Skip to main content

Chavs II

Following on from yesterday’s post, I have another criticism of Jones basic thesis that the demonization of the working class is due to deindustrialisation and Margaret Thatcher.  In my opinion, Jones ignores the long-term evolution of the working class.  Why were the working class enfranchised in the first place?  Why did democratic governments redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor?  Why have the working class been under attack?  Why have the working class been effectively disenfranchised?

One possible explanation provided by Hickson and Thompson goes as follows: the working classes were enfranchised as they were required to defend the country in the era of mass warfare and large citizen armies.  The enfranchisement of the working classes in Britain begins in the late nineteenth century, and coincides with the rise of Imperial Germany.  It is completed in the aftermath of World War I, and between 1918 and 1946 large-scale redistribution occurs.  This was a simply a transfer from those who had benefited from the sacrifices of working-class men and women. 

However, the rise of high-technology and nuclear warfare means that nations no longer need mass-citizen armies for their defence.  Consequently, the rich no longer need or care about the working class.  The demonization of the working class highlighted by Jones may simply be one manifestation of this phenomenon.

Popular posts from this blog

Bitcoin Bubble?

According to Robert Shiller , speaking at Davos, Bitcoin is a perfect example of a bubble - story here . Shiller sees Bitcoin as a backwards step in the evolution of money.   George Selgin , a free banker, takes an opposing view - click here .  Although he doesn't believe that Bitcoin is money, he sees its development as a fascinating turn in the evolution of money. In particular, he lauds the fact that Bitcoin production is constrained and cannot be infinite. There is a short video below where Bitcoin explain how it works.

How Valuable Are Connections?

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Amir Kermani, James Kwak and Todd Mitton have written a paper on whether firms connected to Timothy Geithner benefited from these connections. They do so by looking at how stocks of these firms reacted to the announcement that he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008. They find that there were large abnormal returns for connected firms. Below is the paper's abstract and the full paper is available here . The announcement of Timothy Geithner as nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008 produced a cumulative abnormal return for financial firms with which he had a connection. This return was about 6% after the first full day of trading and about 12% after ten trading days. There were subsequently abnormal negative returns for connected firms when news broke that Geithner's confirmation might be derailed by tax issues. Excess returns for connected firms may reflect the perceived impact of relying on the advice of a small ne...

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles, co-authored with my colleague Will Quinn , is forthcoming in August. It is published by Cambridge University Press and is available for pre-order at Amazon , Barnes and Noble , Waterstones and Cambridge University Press .