Here. I am sure Labour  used different contractors when they institutionalised slavery, as a way to outsource benefit sanctioning, so welfare’s financialisation could be completed.

Last night someone was saying that the economy needed consumption, people to consume. I agreed. I said I didn’t understand why welfare was being used to deliberately increase the deficit people live at, so they will borrow and increase debt, which removes not only their ability to do so now, but in future.

Why the approach of both our parties was  to deliberately suck people’s ability to consume away,  starving the business communities around them, and jeapordising their ability to pay debts. Punishing them for not being part of a deliberately contracted labour market. While the pool of cheap labour mothers provide, is expanded with a pool of free labour to ensure downward pressure on the wages of dwindling low paid jobs.

We could have triggered consumption along highly predictable patterns, been able to predict where money would be spent,  and send it directly into small and medium sized enterprises, bringing down levels of personal debt, with welfare….had we thought of it. After all most of the working class need welfare, that was the point. That’s what we got instead of industrial policies, to manage employment.

But then the the spin on the Beveridge settlement, dictated a political blueprint where we ignored reality. We used welfare to suck money out of the economy, to punish the unemployed for not being part of a shrinking labour market, when they could have been creating the new labour market….instead of the states own pool of exploitable free labour.  We needed women to bear the brunt in silence. Deskilling entire professional bases at the same time, because that knowledge might undermine this approach. Using a surreal version of the discussion which has hidden the real expansion of welfare for decades…

Macroeconomics eh? Always missing the details… Who benefits? Because I’ll tell you who doesn’t