Comment is Free has an absolutely first rate piece published this afternoon. Written by Roger Blackhouse and Bradley Bateman argue the case for moral capitalism. They say:
One reason for the problems we face today is that we have stopped seeing taxes as an essential institution in a capitalist economy for if taxes could be raised, especially on those who can most afford to pay them, public services would not have to be cut. We should see taxes as an integral part of a moral capitalist economy, providing health, education and social care outside the market. People should not be afraid to join Warren Buffett in saying the rich should pay more tax. The "Tobin tax" on financial transactions should not be seen as a way to raise funds for the euro, but as a tax that could help stabilise the financial system and as a "Robin Hood" tax.
So well said. And as they conclude:
Such changes need to be analysed carefully, for technical details do matter, but they need to be on the agenda: if we are to save capitalism, as we must if we want prosperity and liberty, we must face up to its moral failings. Unless we do this, we will be unable to imagine a better future, let alone work out how to achieve it.
Excellent Christmas day reading.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
AND THE MORALITY OF EQUAL REGULATION
Imagine if the German car industry was allowed to manufacture cars without the regulation imposed on all other EU countries – child labour, no wage controls, no environmental pollution issues, widespread tax fiddles, etc – all to the advantage of a small elite and to the detriment of the remainder.
As a result car production gravitates to Germany where cars are churned out at half cost.
Would other countries complain that this was not only “unfair” but highly immoral?
Similarly wealth production gravitates to the City where the “establishment”, a secretive lodge of bankers and politicians, operates without proper regulation to process and protect assets for a chosen few whilst increasing poverty amongst billions of less fortunate mortals.
It cannot continue. And nor can the tax havens circling the City like communication satelites sending and receiving coded messages enabling tax dodging on a massive scale across the world.
These places can and must be subject to EQUAL international regulation.
Richard,
Whose version of “societal morality” will be used?
Georges
None recognised by neoliberals – since neoliberalism is not based on ethics and its foundations are incompatible with any system of thinking recognised as ethical
Richard,
Ok, so this new “moral capitalism” is to be defined by what it is not and not what it is. The first step seems to be an excluding and non-inclusive one (“no neo-liberals”).
Now, back to the original question, whose version of “societal morality” will be used?
Who is allowed to have input (other than TR-UK and Prim Sekka)?
Georges
The ethics of almost all societies are defined by the simple rule that one should treat other as you would wish to be treated yourself
Neoliberalism does not share that view
Hence the reason for my answer
And so long as the ethical principle is built on that sound basis (and most are) I’m no more prescriptive that that
Now what would you suggest?
Richard,
….one should treat other as you would wish to be treated yourself….
Great, from these quarters I would say I like to be left alone, unintruded upon by governmentalism and individuals not of my choosing. How does that fit in?
Given the number of people in the world, I would expect there to be millions of permutations as to how people wish to be treated. This “moral capitalism” does not sound very governable or clearly rule-bound.
Georges
“The ethics of almost all societies are defined by the simple rule that one should treat other as you would wish to be treated yourself”
If only!
That rule is observed to a far higher standard in the boxing ring than in modern political debate
Well said Richard!
Seasons’ Greetings – if a little belated – to all here. Keep up the good work in 2012.
PS I was referring to your response to Georges.