Copyright is an area of the law that is changing rapidly. The law of copyright is there to protect intellectual property - the products of skill, labour, time and creativity i.e their creative WORK. It is important to remember that copyright doesn't protect IDEAS but the actual work as a result of those ideas.
The definition of copyright is
"the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same."
Copyright is a MASSIVE part of journalism, it has allowed journalism as a business to grow, seeing as journalism exists as a business by selling information it attains. Journalists turn information into sellable facts by applying an angle or turning those facts into a story - that is protected by copyright. An originator can print, publish, perform, photograph and film material and authorise others to do so and it is only the originator who has that power over it, until they decide to sell it. Once they sell for a fee or wage that property no longer belongs to them but the person they have sold it to.
There are certain defences that a journalist has from breaching the laws of copyright. You will notice that in many newspapers reporters will take information from one paper and put it in their own. In order to do this they must fully credit the original source even if it is a rival paper. The rules of fair dealing allow this to a certain point.
Fair dealing allows a journalist to 'lift' certain facts from a story (for example, from another newspaper) in order to report 'current events' there are certain rules for this though. When looking at fair dealing it must be found that in order to be able to a lift another story from a newspaper without infringing upon copyright the story must be in the interest of the public, the work CANNOT be passed off as your own and the original source should be accredited and usage of the story must be fair. It cannot be greater that the originators.
Creative commons is another way to protect against copyright. It allows photographs etc to be used but a publisher must inform and credit the original source. Also, they must share profits if at any point they arise.
As with any other laws journalists may find themselves in trouble with from time to time. The most important thing to remember is to check... and then check again. Learn to recognise risk, and know what to do when it arises.
Monday, 13 December 2010
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Defamation and Libel - "What did you say about me!?"
Libel and Defamation are a problem that a journalist faces everyday, whether it be in print broadcast or even just reporting the courts.
Libel is all to do with damaging the reputation of members of society. Everyone has a reputation in the eyes of the people that know them. Celebrities and people who hold a public office even more so. In many cases these reputations (good) are worth a lot of money. If a journalist comes along and completely rips that reputation apart with no good reason to do so (public interest) then that person can sue for libel. It is important to recognise that it doesn't have to be proved that the reputation was ACTUALLY ruined, it only has to be proved that the reputation COULD HAVE been ruined for a libel case to be successful.
A journalist becomes libel through publication identification and defamation. This means that a defamatory comment must be published with a clear identification of who the comment has been made about. a comment that can be seen to be defamatory. A comment becomes defamatory when a reasonable man thinks the statement 'tends' to -
+ Lower someone in the estimation of right thinking members of the public.
+ Cause someone to be shunned or avoided.
+ Disparage someone in their trade, office or profession.
+ Expose someone to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
There are so many examples of cases for defamation and libel because in a journalist's life it is such a common occurance. A big case that highlights defamation or libel in journalism is:
Rahamin vs. Channel 4/ITN
In July 1998 channel 4 broadcast a major news report on the 7o’clock news that made allegations against locum consultant Joseph Rahamin that he maintained were completely untrue and defamatory as they damaged both his personal and professional reputations. The accusations made on the broadcast were that:
1. First that Mr. Rahamim was probably responsible for the death or serious injury of many of his patients including two who had died during their operations.
2. Secondly that Mr Rahamim was not competent to practice as a consultant thoracic surgeon and that he was seriously under qualified and inadequately trained.
3. Thirdly that he had fraudulently obtained his post as a Consultant by misrepresenting his qualifications and employment history.
4. Fourthly that Mr. Rahamim had dishonestly sent out letters to local GP’s in which he had falsely described himself as an FRCS
5. Fifthly that he had dishonestly concealed from his employers the fact that as a result of injuries sustained in a road accident he was unable to operate safely and
6. Lastly that by reason of these matters the GMC ought to have Mr. Rahamim struck off.
As a result of this broadcast Mr. Rahamim was subjected to a thorough investigation both by the Plymouth NHS Trust and a Government appointed independant enquiry which would automatically damage (or be seen to damage) his professional reputation as a medical consultant. But these confirmed that there was no reason to question his fitness to practice as a Consultant Thoracic Surgeon.
Shortly after the Channel 4 broadcast ITN published these same allegations on their news archive website under the heading "Bogus Doctor." Regrettably the allegations resurfaced in a programme entitled "Great Frauds" which was broadcast overseas where it was seen by relatives and friends of Mr. Rahamim. They were also distributed in this country in the form of a video and DVD, all of which greatly damaged his personal relationship and COULD have subjected him to hatred.
Mr. Rahamin won £1 million in damages as the allegations were wholly defamatory.
A more recent account of defamation that may make it clearer for young 'budding journalists' BBC news recently reported on solicitors in Cardiff taking defamatory cases arising because of the social networking site 'facebook.' It was stated in the report that anyone can be a publisher as once something is written down on facebook it is accessible by millions of people.
One example given in the story was of a woman who worked with children. Someone who she wasn't friends with wrote on her 'wall' making allegations of violence about her. This lead to an investigation of her by her employer which can be seen to damage her professional reputation or could expose her to hatred.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11610510
Something to remember when talking about the internet is that once something is published it can be passed on downloaded over and over again until it doesn't even matter if the sourse of the defamatory comment is removed. It is essentially there forever.
Even if it isn't an outright allegation that someone has made journalist also face subtle hazards that could land them face first in libel. Other things that journalist should beware of are innuendoes, inferences and defamation in pictures (wallpapering). Innuendoes in defamation can occur when a statement 'hints' at a defamatory suggestion that only people involved with the matter or knowledge would understand. Inferences in defamation are made when there is a secondary meaning behind the initial statement that is made.
Defamation in pictures is a big problem in television. If a picture of someone who can be clearly identified, for instance by strapline, is incorrectly paired with a voiceover to a story about a peadophile then it could be taken that that person is the accused peadophile - thus damaging their reputation. Once it is broadcasted it is technically a publication. This is commonly known as juxtaposition defamation, or puzzle defamation.
There ARE defences against libel cases. But you can only use these under certain circumstances.
Justification - The allegations made by the defendant against the claimant are true, and can be proved to be true in court. The standard of proof is that of civil law - on the balance of probabilities. It is solely the defendants responsibilty to prove that the allegations made are true, NOT the claimants.
Fair comment - It must be proved to be an honest opinion based on fact. It also must be on a matter that is regarded as 'public interest'
Privilege - Absolute privilege is only enjoyed by journalists when court reporting. Even then a report must be fast (as it happens) accurate (word for word of the judicial proceedings) and fair (a fair representation not prejudice) if any of these cannot be found then a journalist loses this privilege.
- Qualified privilege is a little more simple. It applies to ares of public interest. If knowledge published is deemed to be in the interest of the public to know then it is a journalists responsibilty to make it known as 'the eyes and ears' of the general public.
Reynolds defence
The defence was raised in the case Reynolds vs. Times Newspaper where it was found that a journalist could not be sued if it was found that they had a duty to publish an allegation even if it is wrong.
The reynolds defence will be judged against TEN criteria:
1.The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2.The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.
3.The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4.The steps taken to verify the information.
5.The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6.The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
7.Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.
8.Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.
9.The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10.The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.
A journalist should always be aware when publishing material of the risk that may be around. They should always check with the editor as they are the absolute. Only then when they have checked and double checked the facts can they have the rights to the defence.
Libel is all to do with damaging the reputation of members of society. Everyone has a reputation in the eyes of the people that know them. Celebrities and people who hold a public office even more so. In many cases these reputations (good) are worth a lot of money. If a journalist comes along and completely rips that reputation apart with no good reason to do so (public interest) then that person can sue for libel. It is important to recognise that it doesn't have to be proved that the reputation was ACTUALLY ruined, it only has to be proved that the reputation COULD HAVE been ruined for a libel case to be successful.
A journalist becomes libel through publication identification and defamation. This means that a defamatory comment must be published with a clear identification of who the comment has been made about. a comment that can be seen to be defamatory. A comment becomes defamatory when a reasonable man thinks the statement 'tends' to -
+ Lower someone in the estimation of right thinking members of the public.
+ Cause someone to be shunned or avoided.
+ Disparage someone in their trade, office or profession.
+ Expose someone to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
There are so many examples of cases for defamation and libel because in a journalist's life it is such a common occurance. A big case that highlights defamation or libel in journalism is:
Rahamin vs. Channel 4/ITN
In July 1998 channel 4 broadcast a major news report on the 7o’clock news that made allegations against locum consultant Joseph Rahamin that he maintained were completely untrue and defamatory as they damaged both his personal and professional reputations. The accusations made on the broadcast were that:
1. First that Mr. Rahamim was probably responsible for the death or serious injury of many of his patients including two who had died during their operations.
2. Secondly that Mr Rahamim was not competent to practice as a consultant thoracic surgeon and that he was seriously under qualified and inadequately trained.
3. Thirdly that he had fraudulently obtained his post as a Consultant by misrepresenting his qualifications and employment history.
4. Fourthly that Mr. Rahamim had dishonestly sent out letters to local GP’s in which he had falsely described himself as an FRCS
5. Fifthly that he had dishonestly concealed from his employers the fact that as a result of injuries sustained in a road accident he was unable to operate safely and
6. Lastly that by reason of these matters the GMC ought to have Mr. Rahamim struck off.
As a result of this broadcast Mr. Rahamim was subjected to a thorough investigation both by the Plymouth NHS Trust and a Government appointed independant enquiry which would automatically damage (or be seen to damage) his professional reputation as a medical consultant. But these confirmed that there was no reason to question his fitness to practice as a Consultant Thoracic Surgeon.
Shortly after the Channel 4 broadcast ITN published these same allegations on their news archive website under the heading "Bogus Doctor." Regrettably the allegations resurfaced in a programme entitled "Great Frauds" which was broadcast overseas where it was seen by relatives and friends of Mr. Rahamim. They were also distributed in this country in the form of a video and DVD, all of which greatly damaged his personal relationship and COULD have subjected him to hatred.
Mr. Rahamin won £1 million in damages as the allegations were wholly defamatory.
A more recent account of defamation that may make it clearer for young 'budding journalists' BBC news recently reported on solicitors in Cardiff taking defamatory cases arising because of the social networking site 'facebook.' It was stated in the report that anyone can be a publisher as once something is written down on facebook it is accessible by millions of people.
One example given in the story was of a woman who worked with children. Someone who she wasn't friends with wrote on her 'wall' making allegations of violence about her. This lead to an investigation of her by her employer which can be seen to damage her professional reputation or could expose her to hatred.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11610510
Something to remember when talking about the internet is that once something is published it can be passed on downloaded over and over again until it doesn't even matter if the sourse of the defamatory comment is removed. It is essentially there forever.
Even if it isn't an outright allegation that someone has made journalist also face subtle hazards that could land them face first in libel. Other things that journalist should beware of are innuendoes, inferences and defamation in pictures (wallpapering). Innuendoes in defamation can occur when a statement 'hints' at a defamatory suggestion that only people involved with the matter or knowledge would understand. Inferences in defamation are made when there is a secondary meaning behind the initial statement that is made.
Defamation in pictures is a big problem in television. If a picture of someone who can be clearly identified, for instance by strapline, is incorrectly paired with a voiceover to a story about a peadophile then it could be taken that that person is the accused peadophile - thus damaging their reputation. Once it is broadcasted it is technically a publication. This is commonly known as juxtaposition defamation, or puzzle defamation.
There ARE defences against libel cases. But you can only use these under certain circumstances.
Justification - The allegations made by the defendant against the claimant are true, and can be proved to be true in court. The standard of proof is that of civil law - on the balance of probabilities. It is solely the defendants responsibilty to prove that the allegations made are true, NOT the claimants.
Fair comment - It must be proved to be an honest opinion based on fact. It also must be on a matter that is regarded as 'public interest'
Privilege - Absolute privilege is only enjoyed by journalists when court reporting. Even then a report must be fast (as it happens) accurate (word for word of the judicial proceedings) and fair (a fair representation not prejudice) if any of these cannot be found then a journalist loses this privilege.
- Qualified privilege is a little more simple. It applies to ares of public interest. If knowledge published is deemed to be in the interest of the public to know then it is a journalists responsibilty to make it known as 'the eyes and ears' of the general public.
Reynolds defence
The defence was raised in the case Reynolds vs. Times Newspaper where it was found that a journalist could not be sued if it was found that they had a duty to publish an allegation even if it is wrong.
The reynolds defence will be judged against TEN criteria:
1.The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2.The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.
3.The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4.The steps taken to verify the information.
5.The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6.The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
7.Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.
8.Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.
9.The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10.The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.
A journalist should always be aware when publishing material of the risk that may be around. They should always check with the editor as they are the absolute. Only then when they have checked and double checked the facts can they have the rights to the defence.
Sunday, 28 November 2010
What journalists should know about law - And reporting on it
UK law is such a broad subject broken down into hundreds and hundreds of different sections (probably more). One of the most important things you should know the difference between? Criminal and Civil law.
Criminal law is the body of law pertaining to crimes against the the state or sovereign this is shown when criminal cases are listed as (for example) "R vs. Thomas." The R in the listing refers to Rex or Regina meaning King or Queen. These offences are usually harmful to the entire society.
Civil law is the opposite. It deals with disputes between individuals or organisations usually about financial matters or other entitlements. Civil cases will usually deal with acts or omissions that lead to a certain group or party being able to sue for a settlement but criminal cases will deal soley with guilty acts.
Although there are clear differences between the two in practice they can overlap. For instance in civil law an omission that entitles a party to a claim can also be an offence so it is important that journalists know the differences between the two to avoid prejudice or contempt. For instance cases involving breaches of copyright fall under civil law but they can be dealt with in criminal courts if thought to be in breach of criminal laws.
Basic differences between the two can be found within the terminology. For instance, in criminal law a journalist should refer to the individual who is on trial as the defendant. Whereas the individual or organisation involved with a civil law case would be a claimant. Small slip ups like this could make a render a journalist as being 'libel'.
Within these divisions of law there are different types of offences. The three main categories of offences are:
+ Indictable only offences - The most serious of the offences. Punishable by the most severe sentences like long prison terms. Offences that may fall under this category could be murder or rape. They will usually be tried at a crown court by a judge and jury.
+ Either way offences - Its all in the name really, not the most serious but in some cases can be extremely distressing and harmful. It all depends on the facts of the case as to whether it is tried at a crown court or a magistrates. The defendant does have a right to request a jury in which case it would go to trial at a crown court. Offences that could be either way offences are robbery, assault, sexual assault etc.
+ Summary offences - These are considered the most minor offences. Tried at a magistrates courts where the defendant has no right to a jury but benefits from the whole process being dealt with quicker. Offences that fall into this category are usually small offences such as common assault, drunkenness etc.
The two different courts mentioned here have significant differences. Obviously I have established in explaining the offences that the Crown court is responsible for trying more serious offences. But it also serves many other purposes, the crown court allows the defendant to a right of a jury as it is essential (with the consequence of harsher sentencing) that it must be proved beyone all reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed that crime. However it is also responsible for hearing appeals and it can simply deal with cases sent for sentencing from magistrates courts.
It is important to remember that all court cases are heard first at the magistrates courts for a summary hearing, they can then be sent on the the crown courts depending on the seriousness of the crime. I will cover the courts in more detail when taling about reporting of the courts in a later blog.
As I mentioned earlier journalists enjoy the same rights as any other civillian. In the UK that means freedom of expression and the principle that a journalist can report anything that is believed to be in the interest of the public. So these can be used in favour of the journalist. Another principle is that justice must be seen to be done. This entitles a journalist to report the courts in certain cases as the 'eyes and ears' of the general public.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Media Law - A cheeky introduction to the freedoms we enjoy and why we are so closely entwined with the law.
Us journalists are sometimes hated, sometimes judged, sometimes we're just regarded as right nosey old parkers. Its not that we're nosey, we just have a responsibility to inform, expose wrongdoing and let you 'the majority' know what is going on in YOUR democratic society. But we are restricted by laws just like everyone else and this little note is to let you good people (but also to help me in my upcoming exam) know what's what in our little corner of the law. Media law.
Even though critisised for what they do and bound by the same laws as an ordinary citizen, a journalist holds an important role in democratic society. Their importance was emphasised in the ruling that a press conference was in fact a public meeting. A ruling in which a statement was made by Lord Bingham pretty much saying that as a democracy the majority of society cannot directly participate in decisions that are made. They can only have their say indirectly in the form of voting, pressure groups, express their opinions etc. They can only do this if they have been informed about these decisions and actions first. How do they do this? Well in modern society you can know anything thats going on in Government simply by reading the paper, watching the news or at a click of a mouse (the internet). It was also said that if modern society was to work properly that the media, including the press, need to be 'free, active. professional and enquiring' if they are to be 'the eyes and ears' of the public.
The biggest freedom that journalists and every other resident of the UK can enjoy is the freedom of expression. This includes the right to freely communicate information and ideas. However, even this can be restricted by the law. Laws such as 'Contempt of Court act 1981" can prevent or prolong a report on a court case. Staturary restrictions on this freedom have progressed and there are many that can prove difficult for journalists to get around. But without a written constitution in the UK the freedom of expression has depended on two things - a jury trial and the rule against prior restraint.
A jury trial refers to several incidents in the past being brought to trial in front of 12 independently minded jurors where journalist's have been aquitted of flagrant disregards of the law. It has been argued that the freedom of expressions is merely the right to say or write anything that 12 ordinary people deem SHOULD be said. Whether factually in breach of the laws or not.
The most important factor that a journalist should be concerned about when looking at law... Always learn to recognise risk and then be able to seek advice before publishing!
Even though critisised for what they do and bound by the same laws as an ordinary citizen, a journalist holds an important role in democratic society. Their importance was emphasised in the ruling that a press conference was in fact a public meeting. A ruling in which a statement was made by Lord Bingham pretty much saying that as a democracy the majority of society cannot directly participate in decisions that are made. They can only have their say indirectly in the form of voting, pressure groups, express their opinions etc. They can only do this if they have been informed about these decisions and actions first. How do they do this? Well in modern society you can know anything thats going on in Government simply by reading the paper, watching the news or at a click of a mouse (the internet). It was also said that if modern society was to work properly that the media, including the press, need to be 'free, active. professional and enquiring' if they are to be 'the eyes and ears' of the public.
The biggest freedom that journalists and every other resident of the UK can enjoy is the freedom of expression. This includes the right to freely communicate information and ideas. However, even this can be restricted by the law. Laws such as 'Contempt of Court act 1981" can prevent or prolong a report on a court case. Staturary restrictions on this freedom have progressed and there are many that can prove difficult for journalists to get around. But without a written constitution in the UK the freedom of expression has depended on two things - a jury trial and the rule against prior restraint.
A jury trial refers to several incidents in the past being brought to trial in front of 12 independently minded jurors where journalist's have been aquitted of flagrant disregards of the law. It has been argued that the freedom of expressions is merely the right to say or write anything that 12 ordinary people deem SHOULD be said. Whether factually in breach of the laws or not.
The most important factor that a journalist should be concerned about when looking at law... Always learn to recognise risk and then be able to seek advice before publishing!
Friday, 28 May 2010
Thursday, 27 May 2010
The Outdsider... Meursault
Meursault in the novel 'The Outsider' is an existentialist hero. He displays all of the characteristics of the existentialists such as a complete uncaring for society and its moral values or even his own life.
In the story Meursault kills a black Algerian man in a French economy simply because he is bored. In this time, the court and jury are completely racist so they are uncaring about the facts of the murder and are in fact quite prepared to let Meursault off. BUT he has to go through the normal social/moral conventions of being tried and then apologising (recognising) for his crime and saying that he didn't mean it. He is even told that he should use being upset at the recent death of his mother as an excuse.
He clearly refuses.
He doesn't care about the death of his mother, something that upsets the jury greatly. He doesm't care about what he did and he certainly isn't sorry. He believes that the universe does not care about life and death or his life or anyones so it doesn't really matter.
Needless to point out he is viewed as evil in our western society and convicted of his crime and is later sentenced to execution!
Mersault although unconventional is definately a prime example of existentialism. Existentialist (like I have said in a previous blog) believe in existence preceding essesnce. Meaning that, we re born just as we are, no moral constraints. No laws, nothing. So why should we live any other way. Existentialists live from moment to moment, where moral vaues always change depending on the sitution. Meursault lived moment to moment, and this particular moment he was so bored he was driven to kill someone.
A prime existentialist.
In the story Meursault kills a black Algerian man in a French economy simply because he is bored. In this time, the court and jury are completely racist so they are uncaring about the facts of the murder and are in fact quite prepared to let Meursault off. BUT he has to go through the normal social/moral conventions of being tried and then apologising (recognising) for his crime and saying that he didn't mean it. He is even told that he should use being upset at the recent death of his mother as an excuse.
He clearly refuses.
He doesn't care about the death of his mother, something that upsets the jury greatly. He doesm't care about what he did and he certainly isn't sorry. He believes that the universe does not care about life and death or his life or anyones so it doesn't really matter.
Needless to point out he is viewed as evil in our western society and convicted of his crime and is later sentenced to execution!
Mersault although unconventional is definately a prime example of existentialism. Existentialist (like I have said in a previous blog) believe in existence preceding essesnce. Meaning that, we re born just as we are, no moral constraints. No laws, nothing. So why should we live any other way. Existentialists live from moment to moment, where moral vaues always change depending on the sitution. Meursault lived moment to moment, and this particular moment he was so bored he was driven to kill someone.
A prime existentialist.
Keynes - Digging and filling holes - Pointless or Perfect?
John Maynard Keynes was an economist who completely changed the face of the economy and indeed the capitalist system. But whether for better or worse is still debated in todays modern society. He completely rejected current economical theories like the free market.
His main theories are on money, what it is and what it does. He completely overturned any conventional views of money that it was a commodity and that it had a price based on supply and demand.
Therefore in conventional terms, the price of money would be interest rates. So if there was a high demand for money but a lack of it then the interest rate would rise, whereas if you flooded the market with money then the interest rate would fall drmatically. This was deemed by classical economist as the key to economic growth.
Keynes went against all the conventional views and believed that money was merely a SECONDARY factor in economy, and in fact it was the real economy, the REAL resources of the economy, precious metals or materials etc. He believed that in order to ensure economical growth you had to mirror the real economy, ensure that there was economical production going on this would create more jobs, for instance digging holes just to fill them again. His idea was to create jobs in order to put money in everyone's pocket so that they will go out and spend that money ensuring economical growth. However, there are negative points. In order to pay everyone the Government had to print MORE money, devaluing currency just so they could keep people employed in pointless jobs and undermining social stability.
So for Keynes, money is not an active factor in the economy, it doesn't make a difference to the rate of economical growth. The only thing you have to do with money is make sure there is enough of it going round in order to keep economical activity going. Completely opposite to classical economists who believe that money IS the key factor of economical growth. It is the only activity in the economy.
This can be mirrored in todays soceity. You can see with Labour, they took a more Keynesian view by creating government benifits and giving money to those who needed it. These people can then take these benefits and spend them how they like and investing money in infrastructure to create more jobs. But the Conservatives, believe that making cuts is the only way to save us from a recession. They believe cutting back on benefits will improve the value of the economy because there is a higher demand for money pushing up interest rates.
His main theories are on money, what it is and what it does. He completely overturned any conventional views of money that it was a commodity and that it had a price based on supply and demand.
Therefore in conventional terms, the price of money would be interest rates. So if there was a high demand for money but a lack of it then the interest rate would rise, whereas if you flooded the market with money then the interest rate would fall drmatically. This was deemed by classical economist as the key to economic growth.
Keynes went against all the conventional views and believed that money was merely a SECONDARY factor in economy, and in fact it was the real economy, the REAL resources of the economy, precious metals or materials etc. He believed that in order to ensure economical growth you had to mirror the real economy, ensure that there was economical production going on this would create more jobs, for instance digging holes just to fill them again. His idea was to create jobs in order to put money in everyone's pocket so that they will go out and spend that money ensuring economical growth. However, there are negative points. In order to pay everyone the Government had to print MORE money, devaluing currency just so they could keep people employed in pointless jobs and undermining social stability.
So for Keynes, money is not an active factor in the economy, it doesn't make a difference to the rate of economical growth. The only thing you have to do with money is make sure there is enough of it going round in order to keep economical activity going. Completely opposite to classical economists who believe that money IS the key factor of economical growth. It is the only activity in the economy.
This can be mirrored in todays soceity. You can see with Labour, they took a more Keynesian view by creating government benifits and giving money to those who needed it. These people can then take these benefits and spend them how they like and investing money in infrastructure to create more jobs. But the Conservatives, believe that making cuts is the only way to save us from a recession. They believe cutting back on benefits will improve the value of the economy because there is a higher demand for money pushing up interest rates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
