State Subsidizes Low Pay Corporations

 A new report by the non­par­ti­san Gov­ern­ment Account­abil­i­ty Office (GAO), commissioned by Bernie Sanders, shows that corporations are soaking up profits—while paying workers so little they depend on government assistance to survive.

The report ana­lyzed data from 15 agen­cies admin­is­ter­ing Med­ic­aid and the Sup­ple­men­tal Nutri­tion Assis­tance Pro­gram (SNAP, or food stamps”) across 11 dif­fer­ent states. For all 15 agen­cies, Wal­mart was in the top four employ­ers of Med­ic­aid enrollees and SNAP ben­e­fi­cia­ries, while McDonald’s was in the top five for 13 of the 15 agencies.

Oth­er major retail­ers and fast-food com­pa­nies were found to be among the most com­mon employ­ers of work­ers receiv­ing Med­ic­aid and SNAP, includ­ing Dol­lar Tree, Dol­lar Gen­er­al, Tar­get, Ama­zon, Burg­er King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, Home Depot, Lowe’s, Wal­greens and CVS. Rideshare ser­vice Uber — which recent­ly spent mil­lions of dol­lars suc­cess­ful­ly defeat­ing a Cal­i­for­nia law that would have made its dri­vers eli­gi­ble for basic work­er pro­tec­tions and ben­e­fits — was also ranked among the top 15 employ­ers of work­ers on pub­lic assistance.

The new GAO report echoes the con­clu­sions of sim­i­lar stud­ies by the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia, Berke­ley Labor Cen­ter in 2013 and 2015, which found that U.S. tax­pay­ers are sub­si­diz­ing large cor­po­ra­tions to the tune of $153 bil­lion per year in the form of pub­lic assis­tance pro­grams to sup­port their low-wage employees.

At a time when huge cor­po­ra­tions like Wal­mart and McDonald’s are mak­ing bil­lions in prof­its and giv­ing their CEOs tens of mil­lions of dol­lars a year, they’re rely­ing on cor­po­rate wel­fare from the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment by pay­ing their work­ers star­va­tion wages,” Sanders said of the report. That is moral­ly obscene.” Sanders added,   It is time for the own­ers of Wal­mart, McDonald’s and oth­er large cor­po­ra­tions to get off of wel­fare and pay their work­ers a liv­ing wage.”

The fed­er­al min­i­mum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009. While a major­i­ty of states have raised their respec­tive min­i­mum wages above the fed­er­al floor in the past decade, 21 states have not. Thanks to union-dri­ven cam­paigns like the Fight for $15 and Unit­ed for Respect (for­mer­ly OUR Wal­mart), eight states and mul­ti­ple cities have enact­ed grad­ual increas­es to a $15-per-hour min­i­mum wage in recent years. And on Novem­ber 3, vot­ers in Flori­da over­whelm­ing­ly approved a mea­sure to raise their state’s hourly min­i­mum wage to $15 by 2026.

In Geor­gia — where vot­ers will soon deter­mine the short-term fate of the $15 fed­er­al min­i­mum wage — the offi­cial state min­i­mum wage is a mere $5.15 an hour, with employ­ers only required to pay $7.25 because of the fed­er­al leg­is­la­tion passed over a decade ago. Accord­ing to the new GAO report, over 143,000 work­ing adults in Geor­gia depend on SNAP ben­e­fits and over 208,000 rely on Medicaid. 

The ral­ly­ing cry of fast-food and retail work­ers in recent years has been “$15 and a union.” Because they are orga­nized and can bar­gain with their employ­ers, union work­ers on aver­age earn high­er wages and have greater ben­e­fits than their nonunion counterparts. 

 Food inse­cu­ri­ty has more than dou­bled from 8.5 per­cent of all U.S. house­holds before the pan­dem­ic to 23 per­cent, and at least 8 mil­lion more Amer­i­cans have fall­en into pover­ty since May. More than 12 mil­lion U.S. work­ers and their fam­i­ly mem­bers have lost their employ­er-spon­sored health insur­ance in the midst of the pan­dem­ic.

No one in this coun­try should live in pover­ty. No one should go hun­gry. No one should be unable to get the med­ical care they need,” Sanders said. 

Millions of U.S Workers for Walmart, McDonald’s and Other Corporate Giants Rely on Food Stamps and Medicaid – In These Times

San Francisco Taxing the Rich

 The “extreme, shocking inequality” led Matt Haney, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the city’s legislative body, to propose a new “overpaid executive tax” designed to help tackle the problem. “It is the 0.001% of society who are causing the problem, there has to be a reckoning or we will see more suffering and poverty and it is a concern to all of us – our health and quality of life. The pandemic has shown us how we are all connected, and when some people are unable to take care of themselves it can put us all at risk.”

San Francisco voters overwhelming backed a new law that will levy an extra 0.1% tax on companies that pay their chief executive more than 100-times the the median of their workforce. The surcharge increases by 0.1 percentage point for each factor of 100 that a CEO is paid above the median, up to a maximum of 0.6%. San Francisco’s new tax is estimated to bring in an extra $60m-$140m a year, revenue that will be spent on improving the housing and healthcare provision for the city’s poorest people. The tax, which comes into force in 2021, will be collected from all companies operating in the city, not just those headquartered there. The pay ratio will be calculated comparing CEO pay with the median of workers in the city, not worldwide.

Many of the biggest and best-known US companies would easily fall into the highest bracket. For example, Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and the world’s third richest person, was paid $595m (£449m) last year, almost 10,000 times the firm’s median salary of just under $60,000.

Tim Cook, the chief executive of Apple, was paid $134m in 2019, more than 2,300 times the firm’s median pay of $57,600.

At Google’s parent company, Alphabet, Sundar Pichai’s $86m was only 350 times the median of $246,804. Unlike Tesla and Apple, Alphabet does not operate high street stores, which brings down average pay.

The pay levels of US chief executives have increased by an average of 940% since 1978, compared with a 12% increase in workers’ pay. 

Haney said that while the city desperately needs more money, the tax is also designed to “encourage companies to pay the lowest paid more or cut their executives’ huge pay…San Francisco has some of the most extreme inequality anywhere in the world, and many of the best-known companies growing here have some of the largest gaps between executive pay and worker pay,” said Haney.

Haney represents District 6, which includes the Tenderloin, Mission Bay and South of Market. He added: “The contrasts are especially stark in my district where I represent some of the richest parts of San Francisco – and the country – and some of the poorest parts with huge numbers of homeless people without access to healthcare.”

“The heath system was already very strained, and the pandemic has exposed it even more,” Haney said. “It has shown how stark the inequality is, poor people could not afford to shelter and people of color and essential workers bore the burnt of the pandemic. At the same time the richest have gotten much richer [from the pandemic] it shows the fundamental flaw of our economic system. A small number of people continue to make massive profits at a time when almost everyone else was suffering more than ever.

“The only way to solve inequality in San Francisco, is to make those making making huge profits to share it,” he said.

Shocking inequality: why San Francisco voted for ‘overpaid executive tax’ | Executive pay and bonuses | The Guardian

Surely, it is time to go beyond the reformist concept of sharing profits and begin demanding the end of the profit system, itself.

Sacrificial Workers

report, released Thursday by Public Citizen, details how most of the top 15 U.S. retail companies have quietly taken away hazard pay from their frontline workers, even as the coronavirus has continued to spread across the country and is now surging in states including Wisconsin, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Minnesota. Companies like Dollar General and Walmart—which have made massive profits over recent months—have treated their employees like “sacrificial workers” by stripping hazard pay even as the pandemic soared. They’re not “essential.” They’re disposable

The 15 biggest retailers in the U.S. reported a combined $14.6 billion increase in profits during the 2020 fiscal year, compared with fiscal year 2019. The nine companies which have halted hazard pay and employee bonuses entirely reported $10.5 billion more in profits this year. Despite soaring profits thanks to employees who kept stores running, hazard pay ended for many workers almost as soon as it began. 

“They may say ‘we’re all in this together,’ but too many big retailers are prioritizing maximizing profits over paying their frontline workers,” said Rick Claypool, research director at Public Citizen and the author of the report. “While business booms and the pandemic rages, the rich are getting richer—and workers are getting sicker.” Claypool goes on to say, “If ‘we’re all in this together,’ as so many have said during the coronavirus pandemic, why are so many businesses holding out on workers?” wrote Claypool. “Why are they prioritizing making executives and shareholders richer over providing a living wage for the workers who risk their health and the health of their loved ones in order to carry out the business’ work? In reality, the pandemic is worsening the systemic inequities—especially economic, racial, and gender inequities—that have long plagued this country

Amazon: profit tripled, axed $2/hour bonus in May Kroger: sales up 30%, workers got $100 store credit Walmart: Walton wealth up $38B, workers got $300 bonuses Dollar General: $2.6B stock buybacks, workers got $173M

Workers at Dollar General received only one hazard payment, while Kroger ended its bonuses in May after two months. Albertsons, Amazon, and Dollar Tree provided their workers with only three months of hazard pay while Big Lots and Walmart ended their bonuses in July. 

According to the Public Citizen report, companies that have cut hazard pay have shifted their booming resources to stock buybacks. Six of the top 15 companies reported a combined $3.7 billion in buybacks in the last quarter, and seven companies said earlier this year they planned to devote a combined $17.8 billion on stock buybacks. In the previous quarter, Albertsons, BJ’s Wholesale Club, Dollar General, and Walmart spent nearly $3 billion combined on buybacks. 

Hailed as ‘Heroes’ During Pandemic, Retail Workers Stripped of Hazard Pay While Companies Rake in Massive Profits | Common Dreams News



Escaping Tax

 “A global tax system that loses over $427bn a year is not a broken system, it’s a system programmed to fail,” 

The UK and its “spider‘s web” of overseas territories are responsible for more than a third of global tax avoidance each year, a study has found. The research gives the clearest picture yet of the damage wrought by those who funnel profits into tax havens and stash wealth offshoreThe UK maintains its position at the top of the list of jurisdictions helping firms shift vast sums of money away from public  investment and services.

Abuse of the tax system by multinational firms and wealthy individuals deprived countries of $427bn (£321bn) for hospitals, nurses, schools and other public services last year, according to advocacy group the Tax Justice Network. Of that figure, more than $160bn was facilitated by the UK and its territories and dependencies. 

It calculated that Europe lost the equivalent of one-eighth of its health budget to tax dodging last year. While wealthy countries are responsible for 98 per cent of tax avoidance, less wealthy ones bear the brunt of the impact. Latin America and Africa lost the equivalent of a fifth and half of their respective health spending, TJN calculated. Lower-income countries lose the equivalent of 5.8 per cent of the total tax revenue they typically collect a year whereas higher income countries on average lose 2.5 per cent.

The Cayman Islands – a British Overseas Territory of just 65,000 people – helped multinational companies and individuals avoid paying $70bn, or one dollar in every six that countries are deprived of each year.  

The UK itself, which provides world-beating tax avoidance advice through City of London banks, trust lawyers and accountants is second on the list, responsible for $42bn of tax losses. Together, the UK and Cayman facilitate more than a quarter of the booming tax avoidance industry. The UK helped to create the world’s tax haven network, ministers have claimed that they have little control over territories like Cayman.  However, the UK has power to veto laws and appoint key government officials, and is also responsible for the island’s defence and international relations.

The Netherlands is the third most damaging country for the global tax system, responsible for $36bn of losses annually. Luxembourg and the US make up the top five, responsible for £28bn and  £24bn respectively. Jersey, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands make the top 20, alongside China, Singapore, Ireland and Hong Kong.

Globally, more than half of tax losses – $245bn – resulted from companies shifting $1.38 trillion of profits out of the countries where they were generated into jurisdictions where they pay little or no tax.

The rest was from individuals avoiding tax by holding $10 trillion of assets offshore. The amount held in secretive, low-tax countries is roughly equivalent to five years of the entire economic output of every person in the UK.

Rosa Pavanelli, general secretary at Public Services International, said: “The reason frontline health workers face missing PPE and brutal under-staffing is because our governments spent decades pursuing austerity and privatisation while enabling corporate tax abuse.  For many workers, seeing these same politicians now ‘clapping’ for them is an insult…”

UK responsible for more than a third of $427bn global tax avoidance each year, report finds | The Independent

An Economic Debate

 Paul Mattick Jnr is a Marxist economist who we admire as we did his father before him. However, even comrades can disagree when it comes to analysing capitalism.

In a recent article, ‘Magic Money’ that can be read at the magazine ‘The Brooklyn Rail’ Money Magic – The Brooklyn Rail where he criticises Keynsianism. In the article, Mattick  suggests that businesses cause inflation (a rise in the general price level) by raising prices:

Businesses defended their bottom lines by raising pricesPrices increased throughout the economy as different business sectors struggled to make others pay the costs of the debt: the dread stimulus-induced inflation.“

But businesses normally charge what the market will bear and how can the market bear an increase in prices when trade is bad in a recession? It can’t. So another explanation must be sought. The one we have offered is that inflation is caused by the government overissuing an inconvertible currency (what the Americans call “fiat money”); this causes the currency to depreciate reflected in a rise in the price level, Hence the result of Keynesian policies was inflation in a recession — “stagflation”

Mattick explains well enough why and how “quantitative easing” raises stock market prices. Nevertheless, his explanation as to why it has not caused general inflation is still based on the assumption that businesses have the ability to raise – or not raise — prices at will.

His argument is that, because businesses are making capital gains from the stock exchange boom QE generates, they don’t need to raise prices

“Basically, none of this costs business anything, while the rise in stock prices disproportionately benefits the small super-wealthy minority who disproportionately own stocks, so there is no motivation to raise prices—especially under the deflationary conditions of a global business slowdown—producing an inflation-free expansion”.

So, he is saying that businesses are choosing not to raise prices even though they could do. But why would they not do so if they could since that would enable them to make more profit, which after all is their primary “motivation”?

The fact is that businesses don’t have a choice in the matter. They sell at a price that the market can bear and in a recession the market will not bear an increase. Mattick in fact undermines his whole argument by adding “especially under the deflationary  conditions of a global business slowdown.” Precisely. In other words, they don’t raise prices even with QE because they can’t. It’s not that they choose not to since they are already making enough money from capital gains on the stock market, but because they can’t.

The reason why QE hasn’t led to general inflation is that the extra money is injected only into the financial system but not into the general economy. So it inflates only the price of shares not prices generally, as explained in this article

It is government policy to inflate the general price level by about 2 percent a year. This they do by increasing  the supply of “basic money” (M0) in the usual way of allowing banks to withdraw money from their accounts with the Bank of England in the form of bank notes.

 

Mattick responded to this criticism with the comment:

‘I  wish these critics would address the issue in the [Brooklyn] Rail. They forget, of course, the “oil crisis”, a successful attempt to increase prices by restricting supply, which forced a general price increase. But it is also generally recognized that increased taxation and interest rates also impelled businesses to raise prices.’

 

In response to Adam Buick’s reply published in the Brooklyn Rail, elaborating on those above remarks, Paul Mattick responded:

Adam Buick accepts the monetarist explanation of inflation as due to an excess of money relative to economic growth, the 20th-century version of what in the 18th century was called the quantity theory of money (roundly criticized by Karl Marx in his own theory of money). This conception is a natural correlate to the idea that, apart from distortions due to governmental monetary policy, prices are normally set by “what the market … will bear” as businesses compete for maximum profits.

The reality of business life is not as simple as this picture suggests. Prices are affected by a multitude of factors besides supply and demand, including subsidies, quasi-monopoly positions of producers, and international exchange rates, as well as government credit and money policies. To take some recent extreme examples: Amazon, founded in 1995, did not make a profit until 2001, devoting its efforts in the meantime to driving other book purveyors out of business by keeping its prices ultra-low. Uber has followed this model, regularly posting multibillion dollar quarterly losses. On the other hand, prices (and profits) in the healthcare sector have risen steadily thanks to a complex system of government subsidy and other forms of business protection. To return to the stagflation years, the increased price of oil engineered by Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1973—almost 10 years after a decline in corporate profits had become visible—was transmitted throughout the fossil fuel-based economy, despite the serious downturn often blamed on the “oil shock.” In 1974, while the recession was in full flood, according to the US Department of Commerce 60 percent of profits of American firms were “inventory profits,” measured by the difference between the prices paid for materials used and the (increasing) prices of finished products.

During the post-World War II period government economic policy became an increasingly important aspect of the capitalist economy, affecting the workings of the market mechanism (which had never really existed as a pure phenomenon). Worried about a resurgence of social unrest should unemployment and other forms of social misery increase too much, governments continued the expansionary monetary and fiscal policies evolved during the Depression and the war. In Europe, much government spending took the form of an enlarged welfare state, while the US put its money more into war and production for war, which combined an enlargement of production with keeping the world safe for democracy. Production for government use—although it merely redistributed already-produced profit to favored companies—maintained sufficient demand for business in general, experiencing declining profits and taxed to pay for government spending, to raise prices competitively in an attempt to boost bottom lines. Contrary to Adam Buick’s conception of inflation, all prices do not rise simultaneously, and in particular the price of labor power, wages, rises more slowly than commodity prices, improving business profitability.

At the present time, in contrast, already very low wage rates, historically low rates of business taxation, and a stagnant, low-growth economy have removed earlier “cost-push” reasons for price increases for many firms. Hence we have an expansion of the money supply, this time feeding financial speculation rather than industrial production, with a low level of general inflation.

Mattick’s first error, Buick explains, is about Marx and the Quantity Theory of Money. He did indeed “roundly  criticise” it where gold and/or a paper currency convertible on demand into a fixed amount of gold was the currency. He argued that it only applied when there was an inconvertible paper currency

Paul Mattick is right that the prices of commodities can rise for all sorts of reasons other than a depreciation of the currency but this does not alter the argument that over-issuing an inconvertible paper currency does cause a rise in the general price level. Obviously, contrary to what he supposed to be the argument, this does not happen immediately it one go; it spreads throughout the economy as sellers have occasion to increase their prices.

Here is what Marx wrote in chapter 3 section 2c of volume 1 of Capital, alluding “here only to inconvertible paper money issued by the State and having compulsory circulation”:

”The State puts in circulation bits of paper on which their various denominations, say £1, £5, &c., are printed. In so far as they actually take the place of gold to the same amount, their movement is subject to the laws that regulate the currency of money itself. A law peculiar to the circulation of paper money can spring up only from the proportion in which that paper money represents gold. Such a law exists; stated simply, it is as follows: the issue of paper money must not exceed in amount the gold (or silver as the case may be) which would actually circulate if not replaced by symbols. Now the quantity of gold which the circulation can absorb, constantly fluctuates about a given level. Still, the mass of the circulating medium in a given country never sinks below a certain minimum easily ascertained by actual experience. The fact that this minimum mass continually undergoes changes in its constituent parts, or that the pieces of gold of which it consists are being constantly replaced by fresh ones, causes of course no change either in its amount or in the continuity of its circulation. It can therefore be replaced by paper symbols. If, on the other hand, all the conduits of circulation were to-day filled with paper money to the full extent of their capacity for absorbing money, they might to-morrow be overflowing in consequence of a fluctuation in the circulation of commodities. There would no longer be any standard. If the paper money exceed its proper limit, which is the amount in gold coins of the like denomination that can actually be current, it would, apart from the danger of falling into general disrepute, represent only that quantity of gold, which, in accordance with the laws of the circulation of commodities, is required, and is alone capable of being represented by paper. If the quantity of paper money issued be double what it ought to be, then, as a matter of fact, £1 would be the money-name not of 1/4 of an ounce, but of 1/8 of an ounce of gold. The effect would be the same as if an alteration had taken place in the function of gold as a standard of prices. Those values that were previously expressed by the price of £1 would now be expressed by the price of £2.”

It appears Mattick hasn’t noted that passage that says that as soon as money becomes inconvertible the position is effectively reversed!

Also questioned is Mattick’s comment that

‘Contrary to Adam Buick’s conception of inflation, all prices do not rise simultaneously, and in particular the price of labor power, wages, rises more slowly than commodity prices, improving business profitability.’

Firstlya general rise in the price level doesn’t mean every price rises at the same time or indeed at the same rate. In slumps in particular, some prices can still fall against the general trend. But it’s the last part of that sentence that’s really odd – does he have any empirical evidence for it? Despite setbacks in recent times, we all know real wages have risen enormously since the inception of capitalism. But have commodity prices kept pace in real terms? There’s been a long term increase in average real commodity prices (presuming this is what he means) but it’s well behind long-term real wage growth in most advanced countries from what I’ve seen, though admittedly it’s difficult to get exact comparative data. Similarly business profitability (rate of profit?) hasn’t increased over the long-term, even if the accumulated stock of capital has increased hugely.

Also, his example of Amazon/Uber is an example of companies setting prices below the market rate (and being able to do so because of their disruptive business model and the scale of capital invested in them). Prices rising from government protection are rents, and even they are limited, ultimately, by the extent of effective demand in the economy.

The Tax Avoidance Racket

 Tax abuse by multinational companies and avoidance by rich individuals is costing countries $427bn a year in lost revenues, according to a study by the Tax Justice Network, a global advocacy group.

Its 2020 report says more than half the losses – $245bn – came from companies shifting $1.38tn of profits out of the countries where they were generated into tax havens, where corporate tax rates were low or nonexistent.

Private individuals paid $182bn less tax than they should have by storing a total of more than $10tn in financial assets offshore.

The five jurisdictions most responsible for countries’ tax losses were the Cayman Islands, a British overseas territory, responsible for 16.5% or more than $70bn of global tax losses; the UK (10%, $42bn); the Netherlands (8.5%, $36bn); Luxembourg (6.5%, $27bn) and the US (5.5%, $23bn).

Alex Cobham, the chief executive of the TJN, said: “A global tax system that loses over $427bn a year is not a broken system, it’s a system programmed to fail. Under pressure from corporate giants and tax-haven powers like the Netherlands and the UK’s network, our governments have programmed the global tax system to prioritise the desires of the wealthiest corporations and individuals over the needs of everybody else…”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/20/427bn-a-year-lost-to-tax-abuse-by-firms-and-rich-individuals-study-finds

Socialist Sonnet No. 8

Q. Conspiracy

 

There’s a cabal of Satanists planning

To conquer the world, a secretive sect

Of ballot blaggers. This deep state elect,

A liberal elite bent on unmanning

Upstanding and righteous average Joes

Who think themselves free to be the best pal

Of libertarian capital:

Though capital couldn’t care less, and it shows.

Profit trumps all, whatever it might be:

Rising unemployment and falling wages,

Global warming, famine, while war rages,

Closed borders, migrants left drowning at sea.

While conspiracy remains in season,

People conspire in betrayal of reason.

D. A.

Socialist Sonnet No. 8

Q. Conspiracy

 

There’s a cabal of Satanists planning

To conquer the world, a secretive sect

Of ballot blaggers. This deep state elect,

A liberal elite bent on unmanning

Upstanding and righteous average Joes

Who think themselves free to be the best pal

Of libertarian capital:

Though capital couldn’t care less, and it shows.

Profit trumps all, whatever it might be:

Rising unemployment and falling wages,

Global warming, famine, while war rages,

Closed borders, migrants left drowning at sea.

While conspiracy remains in season,

People conspire in betrayal of reason.

D. A.

Pieces of paper (short story)

 A Short Story from the Winter 1984 issue of the World Socialist



George did odd jobs for us every Saturday. He was a tall man . . .  sixty odd . . . ascetically lean of frame and face and his clothes showed, at least, secondary ownership in their shortness and looseness.


He always washed and valeted my car and, in the season, helped Mary in the garden. His manner always seemed slightly obsequious but there was something in the way he called me “sir”, or “Mister” Stevens, that I always found slightly disconcerting.


He had been with us—on Saturdays only, of course—since the time when his reward was a £1 note. Now it was a fiver. Mary said she was ashamed to give him a fiver for five or six hours work but there was no way we could afford more. Indeed, when I finally succumbed to Mary’s persistent pressure and bought our second car—a five-year old Renault 4 that looked its age—we agreed that she would use it sparingly and George’s fiver would pay for the petrol.


When he arrived the following Saturday morning, Mary was upstairs. The previous evening I had argued that, since it was her car that had created the need for us to dispose of George, she should tell him. There’d been a good deal of banter at first but, as always happens when we talk about things related to our domestic budget, Mary becomes defensive and angry. We both knew she would not carry out her threat to get rid of the car but the scene did become unpleasant and Mary slept with our baby daughter, Carol, that night.


As I said, next morning when George arrived Mary stayed upstairs. All morning I’d been thinking about George. He rarely mentioned anything about his personal life to me but, over the years, Mary had learnt a lot. She always made him a cup of tea and they would talk during the short period he would spend with her in the kitchen.


The accumulated tit-bits of George’s revelations added up to a fairly full biography of poverty and misery. His father had died in the First World War, six months before George was born, and his early years had be’en a grim apprenticeship in privation before “the real luxury” (his actual words, often quoted by Mary when she talked about him) of army life during the Second World War. He had not been wounded—not hit with a bullet or shrapnel or anything like that—but he had spent six days in a farm outhouse in France, pinned down by crossfire between a stubborn rearguard of panzers and a section of the advancing allied forces. The experience had been pretty grim— one could almost say, harrowing—and had undoubtedly left a mark on George.


One of his two comrades was killed the first day when the outhouse was swept with machine gun fire from one side or the other. His body had lain “laughing”—again, a direct quote—in the corner, frightening George and his companion more than the hellish cacophony outside. After two days, without food and with the water gone, George and his comrade decided to make their escape during a lull in the fighting.


His companion was in front as, bending low, they prepared to move through the door of the outhouse. When he was shot he fell back onto George. He lived for three more days, across in the corner opposite the laughing corpse, and, all the time, he maintained a delirious soliloquy in a sad, low voice.


The man was obviously one of those characters who had read a great deal; a sort of autodidact, full of unconnected knowledge. Unquestionably deranged, he punctuated his monologue every now and then with a question and then proceeded to answer his own question. These questions and answers were, apparently, quite fierce assaults on the values and standards that underpin our whole way-of-life. Not the sort of talk that a reasonable, civilised human being would normally indulge in but, in the thick of it, so to speak, dying and all that . . . I suppose, really, some men die less bravely than others. George was not too sure about the answers the dying man had given himself but he did, unfortunately, remember the questions and he did remember the other saying, a short time before he fell silent forever, “How can patriotism be a good thing? It’s a fucking killing disease!”


The experience had left a grim shadow on George’s mind. He was obviously a wee bit . . .  well, not quite . . . right. Not crazy, you understand; just a bit . . . peculiar.


He always talked about the less seemly things. I’m in insurance and one day I was foolish enough to comment on some aspect of my work. George said, “Humanity should be its own insurance”. I was slightly non-plussed. “What do you mean, George?” I asked, indulgently. He looked at me, his mind probably back in that hellhole in France, then he seemed to draw back, “Just seems to me, Mr Stevens, that people can make enough of the things they need to ensure them against every contingency. It’s the paper, sir, the pieces of paper, that cause all the problems.” I didn’t say anything in reply; George was . . .  innocent, so naive, and, as I have said, a little . . .  peculiar.


It was his peculiarities I was thinking about as I asked him to sit down at the table in the kitchen that Saturday morning. I had decided to give him the fiver first, and, then, the bad news—and I wouldn’t ask him to clean the car or attend the garden. Christ! Mary had left me in a bloody spot and now she was huffing in the bedroom. All because of a miserable, second-hand banger. What the hell—I couldn’t afford a fiver! Irrelevantly, I thought about being forty next birthday.


When George had sat down I gave him the tin of beer I normally held over for myself—for Sunday. He listened to my explanation; I was completely frank— though I maybe did overstate Mary’s need for the Renault. When I was finished, he was silent and I felt the need to go on. The proffered fiver lay on the table between us—stark, embarrassing. “Of course, George, you realise, with the mortgage, the rates, the payments on the car . . . well, really, everything, and the recession . . . Less demand for insurance now. Ironically, more need, but less demand. Business is in a hell of a way. Well, you know it yourself, there’s acres of unsold cars down there at the car plant—I’m told they are going to lay off another eight hundred next week—probably another load of lapsed policies! But what can they do? No point making more cars to rust in the fields beside the others. Jesus, George, if Mary could have done without the car—say car easy; it’s really an old banger—probably another headache! But, with Carol starting school and all . . . “


I looked at him; his eyes were half-closed and his face was set in such a curious way that the thought occurred to me that his . . . his mental state might not be quite as congenial as I had imagined. Desperately I searched for words that might assuage his anger and I found them in the most disarming honesty of self-analysis I had ever subjected myself to. It was my moment before death; a brutal revelation of my hidden anger. Anger at my life, my job, anger, even, at Mary—my God! even at the child! How easy it would be if it was only me—if I were alone! George’s voice stopped me and, fleetingly, I reflected that he was alone.


“Mister Stevens”. It was as though he had shouted “stop!”. Then, quietly, “Mr Stevens, it’s all mad, isn’t it, sir? All the pretence. Disguising ourselves even from ourselves. You know, Mr Stevens, there’s the world out there . . . a veritable fairyland of everything. Everything. And there’s more besides; oh, aye, far more for everybody that needs or wants more, if we were allowed to grow it or make it. And, y’know, few would really want more if everybody had enough. But it’s the pieces of paper, Mr Stevens . . . The pieces of paper. The bloody title deeds, the certificates, the banknotes—the whole, bloody, wasteful documentation of human servitude. It’s the pieces of paper that restricts and demeans us. If we could only use the technology, the machines, the computers and all the rest, use them in the same way as our primitive forefathers used their clubs and spears, we’d maybe be civilised. Jesus, sir, even the language of it all is . . . obscene . . . humiliating!”


I had never heard George swear before and I was, frankly, a little afraid. Hoping to terminate the interview, I stood up, lifted the five pound note from the table and forced it into George’s hands, clasped on the table. “It is a funny old world, George”, I said, with more lightness than I felt. Then, really feeling the moment, “I really do wish I could help you, George—you know . . . help in an ongoing way. Something sort of . . .  permanent. But what can I . . .”


He stood up, uncrumbling the note in his hands, then he bent across and, almost ceremoniously, left the fiver in the middle of the table. I was startled when he put a hand on my shoulder, but his eyes were soft and, strangely sad and, when he spoke, his voice was laden with . . .  with pity!


“No, Mr Stevens. I don’t want to hurt you, sir, nor would I want to. But you really need the money, Mr Stevens. Oh, you do, sir! Funny how a miserable little piece of printed paper can come between people . . .  cause hurt. And it can cause hurt, sir, hurt and hunger—even death. I wish I could help you, Mr Stevens; you and the millions of others. But it’s hard to see beyond the bits of paper.”


I bought two new car mats for Mary’s Renault with the fiver and it was the difference between love and war in our house that weekend! She didn’t sleep in Carol’s room on Saturday night and, for a long time, we both lay in bed talking about George. Mary listened while I told her all about the morning’s conversation. She was quite distressed; she really liked old George. Afterwards, when we had changed the subject, she said, quietly and irrelevantly, “Isn’t it funny the way the war affected some people”.


Richard Montague

Buying Power

 The 2020 US election campaigns smashed all records – with presidential and congressional candidates spending a total of almost $14bn – more than double the price tag for 2016.