well-being of the Nation as a whole.
Back in the days of supposed "full employment" of the 50's, 60's and 70's, people were more difficult to subdue and pay rises were difficult to control ... inflation became the biggest bugbear for successive governments.
Business was desperate to take control and wanted a government that would allow capital to rule, would allow unemployment to rise and would make unemployment even harder to endure, thereby making the working population just glad to have a job.
In 1979, they got that government and we now see the continuation of that neolib drive.
To this government, people are merely machines to use and discard and never mind the human cost.
Yet still the myth of the classless society persists.
We are pretty much back in the 20's and 30's and heading rapidly for the 1800's.
