There are a few bits that are very American in here, but it's worth watching:
Hat tip to Max Lawson
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:
Dynamite.
I’ll have to come back to it.
No time now.
Yes, worth watching but with reservations. While I appreciate he’s a social psychologist and not a political economist, his pragmatic conclusion seems to suggest that the problems of inequality can be resolved by the 1% becoming less greedy and more generous – Ã la Gates’ ‘Giving Pledge’.
In the context of his quasi-scientific presentation it’s seductive rhetoric but, as we know, the prevailing socio-economic and ecological imperatives necessitate a radical, systemic re-organisation of the way the world is governed. It’s ’empathy-wash’ which, like ‘green-wash’, does resonate with the general public and, of course, appeals to the affluent because it does little (if anything) to inconvenience their extractive life-style.
Maybe I ‘m being a tad uncharitable to Paul K Piff (PhD) who has at least shone some researched light into dark corners, but the time for pussy-footing around has long passed. Nudging (much beloved by the Tories) is never enough, no matter how well intentioned, as it reinforces the status-quo on the macro level. One’s best hope is that the transition to a sustainable, democratic & truly empathetic society can be made with minimal violence but I’m not optimistic on that score – not least because there’s no profit in peace for the pan-global military-industrial complex.
As I said, I had my reservations …. but think things worth exploring
I do not think we can nudge this one out of existence though
When the kids were young they were in the Woodcraft Folk. Like Scouts and Guides, but less formal, with a strong ethos of fostering cooperation rather than competition. Motto – SPAN THE WORLD WITH FRIENDSHIP
(Stick with me. You will see where I am leading.) I was an active parent helper. Games played were always to have everyone a winner. I remember suggesting that what we needed was game of cooperative Monopoly, where everyone was a winner. An oxymoron, of course.
After seeing this TED Talk it occurred to me that, yes, Monopoly could, indeed be redesigned to make everyone a winner. If those with lots of money paid lots of tax, and those made destitute were given tax credits, the game would never end, and everyone would be the winner.
Suggested new name – KEYNESOPOLY
If it was decided that there must be a winner, there are two possibilities.
The neolibs could declare that the player who has paid the least tax was the winner. ha ha.
The liberal minded socialist could declare that the player who had paid the most tax was the winner.
I see no flaws!!!!! Just a thought.
David Lucas…
Interesting….
Robert KIyosaki (of ‘Rich Dad, Poor Dad’ fame) invented an alternative form of monopoly-type board game,which he devised to demonstrate financial management and money making principles. It’s called ‘Rat Race’ or similar.
Individual players competing can take weeks (probably to get onto the ‘virtuous’ outside circle of financial freedom.
At a training event I attended it was shown that the way to achieve quick results is to divide the functions (a la Adam Smith) and to raise the poorest first, and leave the richest, higher earners ’til last. The game can be completed in about ten minutes in this fashion, viz all players, playing together are on the outside lucrative, financial freedom track.
Nevertheless the course itself is about individuals making money and rental income for themselves as individuals. Go figure.
“…1% becoming less greedy and more generous — Ã la Gates’ ‘Giving Pledge’.”
Very American isn’t it, this ostentatious charitable giving which looks like huge largesse but doesn’t compare with paying a fair proportion of tax which nobody praises the giver for. ?
How stupid are we supposed to be ?
Certainly worth watching.
I think there is an important point here – that alongside neoliberal economics we have had a growth in individualism (and more recently tribalism). Alongside her neoliberal economics we have Margaret Thatcher “there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families….
Whether it is the politics of empathy, or the view that we all gain when collaborating for the common good there is an ethical battle for minds here which complements the economics battle.
Interestingly one aspect of the 1945 election was Labour’s moral appeal to for all to work together for social justice over individual interests.
“…..to work together for social justice over individual interests……”
The traditional right find this very unappealing, because they got where they are (or get where they are going) by ensuring that they get more than their share and are happy to take it from the most vulnerable, and readily available sources.
It’s how I would define the mindset of the traditional hard-nosed Tory. ‘Nice’ Tories just go along with it because they don’t think, and tend to have been brought up to feel entitled to what they have.
It’s a class thing really isn’t it ? Caitlin Moran describes these people as ‘the Blythe’. Rather a lot of them about and they certainly don’t seem to be bad people, just rather …distanced from what is for many is a grimy reality.
Kipling recognised them as the Sons of Mary, as opposed to the Sons of Martha. (Not she of the Vinyard….the biblical Martha 🙂 )
[…] there are two things to note. One is we are empathic. We do care for one another, albeit not always as much as we should. It is no surprise all the world’s great wisdom traditions build on […]
[…] there are two things to note. One is we are empathic. We do care for one another, albeit not always as much as we should. It is no surprise all the world’s great wisdom traditions build on […]