Fintan O'Toole has an article in the Guardian this morning that is clearly related to his new book 'Judging Shaw'.
In it he argues that:
We live again in a world where the rich pleasure themselves with the belief that they don't just have more money — they are better people.
And:
We live again in a world where people struggling to survive have to prove that they are “deserving” of the welfare payments they need to keep body and soul together.
But as he makes clear, poverty has nothing whatsoever to do with morality, or being deserving:
In [Pygmalion] is one of Bernard Shaw's most important arguments: people are not poor because they are immoral; they're immoral because they are poor. Or, to put it in the terms of today's assumptions about poverty: the problem with the poor isn't their “culture” or their want of character. It's just that they don't have enough money.
To which the obvious response is the one O'Toole has to offer:
The cure for poverty is an adequate income.
And yet this is precisely what society does not want to offer. Just listen to the argument on universal basic income - that it will permit the idle to do nothing - and all the prejudices O'Toole refers to are apparent.
There is no reason why people cannot have enough to live on in a country of plenty. That they don't is a decision. And it's not a decision the poorest made. In which case it's the responsibility of those with money. And it's they who have to face up to their responsibility to change that.
And yes, when I talk of peaceful revolution that is one of the things that has to change.
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:
Totally agree.
The fact that I chose to spend money on tobacco and alcohol in priority to food is not typical.
The tobacco is a compulsion which I stubbornly refuse to be priced away from and the alcohol is the entry price for a pub where there’s social contact and conversation. Also I eat very cheaply because I know how to cook.
The only cure for poverty is money anything else is a political theory.
PS Edit required Universal BASIC income (Mittens this morning? 🙂
Those that have plenty have been using the ‘morality’ argument since the Poor Laws were enacted in 1600s. Morals are no more relevant to the argument now than they were then. They are a fig-leaf to cover lack of compassion and humanity on the part of the wealthy. Seems to be a way to prove that the wealthy are somehow superior to everybody else. Sorry guys, just proves the lack of empathy.
“………….since the Poor Laws were enacted…….”
I think it we’re looking at a considerably longer ‘pedigree’ than that, Christine.
I think you can trace the roots back to the Garden of Eden…’by the sweat of your brow’ and all that stuff. Also the authority for male supremacy in the same speech.
This garbage shaped our world and still does. I don’t approve of burning books…but I could be persuaded to make an exception.
Andy can’t help but think that King James et al are really capitalists handbooks:
The parable of the Talents; Render unto Caesar and all that good stuff.
But I have an incy wincy suspicion that your view (which I tend to agree with) was not a topic of conversation at the Norwich Quaker Meeting House. But stand to be corrected.
Isaiah 58
6“Is this not the fast that I have chosen:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the heavy burdens,
To let the oppressed go free,
And that you break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out;
When you see the naked, that you cover him,
And not hide yourself from your own flesh?
8 Then your light shall break forth like the morning,
Your healing shall spring forth speedily,
And your righteousness shall go before you;
The glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.
9 Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer;
You shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’
‘When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the Lord your God.’”
Leviticus 23:22
James 2:2-4New King James Version (NKJV)
2 For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, 3 and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” 4 have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
I could go on but I don’t think Richard would appreciate the whole thread filled up with Bible verses
There is a limit…..
‘THE TORIES have accused Nicola Sturgeon of “pandering to the extreme left” by funding research into a citizen’s basic income.’ http://www.thenational.scot/news/15602469.Tories_accuse_Sturgeon_of____pandering_to_the_extreme_left____with_basic_income_plan/
So even to commission research is unacceptable!! A Mugabe-style [Tax] Grab!! Turning Scotland into a Marxist/Leninist nirvana!!
Have I missed any?
The reaction is so absurd it’s beyond crazy
It’s visceral.
It’s completely hard-wired by conditioning. Quasi and literally ‘religious’ in it’s basis.
It’s poisonous and affects both ends (and the middle) of the socioeconomic range.
It will be the most difficult ‘sell’ (probably ever) in political philosophy to get the rationale of UBI across. Ending slavery by comparison was childsplay (except that in different manifestations it still persists)
If I may – I’d suggest that the answer is here: Why people hold rigid views: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
Apologies to all if I have already posted this before. The Tories have/hold “beliefs” on subjects where objectivity is not only needed but is the only way to make progress. Given a “belief” is by definition unchallengable the tories position themselves outside of rationality & thus I would argue are unfit for as long as they hold “beliefs” to be in government.
Mike Parr,
Brilliant Oatmeal link. Excellent. Thankyou.
I agree with this as – I have noted here even – that when people ‘come into money’, they change in the worse ways imaginable. They certainly lose empathy with those who have less as well as thinking that they are cleverer than everyone else too (but not lucky of course). My mother in law thinks she is so good with money yet all she does it hand it over to banks who actually do the work for her to give her a return!
Making money out of money is the most idle occupation ever. Making money out of property can be the same (but not in every case) – the market doing most of the work for you.
It is tragic for humanity that something that was created to make trade and making a living easier has become an end in itself.
Money is misallocated into assets, products and huge balances for too few whilst too many others have less or too little.
Money as it is today is just bad economics.
Can’t argue with that, Pilgrim.
Interesting piece on one of the pro-democracy sites where they are pursuing dodgy donors going via DUP (allegedly) to avoid declaration of election donations.
Massive charitable donations listed. Charitable? Hmm. I think not.
Wealthy people know well that charity begins at home. Look after the legislators and the legislators will look after them. They get good value.
(As ever I was following links and I’ve lost track of the route.)
Alberto
That’s a nice thing to say (thank you) but I feel that I must stress that this is all Richard’s work – it’s his observations that stir my own limited intellect on such matters. I do not want to be seen to riding on coat tails here.
And for the record I have made gaffes here and Richard has also on occasion not been able to publish my more angrier input (for which I will always be grateful but also feel guilty about burdening him with).
I see Richard as the teacher here – not me. It is not for nothing he is a Professor of Practice. My L plates are everywhere to be seen. I’m on a journey like everyone else that will hopefully lead to a better world. And it is great not to be alone whilst on that road with others including you Alberto.
You undersell yourself
Pilgrim
It’s not just me that goes off the deep end then. That’s reassuring.
I think we may be on a similar learning curve. S’good ‘ere innit ?
The concept of fairness in the UK is shot to pieces. We need to redefine this and what it means for the UK.
People see that a hard day’s work (or a career’s worth) does not entitle or equip them to fair pay or decent living standards. They also see rich people making obscene amounts of money from being landlords or asset stripping companies and destroying pension funds, for example. At the other end, they do see families in social housing that have never, and may never work, and their kids may not either. It’s no use the left pretending that this doesn’t exist. The problem is blown out of proportion by right wing newspapers and programmes like Benefits Street, but it does happen and poor people see it on their doorstep. Do they bust a gut to get a job they can’t afford to live on, or stay on benefits and scrape a living that way?
We need to redefine the idea of the social contract in the UK if we are to avoid the country becoming irreparably damaged and divided (it may already be). What might this include, here are a few ideas off the top of my head:
i) Pay and Benefits – people should at least have the opportunity to be able to afford to live. That means that those in employment should be able to earn enough to get by and not be in debt meeting their basic needs. Those who cannot work should be taken care of by the state and communities. Those who are out of work should be offered extensive training and support to get into work. Those who lose their jobs should also be offered training and support to get back into work. The training and support should be generous and well funded, not done on the cheap. Those who persistently choose not to work should have their support tapered off. (I reiterate, we cannot avoid the ‘shirkers and scroungers’ issue here. The rich are far worse in scale, but we can’t turn a blind eye to it, or you will alienate millions of ordinary people who see this happening.
ii) Housing – all social and private leased housing must be ‘decent’. The Government must take on a proactive role in making decent, affordable homes available to all. It must not be rationed out. Radical action is needed here on a postwar scale to make enough housing available.
iii) Pensions – Pensions should be enough to live on. People should not need to fear poverty in their old age. Social housing should provide security for retirement.
ix) Social Care – should be free at the point of use. How to pay for it? Well – I think Government spending on things like care goes back into the Government’s coffers, having stimulated economic growth through employment along the way – hence paying for itself. So we don’t need a debate on the problem of ‘how to pay for care’.
x) Taxation – should be more progressive. Enforcement of tax abuse must be seen to be effective, consistent, and proportionate. Inheritance/ capital gains life tax is an issue that needs a fair solution. It is natural that people want to leave something behind for their children and we shouldn’t try to combat that instinct. But it should be taxed on a fair basis. Lifetime capital gains tax might be a fair way of taxing that (is that not really difficult and burdensome to figure out though?)
xi) Education – should be reformed substantially to take account of the needs of different types of people. Currently the education system is geared solely around getting children to pass their GCSE’s, their A- Levels, and through University. If you are not academic, then you are not important under the current system.
I would radically change the education system so that at age 13 children are able to take different streams of education. This could either be done on a part time basis. i.e. part of their time spent at a ‘normal’ school doing normal core curriculum, and part of it spent in specialist technical colleges learning technical skills, and/or organisations or businesses gaining hands-on experience.
The education system should seek to allow children to exploit their passions and their talents. It currently is an academic straightjacket for children who are not academically minded. Making them sit all week in classes that they struggle to comprehend and cannot achieve in, must not only be frustrating, but depressing and humiliating for them. No wonder we have such a problem with discipline in classrooms. Let them find something that they can shine in and focus their energies there. Most children that are not academically minded will be able to find something that they can focus their energies on, be it building, plumbing, cooking, hairdressing, computers, the limits are endless. Children are enthusiastic and have limitless energy, it just needs to be channelled right.
I think if you can change the social contract in this way, that redefines the role of the state, people will support it. If people know that the government will meet many of their needs and guarantee them opportunities and security in life, in a way which is fair, then they will feel a lot better about taxes. If they feel that society is full of free riders (at the top and bottom of society) then they will feel like they are getting a raw deal in playing fairly and won’t want to support it.
Apologies for the length of post but I sometimes think that what we need to do to improve society is not that difficult to fathom out, we just need to start painting the picture…
I agree, we need to change the social contract
“….It is natural that people want to leave something behind for their children and we shouldn’t try to combat that instinct. …”
I agree, absolutely, but they only get to leave behind for their children that which was surplus to their own requirements. There is an increasingly common belief that children are entitled to have their parents looked after by the taxpayer so that ‘their’ inheritance remains intact. This is Bollox. It really is.!
If Children want the money and the house they can earn it by taking care of the elderly parents (actual medical costs are covered by the NHS and that should continue to death as ‘promised’.) The money does not belong to the children until the parents are buried. (if this results in an outbreak of amateur ‘shipmanism’ we can cross that bridge when we get there. In the long run parents get back what they put out.
‘King Lear’ makes a good case study. This is not a new problem, but longevity is creating a renewed awareness of it.
YES we Do need some new ground rules for a social contract. And some of them don’t need inventing they need remembering.
Theresa May (not my favourite politician) tried to open the debate (rather ineptly ) and was howled down with cries of ”DEMENTIA TAX !!!! Utter rubbish, but it’ll be a brave politician who brings that forward for consideration again. The gist of her suggestion was not even stupid. The response was.
Hi Andy
I think that the conservative offering on social care was typically divisive and calculated to benefit the richest. It was on this basis (plus of course my partisan viewpoint) that I howled “dementia tax”.
The essentially random nature of taking nearly all of someone’s wealth (or not) based on the type of disease they have is a bit weird. Also, a lot of the risk factors that have been suggested for dementia (poor diet, obesity, lack of education, social isolation) have a relationship to poverty.
If the conservative proposal had been a % levy on all estates to cover the cost of social care in old age I would have supported it (although not them) fully.
I think that state-provided provision of care in old age should be part of the NHS. The fact that it isn’t is just an accident of timing, i.e. the problem occurred after the last truly visionary government in this country left office.
Neil,
It’s a conversation that needs to be engaged in. And it’s long, long overdue.
If I understood what Theresa May was saying (or trying to say) it was the wealthiest who would pay most, but the suggestion was howled down before anyone had chance to look at, let alone consider, the proposition.
The furore in the media was aimed not at arguing the case against, but merely at shutting down the discussion and in that aim it succeeded almost instantly.
The same tactic will be used extensively against UBI. And it is likely to succeed. It has done so on more than one occasion in the past.
A ‘common sense’ headline will demolish any rational argument before it has seen the light of day.
Scottish Labour is currently attacking the SNP by criticising the policies relating to PFI that Labour itself was responsible for implementing. This an entirely pre-preemptive attack. Unprovoked.
It’s the way the US military works. Create a mess then blame the victims for causing all the trouble to justify attacking them. Again.
It’s sleekit and highly effective if you have control of a ‘free’ press. A controlled free press has far more influence than an official organ of the state.
Neat isn’t it ?
Hi Andy,
Part of the problem was that the conservatives had rubbished a similar proposal from labour in the past. It was too tempting to just turn their criticism back on them. I agree that at some point a sensible debate needs to be had on the subject. But at the time, with labour seemingly facing electoral oblivion, I was just glad that the conservatives had offered a stick with which to beat them – and (sadly) less concerned about whether this was an honourable tactic.
I do have a reasonably principled objection to the plan as originally outlined, which set an amount of inheritance that could be kept (£30,000), rather than setting a cap on care costs that could be paid by the individual, or my absolute preference which would be a % levy on all estates.
I must say that to me the social contract is dead, and appears to never have existed while I have been alive.
I think that all of the problems facing Britain, and the wider world, are down to a failure to think long term.
By this I do not mean 10-20 years but 10-20 generations.
If we do not as a species change to sacrifice the pleasure and luxury of today, or even this century, for the benefit of those to be born in a thousand years time, then we will all die.
For those familiar with the concept, I believe that this failure to adopt true long term thinking is the great filter.
The ‘Social Contract’ that worked was the ‘Post War Settlement’ which rebuilt Europe after WW2. Principal components were the Bretton Woods terms of trading and currency exchange arrangements and the Marshall plan which sought to rebuild Germany as an industrial manufacturing economy. The French would probably have been in favour of repeating the Versailles settlement and force Germany to remain a pastoral, peasant economy. Without reparations of course because there would be no money, so it would eternally in moral debt. That would have been useless to the US because they needed Europe prosperous as a market for its own goods.
It was not however sustainable because it worked on the US fuelling the entire economic edifice with dollars. It was purely and simply an Empire building exercise which was a little more enlightened than the previous era of Empires which preceded it.
Quite why it was necessary to do this against the USSR rather than in a positive cooperation is beyond me. It’s probably to do with the necessity to have an (Orwellian) external enemy to ensure cohesiveness at home. Also the ideological anti communist wars in Korea and Vietnam which were vital to stoke the US economy had to have some sort of justification as a rationale for the mindless waste of resources in lives and materials and destruction of assets.
This arrangement ended with the dollar detaching from the Gold standard in 1971. Exit Eurodollar and Enter Petrodollar. The petrodollar did not really include a social contract, it ws essentially an economic arrangement.
So, RH, in effect if you can’t remember the time before 1971 you are quite justified in not having noticed a social contract. There wasn’t one.
Since reading this blog I have learned a lot (not least from you PSR so no offence intended) and come to despise the phrase “making money”. I now try to correct anyone using it. What the user really means is “collecting money”. Making money for an individual is counterfeiting and thus illegal. Collecting money as an objective in itself, rather than as a consequence of some other more laudable action, sounds much more like the blatant and unproductive greed it usually is. This is for me one more example of the invasive nature of neoliberal thought even amongst its most ardent opponents. We should refuse to accept it whenever we can.
The thing that underpins everything that is wrong. We live in a society that does not provide for its people by intent, and which is compounding the problem by intent.
‘A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work’ I can remember from many years ago was a Disraeli bullet-point for my history revision. Though I found later it was a line from one of his novels more than an everyday goal. Our system is deregulated capitalism looking to further deregulate itself to a deregulated utopia, as it sees it, via ruses such as Hard Brexit. A system that gives power to power by definition wants more for the owners of the means of production and and less for the producers. And even less for the non-producers whatever reason they can no longer produce.
MacMillan conservatism is held up as ‘capitalism works’ by capitalists who despise him. While he was affected by witnessing the effects of the Depression, and while he was a fairer minded person by far than most capitalist politicians, he was enabled by Keynesian framework and Atlee’s reforms. But his role was to give more crumbs than usual to keep the compromise afloat and rich and powerful never saw him as more than a necessary seat-warmer.
Everything is about perception. This debate isn’t new, but it needs a freshen up and the article effectively does that well. Our wealth is already positioned for us, but the allocation is blocked. I remember a foreman who in charge of the sundries and as holder of the cupboard key, gained a peculiar sense of righteousness and entitlement. Forever telling us to be thrifty with company materials ‘to help the company to help ourselves’ I found out there was never a loo roll in the company cupboard because a couple hundred were in his shed. Just the same with our collective wealth.
Apologies.
I had not realised this was an empty echo chamber for those who agree with you.
I had thought it was a place for debate.
Your
Hugh Jarce
It took me a post or two to realise that you troll under a stupid name
It is not a place for those who do such things: you are right to that limited extent
H Jarce,
(Under a silly name or not) what would you say that doesn’t harmonise with the echo? Let’s hear it, because I for one am interested in other people’s perspectives. I might learn something.
But I am not
And this is my place
I’d like to know how you can have “an empty echo chamber”. Where would the sound (and echo) come from?
The thrust of this discussion applies to poor nations as well. So much of rich country aid is totally misconceived (the World Bank and IMF are implicated too) and either ends up being syphoned off by kleptocrats or consists of getting them to buy our goods.
It’s also top-down, telling poor people what we think is best for them (it happens here too). What’s best for them is to give them the money. Funnily enough they usually know how to spend it to enhance their lives, their family’s lives and, as if guided by an invisible hand, they enhance their communities’ prospects too. (Guy Standing mentioned some experiments in Foreign Aid in his book on Basic Income where people were given the money)
Have you seen this article over on CapX, which appears to be an attack on people’s quantative easing. It seems misconceived to me, but wonder if you’re planning to comment?https://capx.co/the-magic-money-tree-wont-save-the-nhs/?omhide=true&utm_source=CapX+briefing&utm_campaign=1dc10da6f4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5017135a0-1dc10da6f4-241783193
Tim Worstall is not worth engaging with
No one one earth with an ounce of sense takes him seriously
“Tim Worstall is not worth engaging with”
“No one one earth with an ounce of sense takes him seriously…” That’s a pretty big audience then.
Surely it’s inevitable the rich will “pleasure” themselves with the idea they’re better people to assuage a guilty conscience and justify their unfair treatment of others. The real issue outside of preventing them becoming excessively rich at the expense of others is to find a democratic way of stopping them using the mainstream media to trumpet their false sense of superiority.
I (foolishly) spent an hour or two jousting with some of the unpleasant people who contribute to ‘CiF’ and who, as ever, ignored the point of the piece/the book (because Shaw was a fan of Stalin!).
I was keen in any event to flag up, in case you might have missed it, Bill Mitchell’s blog a propos of another Graun piece (about ‘productivity’) which addresses and that, as you say, ‘prejudice’ that the Brits are ‘idle’…and to invite your thoughts/ or even a separate blog?! (NB I’m usually a fan of Chakraborty but wondered if there was a question that he wasn’t asking, so was grateful to Prof Mitchell).
Link here –
bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=37118&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicoutlook%2FFYvo+%28billy+blog%29-
Thanks
Will take a look
Basic incomes sound great prima facie. Assuming the chainsaw of austerity is put away and the Tree of Cash (MagusMurphyArbor) remains as a valid concept (Labour Take note it was the one idea that may have made me vote for you.)
Is there a good starting place to research this other than this site? I by that research that looks at both sides positive and negative, without getting bogged down in socio-economic goobledy gook?
Search modern monetary theory
Bill Mitchell is a starting point many seem to like
But he is long winded
I thought that MMT were in favour of a job guarantee, not UBI.
It us
So I do not say I am in favour of pure MMT
I have no problem breaking norms
Thanks for that and the Viking Economics rehash.
“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.” – Herman Melville: Poor Man’s Pudding and Rich Man’s Crumbs (1854)
I went to hear Yannis Varoufakis last night talking to Kate Raworth (Doughnut Economics) about his latest book – Talking to My Daughter About the Economy. Though I’d not agree with some of his more sweeping generalisations, he is a charismatic speaker of the kind we need more of to get the messages out.
I mention him as his book covers many of the topics and arguments touched on in this conversation, and I suspect most people here would enjoy it. It’s deliberately free of economics jargon, and it’s very much about morality and philosophy. If he is talking near you, do go and see him
I have never met him and old like to do so
One for the reading list….
I’ve got a lot of time for Mr Varoukakis.
I’m dead jealous that you got to hear him speaking live.
He’s doing a great deal to shift the debate about and open up discussions. He’s charismatic and coherent. He’s one of those people who interviews well, and speaks well because he knows what he’s talking about and doesn’t have to keep mentally checking that he’s ‘on message’.
He’s also what I would call ‘a bright boy’. (Which looks patronising in print, but sounds better when I say it)
People who are working to script (which inherently they don’t quite ‘own’) fall into elephant traps all the time and talk absolute garbage when under stress.
I’m with you on reading ‘the opposition’. My advice is don’t take the piss out of them. If you want to demolish their spurious arguments it has to be done gently. You’re attacking their core beliefs. See the Oatmeal piece that was linked to the other day.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe It’s very good.
I used to work with someone in sales who said ‘Never argue with a customer because if you win the argument you don’t get the sale.’
I am horrified by the types of societies that have been dramatized in programs such as Poldark and the excellent BBC adaptation of An Inspector Calls. Increasingly it seems that the conservatives view such programs as a kind of mission statement!
Why do people hold such negative views about poor people? I think that the process by which this comes about is more important than any focus on individual failings (I think we are all born with the capacity to be mean or generous). Systematic factors that I can think of:
The attack on the standard of living enjoyed by working people and the encouragement to them to punch down rather than up.
The part played by the relentlessly right-wing print media (from time to time aided by the BBC) in endlessly telling us that poor people are undeserving.
The all-pervasive influence of marketing which creates needs for the relatively wealthy where none really exist: How can I pay more tax when I have to have a new BMW every couple of years to be happy/a good person?
I’m a bit light on solutions unfortunately.
Neil,
To steal J.B Priestley’s title ‘An Inspector Calls’ and use it to promote piffle is a travesty of monumental proportions.
I haven’t seen the programme. But I no longer watch telly. Even (or indeed especially not) the BBC.
If I want effluent in my living space I can always use the carpet as a toilet. At least that way I know where the effluent is coming from. And If I can remember what I’ve what I’ve consumed recently I know its composition.
What is the point of being rich, if there are no poor to look down upon?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20235692
Marcus,
You could be banned off the site for inciting me to digress in a major way off topic – or indeed get us both banned.
King James of course only authorised for the reading in churches… It was the likes of Tyndale who translated and put the text into the hands of the people. A bit like Richard trying to put economics into the purview of the common man by translating it into English. The priests of the economic orthodoxy have demonstrably been preaching their ‘holy writ’ in ways which suit a dubious purpose, as distinct from revealing truth.
Capitalist handbook? Old Testament definitely. Chapters on how to steal land from an indigenous population, how to wage total war, how to demote women to the status of chattels, how to establish and maintain hereditary wealth and privilege an lots more helpful stuff besides. Makes Machiavelli look like a complete novice.
New Testament is another story. Most of the parables are capable of a wide variety of moral interpretations.
Parable of talents of course plays on the pun inherent in ‘Talent’. Not generally referred to on Wall St as a guide to prudent investing I think.
Render unto Caesar, similarly makes a non monetary point.
The labourers in the vineyard is one which many clergy wisely ignore. It’s a bit heavy.
Note that at the Wedding at Cana Jesus turns water in to wine; not Kool Aid. (Sharp intake of breath.
Fortunately for the established order St Paul quickly gets things back onto an even keel and St Peter starts building and thus establishes a long and profitable association with the construction industry.
The Buddhists are something else. Non theistic for a start which is an inherent challenge to the whole idea of a hierarchical social order. Out of my depth rather in that field I’m afraid. Deeply significant though that it is quite separate from the Abrahamic tradition.
You don’t see militant Buddhist terrorists making tabloid headlines often. Could be clue in that.
Sadly Sri Lanka and now Myanmar have rather dented the Buddhist reputation. I guess most/all religions have that intrinsic potential to be hostile to an ‘other’. I say that with no pleasure having spent time in Nepal and India and much admired and appreciated Buddhist cultures there
I’d stick to the more earthly anecdote from Roger Moore describing how when he collected for UNICEF when flying BA, it was the economy class passengers who were the most generous, with the meanest flying up front.
As for Tim Worstall, I keep an eye on what he and others who write at CapX have to say as I feel its worth knowing what their arguments are. Hard to call them arguments when they are so devoid of either evidence or logic. Without actually engaging, its also good sport politely winding up a few of their acolytes. I reckon the Adam Smith lot mostly have not actually read Adam Smith. His Theory of Moral Sentiments has a lot that many of us would agree with. Not just Marx, but Smith too anticipated the potential failings of capitalism
Robin, there’s a lovely Ambrose Bierce fable which your reference to ‘moral sentiment’ reminded me of.
In it a moral sentiment meets a material interest at bridge wide enough for but one to pass.
Guess which ends up in the river ?
Fascinating character, Ambrose Bierce.
Neil,
“I do have a reasonably principled objection to the plan as originally outlined, which set an amount of inheritance that could be kept (£30,000), rather than setting a cap on care costs that could be paid by the individual, or my absolute preference which would be a % levy on all estates.”
It is a rat’s nest problem. No simple answer will be forthcoming soon.
For one thing I question the right of anyone to expect an inheritance (at any financial level) that is protected by the public purse. An inheritance is a way of passing-on a surplus from the life of the deceased to the next generation. One could argue that it belongs to the public as a whole and should go to the common weal.
Certainly there is the case to be made that death duties should claw back any portion that has resulted from unearned advantage taken of the public purse in its acquisition. (Not an easy sum to work out)
These are vexed issues that challenge a lot of the assumptions that have been inherent in the neoliberal consensus programme. ‘Wealth cascading down through the generations’ John Major called it. John major wasn’t (is’t) a stupid man, but he said (like we all do) some stupid things.