I took part in a fascinating event organised by Philosopher's Football on Saturday, chaired by my friend Andrew Simms. I confess it felt a bit
like a Green New Deal workshop but we were joined by Danny Dorling, Lindsay Mackie and an enthusiastic group who discussed Corbynomics v Scroogeonomics. Having said which, party politics was pretty much ignored during the afternoon.
What was discussed was how the economuc narrative can be changed. Urgency was added to the debate by the realisation that another economic crisis now appears very likely. The issue is not if this will happen, but when. As Danny Dorling put it, rather well I thought, the next crisis will also be different.
His analogy was the world wars. The First World War could be seen (rightly or wrongly does not matter since the message was believed, which is the critical point) as a mistake meaning that those who led the country were forgiven. When the Second World War happened those who were sent to fight it woukd not forgive their parents for being so naive as to believe the country's leadership after 1918 and so let world war happen all over again. Change had to happen as a consequence and when it came that change must have seemed incredible to people who had suffered the indignity of the General Strike, the near demise of the Labour Party, Jarrow, the mass unemployment and what went with it all. So the question is, how do we prepare for this next crisis?
Policies were discussed. If I am honest many of the themes will be fairly familiar to readers here so I am not going to dwell on them. I do instead want to muse on the more existential issues discussed.
General discussion began with reference to the cursed bankrupt household analogy beloved of the Right, but rapidly moved on to have a very largely positive tone.
The value of living as individuals, households and businesses in community was emphasised. In that context one person's austerity is another person's loss of income.
The recognition that we do have a functioning state, albeit one that is being dismantled, was stressed. It is, after all, not that what we want is either untried or found to be wanting: of course the state needs improving and its accountability has always been open to question, but the evidence is all around us that what we want works. It is just being deliberately prevented from doing so.
And the power of markets may not be as great as we think. For example, if tax havens are the outpost of neoliberal power then they have, to an extent, been tamed. Campaigning can deliver change.
That said countervailing power needs to be preserved: trade unions need to be recognised for the massively important roll they have to play in society, and even be cherished. Much of what they do is little noticed but vital to protect people when they feel vulnerable.
What we did not spend as much time on as hoped was monetary and banking reform. That will need to be addressed another day. But what was really interesting was how optimistic it was possible to feel.
I woukd like to put that in context. Quite literally during the course of the discussion I got an email to which I referred during the event. It was sent in response to my blog in the Contemptuous State and said:
Having just read ‘Contemptuous Government', the latest in a longish line of your blogs which I have read, how do you appear to be so positive and upbeat? Is it a matter of courage and that Churchillian phrase about ‘believing in the justice of our cause'?
I admit I am not always upbeat. Sometimes I am just very annoyed, but my natural pessimism (and I do, of course, have some) is matched by a belief not just in the justice of the issues that I write about but also in the fact that those who argue as I do are simply right. I do think the world works broadly speaking as I describe it. Evidence has suggested I am not bad in forecasting outcomes based on those ideas. And I do think that people are naturally empathic and so do care.
I do not pretend that this means they believe in equality, but many of the arguments on what equality means are in any event deliberately spurious constructs, as Danny Dorling pointed out during the session. Rather I believe that people do have an innate sense of fairness. Watch a group of children and that is obviously true: even when they are being unfair there is an awareness of the fact.
In that case my optimism is based on a belief in people and that, fundamentally, most are and want to be good the vast majority of the time. What is more, I think most know that being so is good for them as well as others.
I will be candid, I see the teachings of neoliberal economics as a corruption (even a perversion) of this natural state. The greed that it says drives us does not, I think, do so when sufficient has been achieved. It has taken the invention of the one and only industry in the history of humankind dedicated solely to the creation of unhappiness (otherwise known as the advertising and PR industry) to promote the myth that we are never stated, at quite extraordinary expense to both people and our planet.
And that advertising industry has been created by those wishing to ensnare humankind in ever accumulating debt that literally enslaves it.
I do believe that we can, and will, break these snares.
I think it will happen peaceably.
And I think it will be liberating when it occurs.
On the other hand, I accept that, as yet, the critical mass to deliver a tipping point has not been achieved.
If I can help deliver that tipping point, then I will carry on. This is already one of the longest running blogs of its type. I have no intention of giving it up any time soon.
But there is a question, and it is an important one that I have not resolved as yet. We know austerity is designed to crush us. But what is the name of the system we want?
It's not socialism, which is materialist at its core and so cannot resonate in the twenty first century.
It's not sustainability either - because I feel that too negative by being too focussed on resources and not human potential.
It can't be enoughness. I want more than just enough.
Is it durability? That embraces consistency, dependability, the freedom from fear, the wise use of resources, support for personal robustness, and more.
Or is it something else?
Suggestions welcome.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
That sounds like an interesting event and thanks for a thoughtful post.
I had a stab in 2012 at the philosophical/metaphysical foundations of the economy in the FT Alphaville blog which may be of interest.
http://ftalphaville.ft.com//2012/02/24/896381/guest-post-post-modern-fiscal-theory/
I think the key is to re-examine the metrics we use to keep score, and the organising principles of the economy. At the moment we keep score using symbols such as £, $ or € but we never stop to think what it means to live in a £ economy using as an organising principle ‘least £ cost’ decisions.
What does this symbol £ represent? I would argue that £ represents not Value (aka money’s worth) but a Claim over Value issued ex nihilo by a risk intermediary/middlemen (whether private or public).
ie £, $ and € all represent a negative, rather than a positive.
Whatever £ represents, it is certainly the case that economic decisions made keeping score in £ and in accordance with a ‘least £ cost’ organising principle – and with the market structures and instruments which apply this principle – give rise to toxic outcomes.
We only have to look to Denmark to see another approach. Since the Oil Shock in 1973 when the oil price rapidly increased 400%, Denmark has applied – for reasons of energy security and national resilience – what I term the ‘least carbon fuel cost’ economic principle: that is to say that for a given output of heat, electricity and power the Danes minimise the use of carbon fuel.
The result over the 40 years since has been that while the Danish GDP has doubled, their energy use has been flat and carbon fuel use has declined significantly (and with it CO2 – although that was never the motivation).
The key point is that in applying a ‘least carbon fuel cost’ principle the Danes are essentially using a variant of a ‘least energy cost’ organising principle. Of course, doing so has long been in conflict with the ‘least DK cost’ market economy which has emerged there since, but the Danish institutional framework of local taxation enabled the necessary investment to be made at local level.
Interestingly, this conflict is now resolving itself, since the more expensive carbon fuel gets in £ terms the more £ profit there is in saving it.
But I digress. In my view, the Danes demonstrate that it is perfectly possible to create an energy economics: indeed an energy unit of account/metric is the only objective metric there is.
But while energy/resource accounting is necessary, it is not sufficient, because technocratic energy economic decisions may have deeply inhumane outcomes.
So I would argue that we also need to apply a – purely subjective – ‘least human cost’ metric as well which I would argue should be happiness.
I think an energy economics of abundance is perfectly attainable using a market economy. Not the market we have, however – dominated as it is by ‘for profit’ intermediary middlemen – but a directly connected ‘people to people’ economy operating without private or even public intermediaries. This is achievable using the risk/production sharing protocols and credit instruments which long pre-date the ‘least £ cost’ protocols of equity and debt which put us in the mess we are in.
Thanks Chris
I will muse on that
Advertising and branding and dubious political parties/movements have nicked the best words.
And this searching for the best word reminds me of watching The excruciating Apprentice.
But I would understand what you’re talking about as social well-being.
Not sure anybody else would.
It is…but it needs a single word, I think
Chris – can we sum it up as:
“Money follows the metric rather than the metric follows money”? Now that would be something!
A sea change in thought which we need – but the present state of politicos and a narcoleptic populace doesn’t make me too hopeful in the short term.
A value metric – aka standard unit of measure for value or unit of account – is the conceptual absolute unit by reference to which value exchanges of money and money’s worth are priced and made.
It is no more possible to run out of units of account than it is possible to run out of metres (standard unit of measure for length) or kilogrammes.
Agreed – but that is true of £s too
Are we looking for a word or phrase that combines necessary and sufficient? I am reaching for my copy of Chambers.
And which embraces optimism
Not much to ask…
“Better”
“Just”.
a “just” system would deliver for all. The multiple meanings cover every measure and include hope implicitly.
Noted
I agree that socialism, in its historic sense, has focused on material to a great extent (although Marx emphasised personal development) .
I like the word ‘Consiliense’ which according to WIKI is: “the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can “converge” to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is very strong on its own.”
I think, by now we have enough evidence from different fields to know what we need economics to do:
Eliminate socially destructive rent extraction.
Shorten Labour hours.
Create a culture of life-long learning knowing the resources to do that are available
Freedom from fear of jobloss; of falling into poverty;of not being cared for when ill or vulnerable.
Freedom from aggressive and bullying hierarchies that destroy trust and collegiate spirit
Focus on ‘real values’ rather than monetised ones
The sense of an interlinked world where the extraction of natural resources benefits those that live by/on/near them.
A flexible mindset that can adapt to changes in a resource balance.
Above all: a life that is more than the house, the holidays, the assets, the exclusive education (no education!) and I’m-alright-jackism.
But I fear no one will understand consiliense
I know someone who is writing on this at this moment – has been for 20 years. First part due out end of next year.
Can you reveal anything further about the content?
Simon, it’s economics from first principles. I think it’s revolutionary. The author is a scientist turned economist.
I always worry a bit when scientists turn to social sciences…as if THEY will be the ones to sort us all out. I’m sure your friend is very well-meaning but I doubt if there really is anything revolutionary to say about economics. For quite a few years I’ve found the kind of ecological Marxism that John Bellamy Foster writes about in his books and at the Monthly Review very interesting. Before anyone faints from my use of the ‘M’ word, I see Marx as the end-point of classical economics and not particularly frightening. Not sure about a name of course but all most of us want is worthwhile work and time for personal growth in a certain number of ways without wearying the biosphere or the biosphere getting weary of us. But of course all of that is just way too difficult!!!
The M paranoia is absurd
He was one of the great classical economists
@PhilJoMarm You’ll just have to wait and see. It’s actually about economic development, since that’s what he was teaching in Africa.
We could pick up the Spanish “Podemos” (We can do it”) idea, and call the Party – “Movement” would be a better appellation – “Possumus”, the Latin for “We can do it”, and therefore call its underlying philosophy “possumist”.
Nah, that sounds like belief in possums;o)
“Suggestions welcome.”
This is one of the main discussions welding a new network in the Manchester area at the moment. I prefer ‘Better’ leading eventually to Social Contract 2.0. It captures the more organic, less top-down, more algorithmic and piecemeal approach required from the grassroots as well as the direction of travel; we need to be working hard towards an encompassing social pact that includes everyone not just the few.
But better cannot be offered as an alternative to austerity
Or it might sound like better austerity, and that would not do
I’d argue it is exactly the alternative to the prevailing economic orthodoxy that we can all get behind; ‘Better’ is all about an upwards not downwards economy, hope not cuts, progress not retrenchment, all not few.
Richard, you as well as many of us have spent an awful lot of time understanding what is going wrong and sharing that understanding. There is always a lot more to do of that work if the goal is to get almost everyone onto the same page but my sense now is that enough people to make a real difference going forward already have that understanding and need to move on to doing something about it.
Active, local, accessible initiatives that people can support and drive forward, ones in which they feel they can play a decisive part, are becoming necessary to corral this new energy into productive channels that we know can deliver the change we need to see. The time for review, contemplation, theoretical constructs and models, ‘vision’ and open-ended discussion is at an end for many people, we need a banner to galvanise action; ‘Better’ distinguishes us from them because that’s what we want. Not power to rule.
Better is comfortable but does not work: it sounds arrogant and does not describe a system in itself, it only does so comparatively. Almost (but not quite) anything democratically conceivable might be better than Osbornomics but better does not define what it is.
The need is for an econmpassing word, like austerity, that does in itself suggest the nature of the programme
I am still inclined to durability
Confronted by 40 years of intense neo-liberal endoctrination at all levels of society, it requires a Kaizen-style step-by-step strategy to overturn it. No mean task but you have to start somewhere. Of course the ‘framing’ language must be replaced, which Chomsky and Mitchell have battled for over decades with little success, indicating the ‘success’ of the NL programme. While that struggle continues, it is necessary to change the way economics is taught – another Herculean task, but where there is some evidence of progress. Steve Keen is doing his bit in the UK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIaXVntqlUE)as are those academics at the Department of Economics, University of Missouri—Kansas City, University of Newcastle,NSW and hopefully elsewhere. But the core University economic syllabus in the West is still the mainstream Chicago nonsense that got us into this mess. Chomsky maintains that change can only come from the bottom up via local community groups etc. So the emphasis must be on education from an early age. It’s going to be a very long journey but … one step at a time and trust in faith and synchronicity. Thanks, Richard, for your contribution. Every little helps!
MMT is not the only alternative narrative
No – but it is a good starting point. It’s a-political and deals with the major flaws in the prevailing ‘austerity’ narrative which is causing unprecedented social damage. If global corporatism is to be overcome then heterodox economists need to come together as do progressive socio-political movements. The recent Spanish & Portuguese election results are indicative of the potential for co-operation. Far too much time and energy is spent in-fighting (intellectual egotism?) while the victor has been walking, and now running, away with the spoils. What level of crisis does it take to bring us together?
“Far too much time and energy is spent in-fighting (intellectual egotism?) while the victor has been walking, and now running, away with the spoils. What level of crisis does it take to bring us together? ”
I also fee the frustration as Austrians/Post keynsians/neo-Keynsians/MMTers slug it out like so many competing theologies. It’s a veritable tower of Babel.
Still we need some framework of thought and MMt supplies the accounting identities and the scope that Fiat currencies have. What will bring us together-things will have to get worse than now I guess, which is sad. We seem to be on a ‘Faustian’ trajectory at present. The problem with economics is that you can’t stop the sytem and them restart it in a recalibrated form (only wars do that)……
I`ve always liked `Common Wealth` – not Commonwealth – in the spirit of Tom Wintringham.
I like Common-wealth too. It has that ‘economics for the people’ feel about it, which you don’t get from something more obscure like laionomics (roughly Greek for ‘management for the people’) . Tne key point is that the economy functions for, and has to be managed for, us.
OK – noted
I see the appeal
Left wing groups forme a Common Wealth Party during WW2-I think it folded many years ago-maybe it’s a good time to revive the name.
The difficulty is that the term has another widely used meaning
Just a bit of fun, excuse me. THE FORCE AWAKENS.
🙂
That’s already been applied to Corbyn see: http://www.mumstheword.me/2015/09/15/jeremy-corbyn-a-new-hope/
Enlightened Victorians knew the answer when they were first faced by the ravages of unregulated capitalism and its lack of respect for the individual, society and the environment.
Co-operative Ownership was the solution they promoted as an alternative to private ownership and, despite many challenges along the way, the movement is still a force for good in today’s world.
Why re-invent the wheel when Co-Operation sums up what we need more of in today’s complex world.
The Co-operative Advantage – the freedom from paying something for nothing (economic rent) to rent-seeking management and shareholders -enterprises. should enable Co-operative enterprises to wipe the floor with their commercial competition.
Unfortunately Co-ops have been hamstrung fro 150 years by using updated versions of the genetically modified companies created by the Victorians, such as Industrial & Provident Societies.
Maybe that was all they were allowed to use to make sure they did not wipe the floor with the competition
A better model is the Spanish Mondragon businesses.
American Economist Richard Wolff is one of the main proponents of co-operative endeavours-he talks about Mondragon and writes about these issues, see :
http://www.alternet.org/richard-d-wolff-can-we-remake-our-workplaces-be-more-democratic
Agreed in form but it’s not anywhere near a complete answer to the problems we face now. When it was posed as the answer in Victorian times it wasn’t the only answer either; networks of Quaker companies, co-operatives and investments in social capital were all achieved. We need similar broad-front changes and initiatives this time as well.
But as Quakers were successful in spite of social ostracism I am not sure that particular aspect a great model to build on, much as I like and value what Quakert businesses once did
“the myth that we are never stated” Typo for sated? Agreed it is unfortunate that the two of the things the UK is supposed to be best at viz Advertising and Banking are such insidious forces.
My suggestions would be the ‘abundant sufficiency system’ or ‘commensuration’ to encompass the idea of adequacy and proportionality. If that looks at though it is likely to refer to a woman’s time of the month then turn it it an ism and call it ‘commensurism’, which would have the advantage of being a new concept that could be defined from the start whilst (hopefully) sounding right…
Thanks
To muse on…
Beneficial – doing good, making things better, helping
The german language has a single word which means something like this, but with no one-word translation. In fact it is more commonly used in Austria and the Sweitzerdeutsch part of Switzerland. It often relates to a state of comfort and well-being and may be associated with alcohol – “gemütlichkeit.”
Brilliant!
Now what’s the translation?
Richard, I suspect there is no one-word translation into English because it describes a state of life which most of our population are never allowed to achieve.
First it was the religious zealots, then the international bankers, using the same means of control of the masses through fear and extortion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gem%C3%BCtlichkeit
I just thought it meant comfortableness.
The Greedocracy mindset: however much they get, it’s never enough. So the converse is to be satisfied with sufficient — maybe “nuffnomics” ?
Hi,
Can I suggest “proportion” or “proportionate”. As in having a correct or harmonious relation (with something).
Enough
Everyone should have it.
No one should have too much.
The planet can sustain it.
And we have had enough of this self-serving, neo-con destruction of our state.
Obviously the name is already taken, but the left wing Scottish think tank Common Weal is working along these lines. I don’t know how well known they are outside Scotland.
http://allofusfirst.org/what-is-common-weal/
All of us first is their motto
They are a fantastic crowd too
Brilliant
The MÄori word aroha is widely used in New Zealand by both races as a socially inclusive, caring concept.
I wish we had that word
Actually we do, if we want. The recent ‘precedent’ is Ubuntu as the name for a particular Linux distribution, taken from the Wikipedia article:
It is based on free software and named after the Southern African philosophy of ubuntu (literally, “human-ness”), which often is translated as “humanity towards others” or “the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity”
Without getting into linguistics and philosophy, we may need a word[s] from societies with totally different priorities and sets of values. The current narrative is ‘scarcity’ and ‘cost’ (expressed always in monetary terms) because it suits those that would rule us, so we need new vocabulary.
Last example of this: potlatch (used also by Situationist and Lettrists for their journal, I’m a serious admirer of Debord), from wikipedia:
A potlatch is a gift-giving feast practiced by indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast of Canada and the United States,[1] among whom it is traditionally the primary economic system.[2] This includes the Heiltsuk, Haida, Nuxalk, Tlingit, Makah, Tsimshian,[3] Nuu-chah-nulth,[4] Kwakwaka’wakw,[2] and Coast Salish cultures.[5]
It’s notable also that this was criminalised for a period as ‘the wrong way to do economics’, can’t have the peasants being generous to each other, y’know. Go figure.
Thank you
I think the system we want is one of empowerment where we can all lead a life we have reason to value.
Tgat’s the idea in The Courageous State
Philanthronomics? (only 5 syllables!)
Nice
But I am not sure anyone will get it
Cosmopolis?
https://foundation.metaintegral.org/sites/default/files/Kelly_Neville_ITC2013.pdf
“Cosmopolis” is concerned to make operative “the timely and fruitful ideas that otherwise are inoperative.” (p21)
Or is that too hopeful?
How about “Humanity”?
We could give that a try for once.
I have a lot of time for Danny Dorling who’s work on inequality is in my opinion is far too underrated in this country.
The last time I saw him was on a Channel 4 interview where he was treated in the most disrespectful manner by Cheshire’s finest, Tory neo-lib untermensch Matthew Hancock.
Hancock made me so angry that there is no way I could have borne the brunt of his attack with as much dignity as Mr Dorling – I think that I would have gone for his throat and I don’t mean with my intellect either! What an arrogant, odious fellow. Totally repugnant.
Anyhow, putting my indignation aside……………..
Perhaps we could call the idea ENOUGH!
Enough of austerity.
Enough of inequality.
Enough for us all to live on and prosper.
I’ll keep working on it but that is all I have to offer for now.
Sorry – did not see David Kiernan’s contribution above.
I like enough
But it misses the aspirational bit the public apparently want
Oh well.
Aspirational?
Can anyone help as to what this actually means? This is a serious question.
What are the public’s aspirations?
I thought I quoted the aspirations beneath ENOUGH!!
Is it about ‘things can only get better’ – something like that? Are aspirations for something being ‘better’ or just ‘more’ of something?
I can’t define aspiration
But I admit I want more than enough
Although I do not refer to material aspiration when saying that
OK
Here’s another:
‘BALANCE’
Thinking about it, a courageous state would be a key actor in the markets in order to try to ensure a balance between competing interests and as a brake on the excesses which we have manifestly observed in under-regulated markets. At the moment, government is co-opted into delivering corporate agendas.
Such a courageous state would also ensure that the environment was not sacrificed for short term profit – look how green energy has fallen victim to the fracking fraternity for example. I wish the latter would frack off to be honest.
It appeals to me because I accept that there will always be people richer than me, more deserving of that too so this is not the policy of jealousy. Rather it is that I do not accept the way in which the rich have got richer still whilst others have got less and less. Picketty is right on the nose on this trend.
‘BALANCE’ sounds a bit boring so how about an anglicised version of the French term ‘equilibre’?
‘Equiliberty’? Mind you I think that I prefer the French!!!
Cautionary Note: One of the key aspects of neo-liberalism that I picked up when reading Yanis Varoufakis’ long read in the Guardian this year (highly recommended BTW) was that he pointed out that whereas the Left mention concepts like equality and fairness to underpin its values, it was the neo-libs who got hold of the word ‘freedom’ to underpin theirs and this may be why neo-lib values dominate.
We know on this blog that freedom – like money – accrues to those at the top too often these days and is not evenly distributed so going forward I think we need to bear this in mind. The word and the concept of freedom must be snatched back by anyone who calls themselves ‘progressive’ – and I don’t mean the ersatz version of progressive as practiced by Camerfoon & Co.
eco-nomics with a dash…
Amused
Koyaanisqatsi
Anyone remember the film? It’s a Hopi Indian word which means: ‘A way of living which demands a change in the way of living’
The problem with English (and a lot of European languages) is that we don’t have single words fro expansive, complex, self-reflexive concepts.
Can’t see that word catching on here but I thought I’d throw it in anyway!
We really do suffer from a poverty of language
Agree. And see above my comments on ‘ubuntu’ and ‘potlatch’
Hmmm – you know what – it may have to be an acronym!!!
The mere fact that we’re debating the name for the movement/theory/paradigm tells me that there is a powerful, latent, force building up.
“In the world of ideas, to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue.”
Thomas L. Friedman
Personally, I have been riffing on the theme of ‘sufficiency’ (as some earlier correspondents have, too).
What about ‘Enough-ism’?
We’ve had ‘Enough’. We want ‘Enough’. We only need ‘Enough’.
The rouble is some do not have enough and that makes the term hard to use
Out of Catholic Social Teaching comes the Economy of Communion movement, emphasising solidarity and subsidiarity, which arose from Pope Leo XI’s outrage at the behaviour of employers during the late industrial revolution.It has a powerful economist lobby from the Bologna University Catholic economists – and me.
But I have a simpler word: LOVE.
May I wish you all a Happy Christmas. I have learned lots and lots from this site. Thank you.
Thank you
Pertinent, but not strictly related is this blog on redefining ‘degrowth’ as a term. You may not agree with the concept, but some of the thoughts on negative framing are worth reading:
https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/why-degrowth-has-out-grown-its-own-name-guest-post-by-kate-raworth/
I am familiar with the idea and have some sympathy for it – I wrote on what growth might mean recently
I am currently reading a book by Colin Hay &Anthony Payne entitled CIVIC CAPITALISM a term they define in detail.The book also contains an article by FRed Block who suggests an alternative title-Democracy (of the people by the people for the people)so I suggest either Civic Capitalism or Democratic Capitalism.Both suggest the focus on the many not the few.
Capitalism us important – a theme I will be addressing
But fair to laden in a paradigm we need to move on from to be useful
Lonely quote from Mattie Stepanek.
UNITY is strength. When there is teamwork and collaboration wonderful things can be achieved.
Happy Christmas to all and a healthy and peaceful New Year.
Lovely quote meant to say.