However, if I’ve learned anything from previous experiences, it’s that setting myself deadlines and targets where personal blogging is concerned usually leads me to abandon it. At least this way I’m keeping it alive, even if the updates are infrequent and the audience limited to those who have finished reading everything else on the world wide web and are looking for something self-indulgent to help them sleep.

So, what has been happening. Well, as it turns out, quite a lot.

Interest in my writing appears to have snowballed over several months. I continued my column on the Huffington Post website, writing about same-sex marriage, as well as keeping up with the submissions to Passing Nightmare. I received an interview request from Al-Jazeera based on a piece I’d written about the Occupy London camp for the HuffPo. Unfortunately they needed someone fast, and I was stuck in work at the time, but it was certainly nice to be noticed.

Soon after I received an invitation from the Morning Star newspaper (which I purchase daily) to write some feature articles for them. My first piece for the paper was an overview of anti-cuts activism in Manchester, looking at the campaigning taking place to save council services from closure and at the emergence of radical social spaces. After informing several people of my new year’s resolution to get something published in print this year, I have to admit it was quite satisfying to see a piece of my writing appear in a national newspaper on the 27th of March. Despite the hard work involved, I thoroughly enjoyed myself and certainly improved my interview technique during the process. My task for the next week is to figure out what to write next, as well as joining the NUJ, providing they’ll allow me in. I remain somewhat doubtful as to whether journalism could ever be my full-time occupation, but I like to think it could bring in a nice second income one day.

My university studies, on the other hand, are not going quite so well. The course has become a little dry, as I predicted in a post last year. As a consequence my enthusiasm for study has been somewhat curtailed. This, coupled with the knowledge that I am no longer allowed any kind of study break until the degree is finished (or else I will be moved onto the new fees structure at three-times the cost) has begun to give me second thoughts about OU study. Even at the present cost, I feel I shouldn’t really be investing so much of my cash into study which can at times be incredibly stressful to balance with full-time work and a social life. That being said, I have thoroughly enjoyed my previous courses and there’s a possibility I may feel differently once it comes time to choose my next one, following my DD203 exam in June. We shall wait and see, it’s certainly not a decision I will take lightly.

One final piece of news is that I’ve finally signed up as a member of the Manchester Film Co-op. After nine months of attending their screenings I’d really like to get involved more in the running of the group, so hopefully I will be able, time permitting. I’d leave you with a promise to blog here more often, but we all know I’d be lying, so if you’re after the latest, or you just want to say hello, find me on Twitter. Adios.

Perhaps the greatest change to take place this year was my launching of Passing Nightmare. The site came about following an earlier abandoned experiment with current affairs blogging. Much of the site design was done over the course of a week last Christmas, along with several launch articles on economics and the media. One early article was referenced by the Guardian newspaper, which certainly provided a large boost to both my self-confidence and to the reputation of the site.

The site has since grown beyond my wildest expectations, having now published over 40 articles on a wide range of subjects. This year was undoubtedly an extraordinary year for the media news cycle, so from the summer riots and the war in Libya to the anti-cuts movement and the occupations, I’ve been writing on all of the major events taking place. I’ve also taken my angry keyboard skills to a variety of other issues including consumerism, US and European politics, the Arab Spring and media misrepresentations of the British welfare state.

As my competency in writing has increased I have also been provided with fantastic opportunities to write for established and well-respected websites such as New Left Project, Minority Thought and the Huffington Post. Once I get some more free time (unlikely to be any time soon) I have my eye on a few other projects, including writing for Manchester Mule, with whom I recently attended a fantastic media training day.

Meanwhile, my Open University work has continued apace. I finished my work for DD132 in April and am presently studying for DD203. I still have several more assignments and an exam (which I’m frightfully worried about!) remaining before I complete the course in around May or June, so I imagine there will be limited time for writing until then.

Another development running parallel alongside my writing has been increased activist activity. This year I have attended independent media conferences, occupations, protest marches and went out on strike myself in November. I’ve also been getting out on the streets, talking to people and making some fantastic new friends.

This year has been by far the busiest I can remember for quite some time.
I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Earlier this month I travelled to London to attend the Rebellious Media Conference, a gathering of journalists, political activists and other radical media types for two days based in the city centre. The keynote speaker was Professor Noam Chomsky, who delivered a fantastic lecture on the current state of affairs with regard to military conflict, the economic crisis and progressive resistance. Chomsky is a personal hero of mine, as he is for many on the left, and despite being 82 years old he retains his superb intellect and razor sharp analysis. Other sessions included speakers such as John Pilger, Greg Philio, Laurie Penny and Michael Albert. Several of the workshops I attended, such as those on the recent riots, or discussing local alternative media, also gave me a heck of a lot of food for thought.

Attending the conference also provided me with an excuse to take a few extra days in London, a place which I hadn’t visited for around a decade. I made sure to visit the major tourist hot spots (taking in the landmarks and museums) though this also allowed me time to meet up with some of my friends, both old and new, for several intoxicating adventures across the city.

In academic news, I have now begun to study for my DD203 Open University module and am currently in the process of drafting my first assignment, due in at the end of this month. The course material so far seems fairly interesting, though I do have to confess that I have struggled to remain enthused given the initial slow pace of the study schedule. However, I imagine that once the material delves into specifics and the workload becomes a little more demanding it should help to focus my concentration somewhat.

Although my studying has somewhat limited the time I can spend on it, I have nevertheless experienced some further success in enabling my writing to be viewed by a wider audience. Last month I was invited to become a blogger for the Huffington Post. My first article for the site was a piece I wrote discussing British media coverage of immigration and attempting to debunk some of the more harmful misconceptions.

I have also written a second article for the New Left Project website, which provides a brief history of political party funding and suggests potential options for reform. This piece was fairly complex to write (with some assistance from the editors) and required plenty of research, but I’m quite impressed with how it turned out in the end. I’ve also continued writing for Passing Nightmare and Minority Thought, most recently with a piece discussing the Iranian ‘terror plot’.

Closer to home, yesterday I paid a visit to Occupy Manchester, based in the Peace Gardens at St Peters Square. The camp is part of a global movement protesting against rising inequality, corporate greed and government cuts, whilst also urging reform of the financial sector to attempt to ensure that the poor do not pay for a crisis created by the rich. The Peace Gardens has now been occupied for almost three weeks and I stopped by to drop off some supplies and chat to those living in the camp. Those whom I spoke with were truly committed to the cause and many were quite eloquent and insightful in explaining their reasons for joining the occupation. I hope to be able to visit the camp again over the next week or so.

Finally, whilst I’m discussing local projects I wanted to quickly mention a fantastic little group I’ve been attending recently. Manchester Film Cooperative is based in Salford and hosts a monthly meeting, screening films which challenge current economics, politics and society. I’ve already watched some superb films there as part of their ‘Surveillance’ season, so it’s certainly worth checking out if you live nearby.

I have continued to write articles for Passing Nightmare, with pieces on the war in Libya, two film reviews, an analysis of the dodgy media reporting on ESA claimants and a discussion on the recent UK riots. A rough estimate indicates that I have written just over 27,000 words for the site since it went live in January.

This month also sees the first publication of my work on another political website. New Left Project commissioned me to write an article on Free Software, with a brief history of the movement followed by an analysis of how the political left can best utilise the possibilities of open code to free themselves from corporate control. You can read the article here.

After a 6 month break, my Open University studying continues. Having awaited the results of the fee increases I was pretty shocked to discover that the cost of a £700 course would be rising to around £2,500 from 2012. Thankfully those already undertaking a degree would be allowed to continue on the old fee structure as long as they continue to take at least one course each year.

This is good news, but means that it would be rather risky for me to attempt a specialised Politics/Economics degree,  so instead I have opted for the standard BA/BSc in Social Sciences.

My next course is DD203, entitled ‘Power, dissent, equality: understanding contemporary politics’. The course begins in October,  the content looks fantastic.

My final bit of news is that I will be heading to London in October to attend the Rebellious Media Conference and do a spot of sightseeing. I’m planning to write a report on this for Passing Nightmare and I hope to be able to meet up with some friends whilst wandering around the big city.

Those of you who know me will be aware (to be fair I’ve made it increasingly difficult for you to avoid) that I launched a new website back in January of this year. Passing Nightmare was the culmination of an idea which had been festering away inside my brain for 12 months prior and something which I’d made a failed attempt at launching several months earlier.

As I became increasingly interested in politics, economics and the media I felt I needed somewhere to scribble down my ideas and thoughts on issues which were important to me, or where I had strong views. I also wanted to collaborate with other writers and spread the articles across social networking websites.

Six months later, the site has been relatively successful at meeting those original aims. It now contains around 20 original articles, many of which are quite considerable in length. Some of my favourites are listed below:

• An Epidemic of Benefit Fraud? The Demonization of Welfare Recipients – This post talked about the levels of benefit and other fraud in the UK, and contrasted it with media coverage of ‘scroungers’.
• Austerity Politics & Blaming Labour – In this article I spoke of the trend towards blaming Labour party spending for the fiscal deficit, whilst overlooking the massive problems caused by the banking crisis. It looked at austerity politics and discussed whether this could eventually cause more harm than good during a period of recovery.
• A Future That Works - My first hand report from the Manchester NUS/TUC rally on the 28th January, during which I was temporarily contained by police. Several arrests were made on the day, although the media narrative of protester violence was severely overemphasised.
• The Death Penalty Doctrine – This piece looked at the continuing emphasis on capital punishment as an appropriate form of punishment. It looked at the history of the methods and argued that the death penalty can never be fairly or accurately applied.
• Why I Will Never ‘Love That Advert’ – My latest article argues that advertising damages our society in increasingly negative ways and that we shouldn’t sit back and accept the massive influence it has over the way we perceive ourselves, the way we treat others and the way we receive information about the world.

An early success for Passing Nightmare was achieved in January when the Guardian newspaper quoted my article on the levels of benefit fraud in the UK, and with the help of Twitter the post eventually went viral.

Various other websites, students, journalists and academics have cited or commented on the articles and it’s been deeply heartening to see some the responses I have been receiving so far. Its not always been easy fitting work on the site around my full-time job and my university degree, but its something I’m passionate about and I sincerely hope I can continue to put in as much effort during the upcoming months.

I’m planning to update this blog more frequently now as it begins to take a more personal slant on me and the various goings on in my life, so feel free to add me to your feeds and subscriptions. I shall try not to disappoint.

Sheffield Doc/Fest (or to give it it’s full title: Sheffield International Documentary Festival) is a 5-day event which takes place in and around Sheffield city centre each year, with the majority of the events and activities taking place in the independently-run Showroom cinema. Doc/Fest, now in it’s 17^th year, is ranked among the top 3 events of its kind in the world, and this year screened over 120 different films. In addition to the film screenings, the festival also includes sessions for buyers, producers and distributors to meet, make deals and secure the go-ahead for future documentary projects. I however attended with the sole purpose of satisfying my documentary obsession, by sampling just some of the massive selection on offer.

Unfortunately due to work and other commitments, I only managed to attend the festival for three days. However, the nine films which I viewed during my time in Sheffield were all incredible, and I would therefore like to present you with a brief review of my three favourite works.

The Battle for Barking

This film documents the 12 month run-up to the local and parliamentary elections in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham. The film’s young director Laura Fairrie obtained excellent access to both the Labour campaign, fronted by Margaret Hodge, and (surprisingly) to the British National Party, who’s leader Nick Griffin was himself standing in the constituency. Prior to the 2010 elections, the BNP held 12 seats on the local council, and with their recent better-than-expected performance in the European elections, Griffin made the decision that Barking and Dagenham would be a key battleground for the party, and was where he felt they stood the best chance of success.

The Battle for Barking

The film opens to the sound of Hodge’s expletives, whilst recalling the moment she discovered Griffin would be standing against her. Hodge – recently widowed – decided that in order to defeat Griffin, she would have to appeal to the minorities who would stand to be most affected by a BNP win, and there is no doubt that Hodge was indeed seriously considering losing as a distinct possibility. It’s all too easy to cast the BNP’s supporters as the archetypal ‘thugs’ and ‘brutes’, and although there’s no doubt that many shown within the film do indeed fit this stereotype, the film also exposes a deep disconnection between Westminster politicians and the electorate. This ‘ivory tower’ sentiment is particularly evident at times, as Hodge and some of her supporters place a strong focus on statistics and data, with an initial lack of grass roots action and doorstep campaigning, a tactic which the BNP do indeed exploit to their maximum advantage.

There’s no doubt that Griffin was a strong adversary, with Hodge herself describing a BNP election video as ‘repulsive but very clever’. However, no matter how much Griffin has attempted to clear up the party’s image, the BNP’s facist roots are never too far from the surface, with Griffin responding to Fairrie’s question regarding what benefit immigrants and multiculturalism can bring to the UK, with the all too telling reply: ‘There’s a better range of take-away food available, but that’s it.’

Anyone who followed the 2010 election will likely already know how this contest turned out, but it’s nevertheless very interesting to observe the BNP’s reaction to their massive (and unexpected) losses on the night, with Griffin being defeated in the parliamentary elections by a huge margin, and – to rub salt into the wounds – having all of the BNP council seats wiped out in one go. If there was just one thing missing from this film, I would have liked to see some brief discussion of how the mass media discourse feeds into people’s attitudes towards immigration, and why some of the untruths and idle logic echoed by BNP supporters and sympathisers attracts so much attention, although this topic was touched on briefly in the post screening Q+A with Fairrie herself. The Battle for Barking was a truly excellent film for me given my strong interest in politics, and Fairrie has done an admirable job in retaining a neutral tone throughout, especially given the countless challenges she was confronted with during the filming process. I’d highly recommend catching it at a screening or grabbing a copy on DVD if you’re able.

Marwencol

Marwencol, directed by Jeff Malmberg, is a documentary film following the life of a man named Mark Hogancamp. Following a drunken altercation outside a local bar in Kingston, New York, Hogancamp slipped into a coma for several days and emerged with severe brain damage. Once he returned home (and after his medical cover ran out) Hogancamp began to construct a miniature World War II-era Belgian town which he named Marwencol. The town itself slowly begins to tell a story, a story which features Mark as the hero and his friends and family in the supporting cast. Hogancamp starts to use Marwencol as the main outlet for his mental recovery, and begins to photograph key events in the town, photos which eventually become part of an art exhibit.

Marwencol

Mark’s memory was almost entirely wiped-out during the attack and from an early scene where he is shown opening up his mail and simply stuffing it back into the mailbox, it’s clear that he is unwilling to return to the real world. Hogancamp attributes much of the physical and cognitive function he has regained to his work on the dolls of Marwencol, and his mental recovery is similarly improved, with Mark informing us that simply sitting back and observing the events in his fictional town ‘soothes’ him greatly.

Sadly, Mark is still re-living the attack inside his own head, and his ‘hero’ character within Marwencol soon endures an almost identical physical assault to the one inflicted on him in real life, although of course this is administered instead (as you might expect) by a gang of invading SS soldiers. It’s also clear that Mark is lonely, he is seen at one point hugging a new doll he has acquired, and his character’s romances with the women of Marwencol, along with the stories of heroism, are simply an effective outlet for him to express his frustration at the life he has lost. I cannot recommend this film enough, it was funny and yet deeply moving, and I would perhaps suggest it as being my favourite of the entire festival.

12th and Delaware

Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s controversial film looks at the ultimate neighbourly disagreement. On a street in Fort Pierce, Florida, at the junction of 12th and Delaware, an abortion clinic sits just cross the road from a ‘Pregnancy Care’ centre run by a pro-life group, who’s sole intention it is to prevent women from terminating their pregnancies.

12th and Delaware

The film begins at 5am, as pro-lifers gather outside, heckling the clinic’s staff as they arrive for work, and the intimidation continues throughout the day, as the women approaching the clinic are preached at in a highly confrontational and deeply insensitive manner. Other pro-life supporters hold placards depicting gruesome images of aborted foetuses, and hand out misleading and factually-incorrect leaflets linking abortion to breast cancer, infertility, and even to death.

The owners of the ‘Pregnancy Care’ centre (yes, the name is just as misleading as it sounds) actively exploit the similarity between the two premises, in the hope that women who have booked an appointment at the abortion clinic will mistakenly enter their own building.Once inside the pro-life centre, women are shown more leaflets, made to watch gruesome videos, and even bribed with food and money in an attempt to change their minds. In a frankly shocking exchange, one pregnant woman is even advised to keep her baby and stay with her abusive husband because: ‘The baby might change him’. Whatever your own personal view on abortion, I think we can all agree that these kind of bullying tactics are both unnecessary and utterly disgraceful. The film ends with a simple yet frightening statistic: that pregnancy care centres now outnumber abortion clinics in the United States by 4000 to 816.

This was the film I had been looking forward to most prior to the festival – as I had immensely enjoyed Ewing and Grady’s previous film ‘Jesus Camp’ – and it certainly did not disappoint me. A member of staff informed us that the 10pm screening I attended had sold out at 10am, clearly demonstrating the massive audience which exists for documentary films which tackle complex religious and ethical issues such as this. Whilst 12th and Delaware may not have featured the same graphic imagery and intellectual analysis as Tony Kaye’s Lake of Fire (which I consider to be my favourite ever documentary), as with The Battle for Barking, Ewing and Grady provide a master-class in exceptional and politically neutral film-making, and one which is well worth taking the time to watch.

Conclusion

I immensely enjoyed my first trip to Sheffield Doc/Fest, although there are a few tips I would like to impart on anyone considering making the journey themselves. Firstly, book your tickets early. Many of the films I attended were packed out, with people relying on the standby list to obtain entry. Secondly, although plenty of hotels exist in and around Sheffield, the accommodation quickly fills up, and I had ended up paying way above the odds to get a room two weeks prior to the event.

The Showroom Cinema, Sheffield

I also want to briefly mention some of the other films I saw which genuinely surprised me, these included Antony Butts’ After the Apocalypse, which examined the after-effects of Soviet nuclear testing in an area of Kazakhstan called the Polygon, and Waiting for Abu Zayd which follows the liberal Islamic scholar Abu Zayd and discusses the alternative interpretations of the Q’uran which saw him declared apostate and exiled from his home country of Egypt. Another fantastic film which deserves a mention is Waiting for Superman, a powerful documentary which investigated the dire state of public education in the United States. Almost all of the films included a post-screening Q+A, the most interesting of which was with the producer and editor of the Banksy film Exit Through the Gift Shop, in which they provided some detail on the story behind the films conception, and some enlightening exchanges with the audience took place regarding one of the film’s stars: Thierry Guetta, specifically regarding his progression through the art world since the film’s theatrical release.

Overall, it was a fantastic weekend, and not one of the films disappointed me. The Showroom (similar to Manchester’s Cornerhouse and Wolverhampton’s Light House) is an excellent cinematic venue, with four large screens and excellent facilities. The big announcement, made just prior to this year’s event, is that the festival will be moving to the month of June in 2011. Given just how much I’ve thoroughly enjoyed myself over my 3 day visit, I’m already 99% certain I will be taking some time out to continue my documentary obsession in Sheffield once again next year.

I then came across ‘Free Lunch’ by David Smith. With its subtitle of ‘Easily Digestible Economics’ it seemed exactly what I was looking for. From the very start Smith makes it quite clear that this book is for the layman, there’s no graphs and no maths. The book is set-out in the form of a dinner-party conversation, with starters, a main course, desserts, and lots of little interludes in-between. Its an odd concept, but one which I think works quite well.

In the first chapter, Smith describes the thinking behind the book, why one might want to study economics, and the history behind the saying ‘there’s no such thing as a free lunch’. He explains how economics impacts on all of us in our day-to-day lives, and how a little knowledge can assist us to think differently about anything money related.

He begins the next section with a discussion on house prices, looking at how supply and demand, along with income levels and the rate of inflation all affect the fluctuations in price. My only criticism is that although Smith explains the concepts very well, he sometimes leaves it a little late, diving headlong into a topic prior to explaining the basics, which might cause problems for someone brand new to the subject material. Smith then looks at the ‘substitution’ and ‘income’ effects, using a fall in interest rates as an example. It goes a little something like this: when rates fall, the cost of housing falls. The substitution effect dictates that some people may use this extra money to purchase a larger house, whilst the income effect treats the fall in interest rates as a rise in income, and borrowers may utilise this extra cash to spend on other products and services.

Next, in the first of several discussions on individual economists, he looks at Adam Smith. Smith was a rather awkward Scottish man born back in 1723, who – along with Friedrich von Hayek – had a huge impact on the pro-market and pro-privatization policies of the British Thatcher government and the American Reagan administration in the 1980′s. One of Adam Smith’s most important contributions to economics was the idea of the ‘division of labour’. This was a concept by which workers should become expertly skilled in a particular aspect of the manufacturing process to improve its speed and efficiency. The division of labour survives to this day – more commonly known as ‘specialisation’ – and the productivity gains Smith envisaged have only improved with the development of industrial machinery.

An interesting theory touched on in Chapter 5 is Milton Friedman’s ‘permanent income’ hypothesis. This was the idea that people will always retain an overall idea of what their permanent (or long-run) income is, and will bear this in mind in the face of pay cuts, where they may draw down savings, or when they receive a large bonus, which they might set-aside for harsher times. Ando and Modigliani’s life-cycle hypothesis also links quite nicely into this theory. This uses pensions as an example, stating that during childhood we are concentrated on spending, we then progress onto accumulating savings through employment, and run these down in old age, with perhaps some left to bequeath to our relatives. This is of course highly simplified, but seems to relate quite neatly to most people’s own personal experience.

After giving us a quick biography of some other perhaps less well known economists, including Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, William Godwin and John Stewart Mill, Smith then looks at the differences between companies and individuals, and discusses why we require companies at all, using Adam Smith’s division of labour as one of the the main arguments. There is also some interesting discussion on monopolies, with lack of competition and higher-prices for consumers being major reasons why the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) was granted powers to investigate and break-up potential monopolists.

Smith then touches on the growth of on-line shopping and the importance of advertising in building a reputation where lack of a physical shop might otherwise dissuade shoppers from making a purchase. Here he also touches on the subject of Game Theory, a topic which I have a particular interest in. Whole books have been written on the issue, but game theory boils down to the idea that gaining maximum advantage in any given situation depends not just on what you do, but also what others do. The use of game theory in economics comes to to predicting – or somehow finding out – what your competitors are up to in order to maximise the performance of your own business. John Nash, a brilliant American game-theorist, who endured terrible bouts of depression and schizophrenia in the 1980′s, recovered to win the Nobel prize for economics in 1994 by taking on the cold-war game theorists in developing what he called the nash-equilibrium, the idea that a ‘win-win’ outcome could exist in which everyone gained.

In the second chapter covering important economists, Smith turns his attention to Karl Marx. As with Adam Smith, there are various anecdotes and commentary on Marx’s personal eccentricities, but unlike with Adam Smith, he seems quite dismissive of Marx’s arguments. Marx like Ricardo believed in the fundamental importance of distribution and the value of labour. Marx was also interested in the ‘surplus value’ of labour, which would tend to go straight into the pockets of the business owner, as opposed to the worker who carried it out. Whilst I agree with Smith that Marx’s theories have aged quite badly in modern times, he nevertheless has some important contributions to make, and we could certainly learn some lessons for today by reaching back to some of Marx’s ideas.

Chapter 9 looks at Tax. In it, Smith describes some different taxes, the reasons behind government spending and some examples of tax gone wrong. Smith uses the term ‘public goods’ to explain services funded by tax which benefit society as a whole, but which we might not be willing to pay for voluntarily. As an example, would we be willing to pay for the police force if we believed the tabloid headlines about them spending the majority of their time prosecuting middle-class motorists? Possibly not. The other justification given for government spending is ‘uninsurable risks’, an example being a chronically sick person who its doubtful would be able to take out a private health insurance policy. Essentially, the idea of tax is to finance the services which only the government can feasibly supply, taking in aspects of a progressive redistribution of wealth from rich to poor.

Consequences of the 'Window Tax'

If like me you’d always been puzzled as to why certain older buildings have some of their windows bricked up then the answer lies in the Window Tax. As surprising as it may be, between 1696 and 1851 properties with ten or more windows were subject to extra taxation, with some owners therefore deciding to brick up as many as possible to save money, the perfect example of a tax gone wrong if ever there was one. A more recent example lies in the poll tax of the 1980′s, applied by Margaret Thatcher’s government, it acted as an additional tax on local government, with violent protests occurring at the time of it’s introduction. Many people simply decided to remove themselves from the electoral register to avoid paying it.

In this same chapter, Smith also introduces the Laffer Curve, developed in the 1970′s by Arthur Laffer. Laffer theorised that high tax rates could eventually cut tax revenue. It works something like this. A zero tax rate generates no income for government whatsoever, however a 100% tax rate also generates zero income, as there is no point in someone working if their entire wage is consumed by the state. Somewhere in between these two points lies the optimum tax rate, and Laffer demonstrated that a point could be reached where the revenue would begin to drop. Simple when you think about it, but very interesting stuff.

In the last of the profiles of the major economists, Smith looks into theories of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was a charismatic and highly influential individual, who gained a fair amount of sway over government during his lifetime. He attended the Versailles peace conference in 1919 and warned of the dangerous direction the negotiations were taking, and that the high level of reparations being demanded of Germany could lead to further world war, with many later arguing that he was indeed right.

The General Theory was perhaps Keynes’ most important contribution to economics, and it argued that in time of financial crisis and high unemployment, increasing government spending (which Keynes called ‘priming the pump’), would then – via a ripple effect – trigger growth elsewhere in the economy, ideally in the private sector. Keynes wrote that growth in employment overall would then spur the creation of more jobs, as the newly employed public sector workers spent their wages in the private sector.  Again, like most of the theories in this book, it appears deceptively simple. Contrary to the rather dismissive in way in which he covers Marx, Smith seems to make clear the huge impact which Keynes had in the fields of both economics and international relations. Personally, Keynes’ general theory is my favourite piece of thinking described within the book, and I would certainly describe myself as an opponent of the austerity agenda currently being pushed by the UK’s coalition government as a solution to reducing the deficit.

In the final chapters Smith covers two very interesting topics. Money itself, and American influence on Economics. It isn’t very often you think about why we decide certain bits of metal or paper are perceived as valuable. Smith makes it clear that acceptability is often the most important criteria in this, discussing the interesting fact that those annoying Scottish banknotes which many of us detest are not in fact designated as legal tender, not even in Scotland itself, although Smith states that whether something is ‘legal tender’ or not is fairly irrelevant, and he quotes the Bank of England who state that “acceptability as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved”. The book then covers the handover of interest rates from Government to the Bank of England, and how decisions are now made.

Smith then looks to America, which has produced 32 of the 49 Nobel prize winning economists. He discusses how economists such as Milton Friedman emerged to challenge Keynesian orthodoxy, instead promoting free-markets as a solution to financial crisis. Friedman’s take on the 1929 crash was that the Federal Reserve had applied the brakes on the level of money available a little too hard, as opposed to Keynes who had blamed a crisis of capitalism, which could be solved via a public sector stimulus. This argument is mirrored slightly in the present day, with Friedman’s arguments that recession cannot be counteracted by tax rises and public spending appearing to prevail in the UK.

The final chapter is given over to a Q+A session, with discussion on taxation levels, globalisation, the European single currency, along with an interesting critique on the role of richer countries in exploiting the developing world when it comes to the rules of global trade.

To conclude then, David Smith certainly appears to be an advocate of the free market and laissez-faire capitalism, something for which he has received a little criticism of late. However, his views are only natural I suppose, especially given his position as economics editor at the Sunday Times. Nevertheless, he presents the opposing viewpoints in a neutral and non-condescending manner, with all relevant views given the consideration they deserve.

Whilst some of his criticism of Marxist theories is valid, in an additional ‘Appetizer’ added to the new edition of the book he covers the current financial crisis without really tackling the problems inherent with an under-regulated financial services market. Perhaps as this section was authored in October 2008, whilst the crisis was still unfolding, we can give him the benefit of the doubt but as a recent editorial in the Independent makes clear, the problems inherent within capitalism must be tackled if we are to prevent the bubble bursting yet again:

The costs to the public of a laissez-faire attitude to markets from the state manifest themselves in excessive charges and needlessly high prices. But the public costs by no means stop there. The reason Britain has one of the biggest deficits in the G20 is because the Treasury became so heavily reliant on the bubble revenues of an inadequately regulated financial services sector. Britain is facing years of savage public spending cuts largely because of the failure of successive ministers and regulators to curb the recklessness of the banks.
The Independent – Editorial  (23 September 2010)

I decided to write to David Smith at the Sunday Times, to put these minor criticisms to him myself, but also to praise him on a job well done. He very kindly sent me the following response:

Dear Mr Davis,

Thank you for sending me the copy of your review, which is very fair. One small point. Though it is commonly believed that the causes of Britain’s sharp swing into enormous budget deficit was a collapse in City tax revenues, as in The Independent editorial, the causes are rather more complex than that. As this paper demonstrates – the tax take from the City has dropped but not collapsed. The recent better-than-expected revenues from the Labour government’s windfall tax on bank bonuses demonstrate that.

The deficit was caused by a more general drop in tax revenues, particularly income tax, National Insurance and VAT, together with a recession-related rise in public expenditure and the fact that a previous planned slowdown in spending was deferred until after the crisis. The banks were indeed reckless and should have been better regulated though as we have seen this problem was not confined to the UK.

That is just a minor point. As I say, your review is very fair.

Best wishes, David Smith

- Email from David Smith  (2nd October 2010)

I’m now beginning to develop an impression of the economy as a huge balancing act, with economists constantly being confronted with new problems to solve, which I believe is what makes economics so exciting and books such as this so important. Despite some small faults, Free Lunch is a fantastic, jargon-free introduction to economic theory, and I would highly recommend it to anybody who like me, would previously have flicked past the ‘boring’ business pages of their daily newspaper.

Joel Bakan is a Canadian lawyer and author, Professor of Law at the University of British Columbia, he holds a Masters degree from Harvard University and has a solid background in Canadian constitutional law. In The Corporation, his objective is to chart the history of the corporation, it’s unique structure and legal positioning, along with exposing some of the obvious flaws which exist within the idea of a corporate entity.

Bakan begins by giving us a whirlwind history of the development of the corporation as an institution. This history features the ‘jobbers’, stockbrokers who prowled the streets of Exchange Alley in London back in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The jobbers would search out naive investors, and persuade them into purchasing shares in bogus companies. Speculation initially caused the share price for these companies to rocket, followed by a total collapse. Bakan states that many soon became suspicious of corporations, with their separated ownership and management, instead preferring the ‘partnership’ model based on mutual trust and loyalty. This distrust of corporations lead to the English Parliament issuing a ban on corporations in 1776, which lasted for around 50 years.

The rise of corporations was assisted by the development of railways, mining, and industrial machinery, all of which relied on massive investments of capital. The partnership slowly went out of fashion as many realised the corporation was a far more efficient method to raise the massive amounts of money required for projects such as these. Bakan discusses the concept of ‘limited liability’ introduced around 1850, the idea being that an investor should only be liable for the amount they had invested in the company, rather than being personally liable for the companies debts, this allowed many more (and for the first time, the working class) to purchase stock.

One of the major themes in the book is the gradual increase in corporate power. One main event in this history was the development of the corporate ‘person’. By the late nineteenth century, corporations had begun to inherit the same legal status as a flesh-and-blood human being, allowing a company to own materials, employ staff and pay taxes just like a regular person, with the added benefit of possessing the same legal protections which any other citizen may enjoy.

In 1934 President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled the ‘New Deal’, an economic plan which included a set of reforms to restrict the power of business. Whilst I knew a little about the New Deal before reading this book, I was completely unaware of the plot hatched by the business leaders of the time to attempt a Coup on Roosevelt, in an effort to remove some of these restrictions and impose a business-friendly fascist regime, the type of which were currently developing in Germany under Hitler, and in Italy under Mussolini.

The embracing of neoliberalism in the 1980′s by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan allowed both Britain and the United States to begin to unravel some of these restrictions on business, and with the advent of globalization and the formation of the WTO, companies were now free to look around the world for the best possible economic conditions, resulting in poorer wages for developing nations, and higher profits for the corporation’s shareholders. Bakan argues that at around this time government to some extent lost control over businesses, with the (corporately influenced) WTO also enforcing unethical policies which government has very little say over. Add to this a group of politicians more heavily reliant on corporate donations to get elected, and it becomes evident that government loses a fair amount of it’s regulatory power.

Through lobbying, political contributions, and sophisticated public relations campaigns, they and their leaders have turned the political system and much public opinion against regulation. The law’s ability to protect people and the environment from corporate harm has suffered as a result.

One of Bakan’s most interesting observations is concerned with the relatively new trend of corporate ‘social responsibility‘. This can take several forms, from a company sponsoring the local football team, maintaining the local neighbourhood, or donating money to charitable causes. Obviously these displays are frequently for PR purposes, or are used purely to persuade consumers that their products are ethical, and should be purchased above all others. Bakan states that if these tactics did not result in greater profits for the company in question, the actions would technically be illegal, under corporate laws which designate that maximizing profits for shareholders is the primary responsibility of management. This reminded me of an article I read in the Guardian a few years ago, which told the tale of the writers young child, who was busy reading the label on a bottle of water which stated that for each bottle purchased, the company would send 1 litre of fresh water to a developing nation. The child questioned, with a wisdom and clarity far beyond that which any adult could display: ‘Why doesn’t the company just send the water anyway, whether I buy it or not?’.

Corporate social responsibility holds out promises of help, reassures people, and sometimes works. We should not, however, expect very much from it. A corporation can do good only to help itself do well, a profound limit on just how much good it can do.

Bakan then raises the concept of ‘externalities’, costs which corporations attempt to avoid by shifting them elsewhere. To illustrate he tells the story of Patricia Anderson, whose family suffered horrific burns after a car shunted the rear of her own at a set of traffic lights, and her petrol tank ignited. Anderson sued General Motors, and was eventually awarded $107 million, with punitive damages of $4.8 billion. Why so high you might wonder? Well, the car in which Patricia Anderson had been driving was designed with it’s petrol tank just 11 inches from the rear bumper. This was in spite of the fact that GM’s own internal safety guidance suggested the tank should be at least 17 inches away, if not further. To change the positioning of the tank would have added an estimated cost of $8.50 onto each vehicle, so the company instead calculated how many fatalities this design flaw might cause, multiplied by the average payout to the families of each victim, and came out with a figure of just $2.40 per car, a massive saving. Hence the car was not redesigned, and the accidents were allowed to happen. Deeply shocking. Obviously this is an extreme example, but that doesn’t hide the fact that cost-benefit analyses such as these are now performed on almost everything we consume.

The corporation’s unique structure is largely to blame for the fact that illegalities are endemic in the corporate world. By design, the corporate form generally protects the human beings who own and run corporations from legal liability, leaving the corporation, a “person” with a psychopathic contempt for legal constraints, the main target of criminal prosecution.

Something which particularly caught my attention in the light of Education Secretary Michael Gove’s recent announcement of the creation of ‘Free Schools’ was Bakan’s observations on the privatization of education. This appears to be another area where corporate donation to political parties holds great sway in deciding how contracts are awarded, and where funding is secured. The book argues, as many have done again fairly recently, that these schools do not necessarily perform any better then their public counterparts, although Bakan states that this isn’t necessarily the largest threat they represent. In the early 2000′s, Edison schools – a private American education provider – saw it’s stock price drop from over $22, to just $1. Various cost cutting measures began, with Edison’s administration staff moving into the schools to save money on office space, and the company quickly sold off school textbooks, computers, lab supplies, and musical instruments.  An example which demonstrates that applying laizze-faire economic theory to education rarely works, a lesson which Mr Gove should certainly bear in mind over the next few years.

On a closely related topic, the commercial exploitation of children and the ‘Nag Factor’ are also areas placed under the spotlight. Targeted advertising, directly to children, is in my opinion highly unethical, but is yet again another area where government has relaxed the rules, and deregulated at the expense of children’s health and mental well-being. Movie tie-ins, sponsorship of local community organisations, and even freely supplied school curriculum kits (which use the Big Mac to illustrate the four food groups) are removing parents control over their kids in ways never before seen. It also severely diminishes parents ability to safeguard children from harmful corporate influences.

In the final chapter of the book, Bakan accepts that whilst the corporation isn’t going anywhere fast, there are some useful ways we can limit it’s power and influence over us.

No one would seriously suggest that individuals should regulate themselves, that laws against murder, assault, and theft are unnecessary because people are socially responsible. Yet oddly, we are asked to believe that corporate persons – institutional psychopaths who lack any sense of moral conviction and who have the power and motivation to cause harm and devastation in the world – should be left free to govern themselves.

He makes several suggestions as to how this shift could take place. Firstly, improving the regulatory system, by means of stronger government control and effective enforcement, enabled by well staffed regulatory departments, and fines which act as a genuine disincentive against breaking the rules, rather than simply an additional cost for corporations to factor into their business plan. Secondly, the strengthening of political democracy, with a move towards publicly financed elections and a reduction in corporate lobbying. Thirdly, the protection of assets too important to be moved into private hands, such as police, schools and fire-fighters. Finally, he suggests that nations should work together to shift the policies of organisations such as the WTO, IMF and the World Bank, away from market fundamentalism, deregulation and privatization. Where these measures fail within a particular nation, or are ineffective, Bakan raises the story of the people of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Subject to the selling off of their water system (an agreement which went as far as banning them from collecting rainwater on their own property) the citizens organized and protested. Bloody confrontations ensued, as the people of Cochabamba demanded that the company leave, which under substantial pressure from a concerned and volatile public, they promptly did.

I can highly recommend The Corporation to anybody with an interest in politics, economics or social justice, and I was quickly hooked after reading the first chapter. If you’re short on time, I would recommend the documentary version, which does an excellent job of condensing the majority of the book’s topics into just a 140 minute DVD.

Hopefully I’ve given you all some food for thought there, so if anyone reading this has any comments or questions, feel free to leave a message below!