When I am asked by journalists why the tax justice movement has been successful, as I am, quite often, one of the reasons I offer is that we changed the language of tax. So, for example, tax avoidance and tax evasion, which are terms few people actually understand, became collectively 'tax abuse'. And the term tax haven, which has appeal for many, was replaced with the term secrecy jurisdiction, which makes clear what these places really sell. A focus on transparency rather than accounting also helped.
There is an important lesson in that which has not spilled over into current UK political debate. The use of language is vital in any discussion because it sets the tone and very often determines the location of the playing field on which debate will take place. So, for example, George Osborne's continual references to austerity, cuts and the need for a balanced budget matched by references to profligate spending and benefit scrounging have been clear indications of the government's success in setting the language used for discussion of the economy, however inappropriate and unjust many of the resulting policies have been.
If that debate is to change so has the language to change. That is vital. Some ways in which this can be done are obvious, I think. Much of the states spending is clearly beneficial, and I think few would argue with it. So instead of talking about spending on education and health the term has to be investing in education and health, because (and this helps) that is exactly what is happening.
When we talk about law and order this is again not spending, this is about supporting honest people to go about their lives in peace.
And as for social security, this is not benefit scrounging. It is the essential safety net on which almost everyone or their family members will rely at some time in their lives, even if not right now.
Turning to the deficit, this is borrowing to fund essential investment in our collective future that we can easily afford (again, helped by the fact that we can).
And the national debt? Let's talk about the fact that this is also a national asset, because that is exactly what it is. After all, the national debt only exists because people want to buy it. That indicates that they trust the government to be a secure custodian of their savings.
I am not saying I have all the phraseology right yet (although I do like the idea of the national asset) but I think you get the idea. And to make a change this needs to happen soon. Economic debate has been happening on the wrong playing field for far too long.
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:
War = Peace
Why don’t you inform the people of Greece, Argentina, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, France, etc. to be extremely happy with all those great government “investments”?
People want to buy government debt? Come on, this is a total setup to save the system. There are no markets anymore, just interventions.
Shall we have some perspective here?
The market for UK debt has never come close to failing. Why universalise what is simply not true?
So-called National Debt is not a national asset: it is rather a legal claim over national productive assets and productive people.
The general misconception is that it represents a debt claim, but that is not the case. It is a credit instrument created and issued by the UK sovereign/government over its own assets and income which is analogous to any other credit claim created and issued by a producer of value. eg a Mars bar voucher issued by Mars is such a claim over it’s future production.
Our £ currency is essentially undated National Credit: our National Debt is dated National Credit.
The proof of what I call the Myth of Debt is embedded in the English language itself as I wrote last year in Scotland’s Sunday Herald’
Myth of Debt
The reality is that wherever National Credit (aka Debt) is reducing then either the relevant country is in liquidation or another country over which they have claims is being liquidated/looted.
I admit I have no idea what your last sentence means
If National ‘Debt’ is reduced then either the productive capacity of the country is being reduced (liquidated) or alternatively that of another country – over which the country has financial/colonial claims – is being liquidated or looted.
But if you think of a country as a corporate (which it essentially is – just not a joint stock company) then there is – because of the nature of national accounting – by definition no ‘equity’. I argue national currencies in issue and so called National Debt combine to represent the National Equity.
A deeper point is that double entry book-keeping is inadequate to account for undated ‘prepay’ credit instruments. The use by Enron of prepay techniques enabled them to pull the wool over the eyes of both creditors and owners.
Prepay (credit instruments) make debt, equity and derivatives redundant; in fact prepay pre-dates all of them; and is re-emerging in use because ‘it works’.
eg Russia’s Rosneft has a >$85 bn crude oil financing deal directly with China’s Sinochem.
Maybe its a more complex concept, but can we introduce into the language the idea that government invests into our society and economy and then taxes the return, so that it can continue to invest. Tax abuse is then a ‘leak’ in the circulation of government money, that must be made up for by cuts, borrowing or taxing the earnings and profits of non-abusers that they should rightfully have been able to keep. Tax abusers are stealing from everyone else.
I like that
But of course only certain people who categorise compliance with tax laws as tax abuse.,..
The world over people define tax avoidance as tax abuse
For very good reason
You appear to be confusing a ‘structural deficit’ with ‘borrowing to fund essential investment in the future’…
No one has ever been able to define a structural deficit
But if we have ever had one it’s only been since 2010
And I am not sure I would agree with that
Really, no-one has been able to define a structural deficit?!
Seriously Richard, that’s a ridiculous statement.
No it isn’t
Lost of nonsense has been written
But nothing meaningful
Sticking to the subject (rather than picking issues with aspects of one of your examples), Richard, there was a very interesting discussion on a Radio 4 programme yesterday afternoon of George Orwell’s concept of Newspeak (from 1984). The conclusion was that the shaping and control of language – and thus how we explain and understand the world – was as important as Orwell argued it was.
This morning I had a look at the Appendix to 1984 (The Principles of Newspeak). One interesting thing struck me. If the word Ingsoc (Newspeak was devised as a language to meet the needs of Ingsoc – English Socialism) is replaced by Neoliberalism it’s a pretty accurate portrayal of the world that has actually evolved, rather than what Orwell imagined might happen. So to take one example from the book and “update” it:
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for a world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Neoliberalism, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Neoliberalism – should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”
Interestingly the news spots either side of the Radio 4 programme prominently featured Cameron’s latest measures to tackle the “hordes” of benefit tourists (sorry, immigrants) coming to the UK from the EU, followed by various comments from a representative from UKIP. It struck me that this was indeed an example of how far down the road of Neoliberal Newspeak we’ve already progressed.
Footnote: Orwell envisaged that the Newspeak project ‘would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or Standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050.’
On my count we are way ahead of that timescale.
Brilliant
May I quote it extensively tomorrow?
Of course. And I’m sure George would approve if he were still with us. Worth looking at the ‘B vocabulary.’
Ivan, very many thanks for this helpful and erudite post.
I tried to pen an entry very early in the day – using my mobile, which alas, with its accursed “predictive text” and “on-screen” keyboard, results in a rash of “fat-finger” mistakes, each of which is preposterously interpreted by the predictive text – maybe the piece of computer code has been deliberately infected with a neo-liberal bug?
Well, net result was that, in trying to amend these infelicities, I ended up logging out of the post entirely, and in exasperation turned to making my breakfast, as being far more satisfying, and have only now managed to get back to this Blog – using my lap-top this time – bliss!!!
Anyway, I too made reference to Orwell in the abortive early attempt, but to his other coinage (I believe) of “doublespeak” (e.g. Vietnam War, where incinerated Vietnamese villagers were dismissed as “collateral damage”), and focused on the poisonous language concerning Social Security, with the plea that we fashion a language that ENTIRELY abolishes the “Lady Bountiful” terms “Allowance” (with its built in forelock tugging and “yes, Ma’am” import), and even of “Benefits” (with it’s tone of “de haut en bas”, and found a language that re-inforces the thinking behind National Insurance = that of a contract between citizen and our servants (should be) the Government, in which payments are CONTRACTUALLY owed to the recipient, upon meeting the criteria for their claim, just as happens with one’s car our house insurance. SO instead of ESA meaning Employment and Support Allowance, let’s call it Employment Search Aid? Or even revert to the old language of National Assistance, which was so much more positive than the horrendous term, coined by Peter Lilley, of “Job-seeker’s Allowance”.
Can’t quite get the right wording/feel just now, and would welcome anyone else’s suggestions, but the principle is there (and I too much regret the tone of many of the responses here, with their heavy reliance on the individual trees in the wood, rather than the wood’s overall shape, and the path through it to the other side), that principle being that language matters DESPERATELY, since the whole direction of travel in a debate can be shaped by the words used. It’s not for nothing that Orwell depicted the use of IngSoc and Newspeak; his whole career as a writer was an exploration of the power of language to shape perception.
Thanks Andrew
Andrew- why don’t we just call it all a ‘citizens income’? This has an entirely positive ring to it without using ghastly euphemistic phrases like Employment support which we know means, by and large, hammering an ill person into inappropriate work with complete disregard for their well being.
Nor do I feel anyone HAS to work. We now live in a culture where jobs are of very poor quality, requiring Government to support employers because of the low pay. people rarely have the opportunity to develop real skills and feel valued. Under these circumstances it should be a basic right for a person to REFUSE this garbage and yet receive a citizens income (which feeds back into the economy anyway).
I like the concept of citizen’s dividends, which ties in with my thesis of a National Equity rather than a National Debt, and payable out of the value generated from ‘National Assets’ in common ownership to which Richard refers.
So, by way of a thought experiment, imagine a London Land Levy is charged based upon London land rental values. This is then pooled and distributed equally to all qualifying London land occupiers in the form of a ‘Land Dividend’.
The innovation is that the dividend would not be in (bank-created) £ but would be in the form of £1.00 denominated land use credits returnable in payment for the LLL.
Owner occupiers could use land credits to pay their own levy obligation (and probably also their mortgage), while tenants could use them to pay their rent, since landlords would accept them to pay their own obligation.
The effect is a net transfer from those with above average exclusive ownership of London’s commons of land to those with below average ownership. It would act to avoid bubbles; would be unavoidable; would fall upon absentee owners; and would enable many potential spin off policies eg interest-free -but not return-free – land loans to replace mortgages; rental credit for care credit exchanges.
There is also the potential for a carbon levy and an energy dividend, but I won’t go into that.
I like that…..
Worth thinking about
Indeed, Ivan-the Tories have advanced this manipulation of language egreiously:
1) ‘Doing the right thing’= work as a debt slave with a gargantuan millstone mortgage that leaves you with no disposable income so you are forced to borrow.
2) ‘Skivers’-those that we have not yet hammered into total debt slavery.
3) ‘Strivers’-those that are willing to waste huge amounts of their life energy trying to run on a treadmill of debt-slavery
4) ‘Those that get up in the morning’ – see ‘3’ above but peppered with extra vilification of those included in 2.
5) ‘Growth’-blowing up another housing bubble that puts people into deeper debt slavery and forces banks to rent out more money to do so.
Good comment
Chris Cook has some very original thoughts on how to redefine ‘debt’ and ‘value.
He traces his ideas back to Tally sticks where what you ‘sold’ to the king was a credit against future tax payments (if I’ve got it right)
As Modern Money Theory puts it: Taxes Drive money.
I’m amazed that Chris does not have a higher profile -we need to listen to him.
Simon, I agree with you in your views on Chris Cook, who is, I believe, the same Chris Cook that I have met via CCMJ (Christian Council for Monetary Justice – the same organisation that brought me into contact with Richard Murphy – see http://ccmj.org/), although Chris isn’t, as I am, a member of CCMJ. But he had very interesting ideas on shared capital – different from the static idea of shareholders, but a much more dynamic idea, akin to stakeholders, but with greater legal force. If Chris reads this (and assuming he is the same Chris Cook) he will no doubt leap in to point out my incomplete understanding of his idea – and that will surely be the case, as it’s a long time since I heard him speak of it – at some CCMJ or Fabian or other conference?
Also, thanks for your suggestion above “Andrew- why don’t we just call it all a ‘citizens income’?” – bang on; should have thought if it myself, since a citizen’s income is a clear way to cut the Gordian knot of our increasingly complex and not fit for service” welfare system.
I can’t reply directly to Andrew’s response to you, but I was for some years a regular at Peter Challen’s Global Tables, but these days am based in Scotland, where I have been developingand implementing my ideas.
I am conducting community-based initiatives (property and energy investment, and community credit creation/clearing) as ‘action-based’ research as a Senior Research Fellow at UCL’s Institute for Security & Resilience Studies.
I also conducted research into what exactly were the monetary and fiscal protocols, systems and instruments that were working before modern central banking and finance capital came along at the end of the 17th century.
Plus the related question as to whether these remain relevant today, which of course they most certainly do.
Newspeak = Neospeak
Very good