You may be interested in this 2024 book reviewed in this month's London Review of Books.
It's Melinda Cooper's "Counterrevolution: Extravagance and austerity in Public Finance" (Princeton).
It argues that focusing on the withdrawal of government benefits under neo-liberalism, while true, misses the bigger point that tax subsidies and deductions are a form of money transfer from the government to asset-holders.
Cooper identifies how the family (i.e. the wealthier ones) have now become a "a tax shelter and a vehicle for holding assets".
The reviewer summarises her argument: "Today ... capitalism is no longer based on returns on industrial investment, 'a regime of accumulation organised around production and measurable in terms of growth'. Instead, we have 'a regime of asset price appreciation' - managed largely through tax exemptions and expenditures, and based on capital gains.
Thanks for taking the time to alert us to the new books around.
Regarding Graeme Turner’s Broken: Universities and the Public Good, you seem to have given up on assessment. respectfully I disagree.
1. Exams are not pedagogically awful [only if they are 100% of assessment]. They are useful to test foundational knowledge [I would like to think that my doctor knows the difference between a tibia and an atrium].
2. Students can also be assessed by attending a closed exam room with a sheet of paper with notes based on research and advance notice of the question.
3. Those two things alone could account for 60% and the rest can be a Chat GPT "assignment". You'd get some authentic spread of marks then.
Hi John. I have not read either “Economics in Two Lessons” or “Economics in One Lesson” nevertheless, as an uneducated casual observer of stuff, the following statement made absolutely no sense to me, “the idea that war is economically beneficial for society, or even for the capitalist class, is nonsense.”
I used my preferred AI to compile some numbers, for the period 2022 to 2024, and it produced the following summary of major corporations in the US military Industrial complex, I added in Palantir for its use of AI for target acquisition.
Profit Growth Stock Growth Top Revenue Source
Lockheed +40% +47% F-35 jets, missiles
Raytheon +25% +28% Patriot missiles, engines
General Dynamics +33% +52% Tanks, submarines, shells
Palantir +370%* +100% AI warfare (Ukraine/Israel)
* From loss to profit.
I would wager that neither the war in Ukraine, or Israel’s several conflicts in West Asia would still be ongoing if the 1 percenters and ten percenters investing in wars were not making a motza.
The wars in Europe and Palestine have severely diminished the US stockpile of 155mm artillery shells, with over 3 million supplied to Ukraine. The pentagon has asked General Dynamics to increase production from 28k to 100k shells per month.
I am certain that GD will be making a substantial profit from those sales, and one can only imagine what is happening to the market for large industrial and warehousing premises with GD seeking suitable locations to install the plant required.
Are these figures not evidence that, at least some in the investing class are profiting from never ending wars?
As you say, "at least some". But benefits for some capitalists come at the expense of losses for others. Money spent on missiles could have been spent building roads, to the benefit of construction companies or handed back as tax cuts, which would be spent on consumer goods. The capitalist class as a whole loses when money is wasted on weapons. I've made a small edit to clarify this
Well, yes. War is (and always has been) a net loss in material terms. But plenty of things are net losses but particular gains - as, for instance almost all forms of oppression. The competition inherent to capitalism means that capitalists have a very narrow view of their interests as a whole, and that's aside from the non-material rewards of (successful) war.
You may be interested in this 2024 book reviewed in this month's London Review of Books.
It's Melinda Cooper's "Counterrevolution: Extravagance and austerity in Public Finance" (Princeton).
It argues that focusing on the withdrawal of government benefits under neo-liberalism, while true, misses the bigger point that tax subsidies and deductions are a form of money transfer from the government to asset-holders.
Cooper identifies how the family (i.e. the wealthier ones) have now become a "a tax shelter and a vehicle for holding assets".
The reviewer summarises her argument: "Today ... capitalism is no longer based on returns on industrial investment, 'a regime of accumulation organised around production and measurable in terms of growth'. Instead, we have 'a regime of asset price appreciation' - managed largely through tax exemptions and expenditures, and based on capital gains.
"i’m pushing slowly through books on Heyting algebras (Esakia), Stone spaces (Johnstone) and (always scary for me) Category theory (Simmons).."
Have you tried asking a chatbot for summaries in the format of comic books?
John:
Thanks for taking the time to alert us to the new books around.
Regarding Graeme Turner’s Broken: Universities and the Public Good, you seem to have given up on assessment. respectfully I disagree.
1. Exams are not pedagogically awful [only if they are 100% of assessment]. They are useful to test foundational knowledge [I would like to think that my doctor knows the difference between a tibia and an atrium].
2. Students can also be assessed by attending a closed exam room with a sheet of paper with notes based on research and advance notice of the question.
3. Those two things alone could account for 60% and the rest can be a Chat GPT "assignment". You'd get some authentic spread of marks then.
Hi John. I have not read either “Economics in Two Lessons” or “Economics in One Lesson” nevertheless, as an uneducated casual observer of stuff, the following statement made absolutely no sense to me, “the idea that war is economically beneficial for society, or even for the capitalist class, is nonsense.”
I used my preferred AI to compile some numbers, for the period 2022 to 2024, and it produced the following summary of major corporations in the US military Industrial complex, I added in Palantir for its use of AI for target acquisition.
Profit Growth Stock Growth Top Revenue Source
Lockheed +40% +47% F-35 jets, missiles
Raytheon +25% +28% Patriot missiles, engines
General Dynamics +33% +52% Tanks, submarines, shells
Palantir +370%* +100% AI warfare (Ukraine/Israel)
* From loss to profit.
I would wager that neither the war in Ukraine, or Israel’s several conflicts in West Asia would still be ongoing if the 1 percenters and ten percenters investing in wars were not making a motza.
The wars in Europe and Palestine have severely diminished the US stockpile of 155mm artillery shells, with over 3 million supplied to Ukraine. The pentagon has asked General Dynamics to increase production from 28k to 100k shells per month.
I am certain that GD will be making a substantial profit from those sales, and one can only imagine what is happening to the market for large industrial and warehousing premises with GD seeking suitable locations to install the plant required.
Are these figures not evidence that, at least some in the investing class are profiting from never ending wars?
As you say, "at least some". But benefits for some capitalists come at the expense of losses for others. Money spent on missiles could have been spent building roads, to the benefit of construction companies or handed back as tax cuts, which would be spent on consumer goods. The capitalist class as a whole loses when money is wasted on weapons. I've made a small edit to clarify this
Well, yes. War is (and always has been) a net loss in material terms. But plenty of things are net losses but particular gains - as, for instance almost all forms of oppression. The competition inherent to capitalism means that capitalists have a very narrow view of their interests as a whole, and that's aside from the non-material rewards of (successful) war.