These are not normal times. Donald Trump has acted contrary to international refugee law. At the same time he has created a whole new category of refugees - people who are resident in the US and who have now been declined the right to return to their homes. And he did all this days after announcing his plan to withdraw from critical UN work on refugees and other vital issues.
Theresa May has refused to condemn his actions. Instead she sold arms to the regime guilty of jailing more journalists than any other in the world.
I am under no illusion that there were no problems in the world before these events happened. But the world is much worse for them. And although I know there are those who will celebrate these actions it's my belief that this is not a majority. We know, for example, that evidence shows that in the States most people are considerably more sympathetic to the Democrats social policies than the Republicans. But Trump won. In the UK there is broadly similar evidence. Looking at many issues people are more socially liberal than their voting patterns suggest, whatever Brexit might imply.
In that case what is happening can only be indication of conflict to come. May's tolerance of Trump will repulse many. It is clear Trump is revolting many in his own country. But why is it then that they retain electoral appeal? However repulsive May's choice of new trading partners I am not expecting her poll popularity to plummet as yet. So why not? There are at least three reasons.
One, of course, is self interest. There are far too many who turn blind eyes in this world and will do until such time as they realise they are compromised beyond hope of redemption.
Second, there is the inability of opposition parties. This is obvious in both the US and UK. The issue is deeper than that of leadership though. The malaise is more profound: it is a lack of confidence that pervades all it does. However confident the opposition's social liberalism it has forgotten its economic raisin d'êtret. Once it knew most history was written by the winners and had the courage to challenge their narratives. Now though it has succumbed to an economic narrative that ensures the winners perpetuate their gains. The opposition has no purpose as a result.
Third, this clearly indicates the third issue, which is that people now realise that the left has no coherent economic explanation of what it might do for the ‘left behind'. These are now the majority of people. In that case they have no reason to doubt the economic narrative of the right, which has both the appearance of coherence and the support of those who seem to have power. That this support is provided precisely because the conventional economic narrative is designed to support the winners, and not explain how or why their position is justified does not matter when there is no contrary story.
There is then no point getting stressed by Trump, and none at all at by May then unless the left respond to the challenge of rebuilding its economics so that those whose fortunes are no longer served by the economy are given a chance. Only when that happens can we really change things.
My professional focus is mainly on tax research this year but this broader economic issue cannot be ignored. Working alone and with others building a credible alternative to the failed economic narrative of the right that lets us also prevent any further advance for their torrid social policies has to be high on my agenda. It's the least the few economists willing to work in this area can do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think the last paragraph is key. The inventor of Transactional Analysis (a variety of counselling ) famously said, ‘people will change when they are bored, in crisis or can see a way of doing it.
People tend to hang onto what they know. Maybe it feels less dangerous? So many continue to vote for the conservative (small C ) policies as they are told other ways are not workable. Cameron’s phrase, ‘there is no magic money tree’, comes to mind. Another is ‘printing money”, – as though QE is not, or ‘being prudent with taxpayers money’.
There are a number of ideas around to complement the critical analysis of laissez-faire economics ( or neo-liberalism or Washington Consensus or what you will ). Ideas which will lead to investment, re-distribution and sustainability with a managed market system. There are different accounts how to get there but I feel have enough common ground to make a progressive manifesto. Examples could be a national investment bank, your green quantitive easing, adequate re-training, an ending of tax havens -which will need co-operation with other countries, some nationalisation and so on. People might be able to see a way that we could ‘afford’ decent health and educational systems and give some hope of a better future. Hope is in short supply at present. This would have a moral alternative to the ‘privatise and let profit guide the economy in all areas.’ Some areas yes, not all. Combine this constitution reforms, like single transferable vote, and it could offer a coherent message for reform. But it will require the progressive movements to co-operate in the face of a growing threat to our liberties and welfare. This threat has clothed itself in the language of protest and popularism but it is reactionary and my hope is that will become more apparent and the dis-illusion with that reactionary message will create a counter-movement for a fairer way but that movement will need a narrative if it is to be ready to take power.
You are on target
I’m no economist but not bad at Mathematics, data analysis and computer modelling. I will be happy to look at if you feel that such skills might be helpful.
Sean
Thanks!
Noted
Richard
I think the problem is how most people (including Labour’s economic team) conceive of money.
As a Green Prospective Parliamentary candidate last May trying to argue with voters for ‘Green Keynesianism’ I was invariably challenged “where is the money coming from?”
When I tried to explain that the government’s finances are not the same as a household’s and it can buy anything priced in £s I was generally met with incomprehension.
The problem is how to get over the fact that modern money is virtual — the sign of a social relationship — more like points in a game than gold coins in a treasure chest.
I agree
That is an issue to address
I get the feeling that the lack of original thinking is because most of our political class have attended the same schools and been indostrinated with the same patterns of thought. Original and analytical thinking is a rare and precious gift and not encouraged in the ‘group think’ of our private education system.
Blame university economics departments more
There are more supporting Trump’s actions than you think, they are, in the words of the cliche, “the silent majority”
They voted to the EU, they support the death penalty and would like people locked up for longer, (oh, and they don’t want to pay any tax)
This nation becomes ever more divided, how far will it go before the whole thing nears collapse?
Time to find another country, but which one, the western world is thinking the same way
All civilisations end…..