You could start here if you’re looking for an example of a Courageous politician.
Here’s a man of belief who knows what he has to do as a result.
No wonder Michael D Higgins is now President of Ireland.
He makes me proud of my Irish nationality.
Hat tip: Carol Wilcox
A comment has been made on my extract from the Introduction to the Courageous State that says:
Can I comment on two quotes:
Quote number 1:
“A Courageous State is populated by politicians who believe in government. They believe in the power of the office they hold. They believe that office exists for the sake of the public good. They know what that public good is.”
Quote no. 2, six paragraphs later:
“A Courageous politician knows that there is a great deal that he or she does not know, and knows that despite that they will have to act.”
Conceivably that might mean they don’t actually know what the public good is, but they will act for the sake of it anyway. Or is the idea that politicians MUST know what the public good is, even if they know nothing at all about anything else?
I can’t help feeling that logical inconsistencies like this should have been ironed out in the proof-reading process.
I am also a little concerned by the quasi-religious language. Beliefs abound, but on what are they based? Not much, it seems, except your definitions. What exactly qualifies you to define what politicians should believe?
I admit I find such a comment hard to respond to, because it is based precisely on the logic that The Courageous State sets out to challenge.
Neoliberal economics assumes a) we’re rational b) consistent c) all knowing of the future (despite Tom Worstall’s denials that this is so – and I explain why in the book) and are therefore, in effect d) automatons. The whole basis on which neoliberalism is constructed cannot work without these quite absurd ideas – as Steve Keen and others have shown. This commentator’s observation is based upon that neoliberal thinking that presumes us automatons without, for example, belief systems (even though, of course, belief in neoliberalism is itself a belief - and a wholly irrational one at that since there is no evidence to support it). That is why I find it very hard to respond to it, but let me try.
Firstly, the fact that a person knows what they think the public good is and persuades sufficient in a population that they share that view so that they are elected to office does not then mean they become omniscient. It means they know what they think. That’s all. And I believe that possible. If I did not I could not have written a book about what I think. That’s what the first quote is saying. They have a belief and want to deliver policy through holding political office in furtherance of that belief. Respectfully, I’d call that an observation of reality. More than that, knowing this and behaving in this way is the very least I expect of politicians – even though it is abundantly obvious that Cameron and Osborne (and others) fail the test.
And, secondly, I contend there is nothing whatsoever inconsistent with that politician knowing what they seek to do and the fact that they also know that the decisions they will have to make to implement policy to achieve that goal will be based on incomplete and inaccurate information meaning that at the end of the day the politician will have to use their judgement. Anyone but a fool, a neoliberal economist, and bank regulators before Adair Turner saw the light, appreciates the fact that we do not know the future and that the past is a very incomplete guide as to what it might be. In other words, what I have said in the second quote about decision making is actually a truism for all but these three groups. People do act despite simply not knowing what might happen. This is the state of uncertainty that neoliberals deny exists and which Keynes embraced.
So is there an inconsistency that should have been edited out? No: far from it! It is the belief of the politcian that informs the decision when there is no clear knowledge on which it is to be based. That is the exercise of judgement that I want elected politicians to undertake in fulfilment of their mandate. It is, indeed, for that judgement that we elect them. What, I wonder, is so baffling about that?
Well, I suggest that to most people there will be nothing baffling at all, but, as this commentator shows, for those schooled in neoliberalism that whole exercise of normal human thinking and decision making has been utterly undermined by the false philosophy they follow which has, as I have argued in the book, left us with politcians who think it is their job to stand back and do nothing – as Cameon, Osborne, Clegg and Alexander prove daily.
There was, therefore no inconsistency to rule out. I very definitely meant what I said.
More than that, I believe in belief. I am also little short of amazed that anyone can question my right to believe in belief, not least because not believing in belief requires a person to make a statement of belief, which makes the statement that the person does not believe in belief tautologically wrong as a result (like all logical positivist, and much neoliberal economic thinking).
What qualifies me therefore to make my statement of belief? The fact that I am human does! That’s it. I believe in humanity in all its glorious and messy diversity, and its inconsistencies, irrationalities and simple lack of knowledge that go to make us the most amazing people whose potential to achieve is the focus of the book, which embraces all that messiness and more. No wonder neoliberals will hate it. And no wonder it offers what I think (there I go one, making a statement of belief) a better explanation of our economy than neoliberalism does.
I’ll go further than that – for anyone who thinks we’re human and not automatons this book offers an explanation of economics almost unknown in mainstream literature, which was written for automatons, for which we’re now all paying the price.
I thought a small note of thanks due to all those who suggested I should not be selling the book through Amazon.
You got the Courageous State some useful publicity in the Telegraph.
I appreciate that.
But where the heck did they find the picture? It was taken at the G20 in London in 2009.
Manoeuvring over Rubik is in full swing. The European Commission is pressuring Germany and the United Kingdom to change the bilateral fiscal agreements they have worked out with Switzerland. If they refuse to do so, it will open infringement proceedings against Berlin and London by the end of the year. The texts have already been drafted.
The UK – Swiss deal to which this refers was, of course, Dave Hartnett’s work, and gives up UK tax sovereignty to the Swiss in significant areas for good. As the report continues:
The Rubik agreements make provision for the introduction in Switzerland of a withholding tax in full discharge of all tax obligations on the assets placed by German and British residents in this country and on the income they continue to collect on these assets in the future in a variety of forms (interest, dividends, capital gains, etc).
The Commission’s Legal Service considers that Berlin and London have overstepped their competences by signing these agreements, which protect the anonymity of fraudsters and whose scope partly interferes with EU rules on the taxation of savings income – and the agreement between Berne and the EU in this area. There are also certain “technical problems” inherent to the Rubik system. The rate of withholding on income from these assets paid to Germans, for example, is set at 26.375%, compared with 35% under the savings taxation agreement. The tax will also constitute full discharge of tax liability. Germany and Britain have also agreed to give Swiss financial service providers easier access to their market.
The Commission’s legal experts therefore recommend the opening of proceedings against Berlin and London before the EU Court of Justice for failure to fulfil obligations.
Negotiations are, of course, going on, but that this outcome was likely was predictable from the moment these hideous and rather sordid deals that trade a little cash for exonerating criminal activity in the past without penalty whilst permitting it in the future were pout on the table.
So why did Hartnett do the deal? Is he really on the side of tax evaders? It looks like it. And now we know he’s even willing to break EU law to help them. Amazing.
This was in the FT yesterday:
Public support for free markets is based on two broad arguments. The first is that they deliver more efficient outcomes than the alternatives. The second is that over time they create increased prosperity for society at large. Both these assumptions have taken a severe jolt in the past few years.
We now know that the efficient market theory is for the birds, and that market failures can have devastating consequences for wide sectors of the public. We also know that the fruits of economic success have become increasingly unevenly distributed. In the US, all the growth – and more – in recent years has flowed to those at the very top. The upper one per cent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year, double the proportion 25 years ago. Those in the middle have seen their real incomes fall over the same period, precipitously so in the case of those with only high school qualifications.
Rising income inequality. Very slow economic growth. High unemployment. It’s no wonder that even a number of politicians on the right have started to express a degree of sympathy for those who have been demonstrating around the world in recent weeks.
Extraordinarily the author was Richard Lambert, former FT editor and former Director of the CBI.
As he continued:
The fact that the protesters have no clear agenda is irrelevant. They represent concerns that many people can relate to, and they are unlikely to go away.
So it may be that capitalism is approaching some kind of tipping point, away from the winner takes all culture of the past three decades.
I agree, of course. Who couldn’t?
I do not agree with all his prescriptions. He said:
If left unchecked, public disquiet will sooner or later bring a political response, maybe in the form of much more aggressive regulations and progressive tax systems. These could be at least as damaging as the free market fundamentalism that they would seek to replace.
Respectfully, that’s bizarre. We cannot constrain feral finance without more regulation and we cannot redistribute wealth without progressive tax. Those are facts. But let’s let Lambert have another word:
Much better for business itself to recognise that it has a real economic interest in the well-being of the societies in which it operates; that success or failure is not just determined by earnings per share or profits per partner; and that a successful market economy has to be built on a degree of trust and mutual respect. Capitalism has adapted to changing political and social pressures in the past, and now is time for it to do so again.
Now with that, again, I concur. I am not opposed to markets: far from it. They form part of The Courageous State, of course, but they only form a part, and have to be properly regulated. In addition, they have to be committed to the greater aims of the society of which they are a part, as Lambert agrees.
But the really important point is this: Lambert agrees the capitalism we have has failed, and the theory supporting it is ridiculous, arguments with which I totally concur. He somehow thinks though that it can be reformed without new theory and new structures, just on the basis that people will be nice from henceforth. Respectfully, I don’t agree. That is why I offer new theory in my book, and more than 70 odd pages on reform. That’s what we need. And any sensible person will now agree. The old capitalism is left as a myth for right wing bloggers. For the rest of us it’s time to move on.
“Slashing spending now could push the economy back into recession and inflict further structural damage on the UK,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor.
Commenting on George Osborne’s Mais Lecture, Vince Cable said:
“Osborne’s latest economic commentary shows just how out his depth he is when it comes to the important economic issues.
“Slashing spending now could push the economy back into recession and inflict further structural damage on the UK that will make it harder to sustain our credit rating.
“He is at odds with his leader on when cuts should come and fails to appreciate that what the markets are looking for is a credible plan to reduce the deficit, not a willingness to slash regardless of economic conditions.
“In the current climate it is essential that decisions about the speed and timing of tackling the deficit are based on the state of the economy, not political dogma.”
——-
That’s what was reported on the Lib Dems web site on 24 February 2010.
I’d contend not much has changed since.
Except Vince no longer has the courage to tell the truth.
Richard Allen, who has tirelessly campaigned against VAT abuse from the Channel Islands, and who has won his campaign to end this abuse, has signed off his blog dedicated to this issue since this is a campaign that can safely be said to have concluded.
Richard never imagined he’d be a tax campaigner. Indeed, in many ways he wasn’t. He wanted a level playing field for business freee from the distortions that tax abuse can create.
I salute his work. He’s thanked me on his blog – but this was really his campaign and without his work it would not have been won. He’s a real hero. And so I share the video he put up to signal the end of his work, and look forward to the day when we can say the same for tax havens as a whole:
Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso unveiled his work programme for next year at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday (15 November), calling it a “blueprint for stability and growth.”
Out of the list of 129 separate projects for new EU laws and assorted non-binding strategy papers and recommendations, he highlighted the publication of a commission Annual Growth Strategy; measures to put an end to tax havens and a “quick reaction mechanism” against VAT fraud; as well as laws to end fiddles in the disbursement of EU funds.
The reported continued:
According to commission papers, the tax-haven document, due in autumn 2012, will not be legally binding. But it will aim to “develop a reinforced strategy to protect the EU against the challenges of unco-operative jurisdictions outside the EU.”
Also welcome was the report that:
EU countries will next year be asked to create a pan-EU “framework” for freezing the funds of people involved in terrorist activity and build a joint electronic register to screen financial transactions for terrorist groups on the model of the US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme.
The EU haw an impressive record in tackling tax haven abuse: in my opinion it has been the most effective agency in the world in doing so. Its European Union Savings Tax Directive is flawed, but is making progress, and even as it stands is a beacon for the importance of automatic information exchange whilst its EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation has been enormously helpful in tackling tax abuse both on and offshore and is pushing the Crown Dependencies steadily out of business.
The new development looks like an update on the Code of Conduct on Business Taxation. That is also not law, but it has been extraordinarily effective. As such I warmly welcomne this move.
In addition, the moves on terrorist financing simply won’t work without bettr company registries and registries of trusts. Might they be on the way
The FT’s economics editor, Chris Giles, has written this morning that:
Voices on the left and right are urging [Osborne] to adopt a “Plan B”. Some 30 business titans are insisting the solution is that they pay less tax.Academics by the bucket-load demand fewer spending cuts. Quite why they believe Britain’s current huge level of public borrowing condemns the country to penury, while just a little bit more borrowing brings nirvana puzzles me.
I note he never addressed the right, saying instead:
The chancellor is right to reject the arguments of the Plan B brigade because the risk that investors would lose confidence in the deficit reduction plan far outweighs the likely small economic gains.
Oh dear: there’s a believer in the confidence fairy at large, which is unsurprising given that Giles is yet another of the ex Institute for Fiscal Studies, BBC cohort who have done so much the spread neoliberal dogma through the media.
No doubt Giles was educated in the era when Keynes fell off the economics curriculum. No doubt he believes as a result that economics always achieves equilibrium and the unemployed are only so because they don’t want to work, and so don’t matter, because that’s what this school thinks despite all the evidence to the contrary (but then evidence is something they’re really rather good at ignoring; dogma is all that matters).
But as Keynes pointed out the good reason for spending now is that the government is the only agent capable of breaking the downward spiral in the economy when consumers, companies and net exports won’t (and they’re the only other possibilities). Literally nothing bar government can get us out if the mess we’re in. So governments have to act – and if they did, the spending would pay for itself, as the multiplier shows.
But instead we have a neoliberal economics editor urging the Chancellor to be a cowardly politician and sit back and do nothing when what we need are courageous politicians with the gumption drive and intellect needed to make decisions on what we need to do to reverse the current crisis, which is, after all, what we elect them to do.
Needless to say, this is a major theme in The Courageous State that by chance gives the book its title. The evidence of the need for the alternative I propose grows by the day.
| © 2005 - 2011 Tax Research UK. Some rights reserved.  |
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha |
