He is clearly a rich man


David Davishas no objection to that. But “rich” and “poor” are not defined by this “leading economist”. Although what he says is strictly logical in a Newtonian sense, it is not clear to me that “the poor have been subsidising the rich” in what remains of the education market: quite the opposite in fact.

Charity-waving tarts ought to lead by example. Wonder how much he got paid for being on the Bank’s “Monetary Policy Committee”….can’t think what that would be for, in a Free Market, except for having good lunches.

He can start by offering to pay to send a couple of our younger bloggers to Oxford, where they’d like to go. I’m poor and so are they, by his standards.

About these ads

2 responses to “He is clearly a rich man

  1. David Blanchflower is lambasting the poor old middle class again.
    More of the Fidel Castro egalitarianism of demonising the moderately well off so the super rich can point fingers at them and moan about how the poor suffer under the yoke of the middle classes.
    The agenda of that programme, of which he is probably unaware(?), is to return the middle classes to serf status. If I read Dr Gabb correctly. It makes sense.

  2. Steven Northwood

    I don’t understand why the just don’t abolish subsidised higher education altogether? That way there would be a free market and people could purchase education as they saw fit. No matter how they fiddle with the policy they won’t get a fair result.