This is the start of the foreword from a new OECD book on inequality:
But, apparently, wishing to address these issues makes you in the eyes of the political elite and those who report to them left wing, a threat to society and unelectable.
And that is the paradox at the heart of our economy. It is still economically geared to meeting the wants of a few and not the needs of many. And in the process it is designed to increase inequality on any measure you care to think of.
But God forbid anyone suggest we do anything about it or the neoliberal world as we know it might collapse.
And yes, it might. But as the OECD note, we might all be better off as a result.
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!
Ah, so is the spelling it seems.
I noticed
And at least I put things right
I believe that in the current model of capitalism inequality grows inexorably and the only resits is war or revolution as the elite has now engineered protection for themselves against financial collapse.
Given that we do not wish to see the rise of extremism, a modest damping of inequality is essential.* Your work is so important as it tells how to do this through taxation policy, closing all the loop holes. Current tax policy exaggerates inequality and allows us to propagate inequality onto the next generation.
* modest means to reach an agreed stable steady state.
Thank you
Direct link to book is:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/0115391e.pdf?expires=1452788108&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=C9AA727049A894CA3AC8552C38C3CDDA
On what basis did David Cameron claim a few days ago that inequality had lessened in the period of his office? (does he actually know and understand his figures, or does he just use manipulated sound bites fed to him by his special advisors?)
He is using one, very limited definition – the Gini coefficient
A definition that you are very happy to hang your hat on when the numbers support your pre-determined conclusion:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/01/23/just-ask-yourself-the-question-would-you-like-to-live-in-a-more-unequal-country/
Yes, that’s a bit inconsistent and troubling re your uncritical use of the Gini Coefficient a year ago, given that I am looking to you, Richard, as Tax Research Hero, for clear and reliable guidance in a murky area (seriously). The other thing I am puzzled by in this conversation, is that although all comments demonstrate the circular problems of money=debt, nobody is clearly saying we need to change the basis on which money is created?
Money is debt
You can’t change that
Those who say you can are, I am afraid, wrong
And as far as I know I have never uncritically used Gini
This blog has to be seen as a continuum, not a series of discrete events
Totally agree that what you present is a paradox.
Perhaps it is related to yet another paradox that Labour are currently dealing with: that voters are (according to John Cruddas) ‘economically radical but fiscally conservative’.
The electorate tend to believe in redistribution but also in austerity!! The latter is currently inhibiting the former – as your blog concerning inequality indicates.
http://labourlist.org/2015/08/labour-lost-because-voters-believed-it-was-anti-austerity/
Cruddas then goes on to say that Labour can seek to change the electorates’ views on their fiscal conservatism but that the public are not that in favour of anti-austerity so it is ‘maybe best not to ignore them’.
In other words, even though the electorate wrongly think that macro economics is the same as micro economics (that a country’s finances must be managed like a households’ finances and you have to now cut spending), we must accept the voter’s view EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG!!
As a result, Labour policy must also be fiscally conservative. It’s a capitulation to ignorance that is being suggested. Period.
No wonder no-one seems to know what to do about the economy and we keep going around in circles/cycles. It is because the electorate have got the wrong knowledge of how fiscal policy actually works to such an extent that new ideas to deal with the problem like PQE have trouble getting traction with voters.
Voters cage their own principles of fairness in their misunderstanding of austerity and macro economics. You couldn’t make it up. It’s a perfect problem. We need to break this – surely?
A properly running PLP that stops bickering amongst itself has the focus of its work right here, right now. Instead, it looks like a certain portion in Labour want to reinforce the voters misconception by just not arguing with them. And as a result nothing will really fundamentally change if Labour did get in again.
Such politicians are almost treating voters like customers and not constituents (‘the customer is always right’ – an example of insidious market thinking at work in political economy).
It’s a bit of a mess – Labour’s study has highlighted the problem; their own response looks to be woeful but for real progressives everywhere – well it’s a gift – we know what we have to do to break the grip these plain wrong fiscal ideas have on people’s perceptions and hopes.
“Voters cage their own principles of fairness in their misunderstanding of austerity and macro economics. You couldn’t make it up. It’s a perfect problem. We need to break this”
That will be interesting: Getting voters up-to-speed on macro.
Maybe a 2-week course in a paper they never read?
Introducing someone to the idea/fact that banks “magic” money into existence is an episode in blank-stare education.
And, or course, politicians know that.
Which is why labour is stymied, and George rules the roost.
Stepping back, and looking at the politics of today is an education. Really, the government is running rings around everyone. People are actually happy that the gov is removing their rights, happy that the country is being “strongly governed”….I sometimes wonder if the water is being doctored.
Of course, the government is so contemptuous of any opposing view, and is happily reducing democracy to nothing. And still no opposition.
I suppose the problem is that labour can only pursue the same policies as the government, without bring the wrath of the conservative press upon their heads.
I don’t think it’s right to say there is ‘no opposition’. There is plenty of determined grass roots opposition to various ‘austeritty’ measures, market driven policies, the dismantling of democracy etc, and a growing awareness of the links between politicians and big financial interests. This is supported by a fair weight of expert opinion. However, it’s not consolidated into one clearly articulated national expression. Politically, it’s trying to gain national expression from the ground up in the Labour Party, but this struggle is totally misreported by the news media, and deftly translated into ‘bickering’.
I think you underestimate peoples ability to see through the government spin. The tories have grabbed the narrative so far, but given that the economy is heading for trouble, i doubt this will last. The credible opposition needs to be in place for that point when the king is seen to be naked.
I agree that many people do see though it LisaP – but it seems to me that just as they do so, the Right throws in a curve ball that takes the focus off their newly found awareness – such as ‘Scottish politicians having a say in English politics’.
I still remember people I work with turning up after the last election who had voted Tory to stop the Scots influencing Parliament because that idea was being circulated widely in the media. This is even though the Tories are hell bound on reducing the size of the public sector where these voters work. These people voted for a Government that wants to put them out of work by creating a false risk/consciouness concerning the Scots and voted as they did in response to that. The olde enmity’s die hard and are ripe for exploitation.
Was this Lynton Crosby’s finest hour? I think so!!
Whoever controls this sort of info and is willing to use it seems to win. But it is not honest politics – not at all.
The problem the people face is that most get their understanding of the economy from the what the neoliberal media spews out at them (and the Guardian is complicit in this)who are the voice of the Tories. Or perhaps the Tories are the voice of the media. Who knows. I think it’s time Murdoch and his ilk retired permanently.
Sadly, there are very few quality investigative journalists who are willing to dig deeper and question the status quo. And even fewer TV journalists who think critically and will ask the hard questions, and keep asking them.
Politicians are slippery creatures who should be firmly pinned down and held to account for everthing they say and do.
I’d love to see Max Keiser on Daily Politics with Andrew Neil.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair
“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels
“Think of the press as a great keyboard
on which the government can play.”
― Joseph Goebbels
And finally:
“Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths.”
― Joseph Goebbels
As you can see, the lessons of history never change.
I wonder who, in the depths/anus of the tory party, has read Goebbels…..someone, obviously..
I am not sure this is the best argument. It does not matter if the multiple is twice as large if the poorest are better off under a more prosperous economy.
I would have thought that was the whole point of Capitalism i.e. to reward the
leadership qualities of entrepreneurs to the benefit of us all. It does come with a caveat of course, that the rich are taxed properly.
Yes it does matter, a lot
First, poverty is a relative measure and not an absolute one at extremes
Second you appear to have just ignored a massive body of human psychological understanding
In other words, you are right only if being crass as to the state of the human condition is right
There is a fundamental problem with the theory of rising tide economics (i.e. JFK’s quote that a rising tide lifts all boats) in that capitalist economies always run in financial cycles of boom/bust AKA growth/recession.
Sadly for all those billions of little boats (i.e. human beings) floating just above the water, everytime there is a bust/recession they are the ones washed up on the beach and drowning in debt again just trying to survive.
As for capitalism ever being “to reward the leadership qualities of entrepreneurs to the benefit of us all” I think with respect that needs re-considering!
Where is the benefit to us all of outsourcing our jobs overseas, exploiting imported low skilled workers, creating private monopolies and cartels from our essential utilities, indebtening society with excessive and high interest credit, ripping off tenants with sky high rents, etc, etc etc.
The starry eyed examples of Apple, Google or Microsoft as pinnacles of capitalist success (which they are not as their success is only predicated on vast amounts of finance to exploit their patents, restrict competition and maintain their monopoly) ignores the destructive and inhumane tendency of the vast majority of capitalist activity.
One of the challenges for left of centre politicians is relearning the ability to talk principles and the truth in simple language an ordinary voter can understand. Sadly too many are still trapped in the Blairite mentality of aping the tories by peddling meaningless statistics that bear no relation to the reality of most people’s lives.
Good to see Corbyn has risen to the challenge and started the public debate over inequality and the potential solutions.
It will be interesting to hear the speech in full, I hope that in addition to the “democratic control of energy” whether he will promote the democratic control of all aspects of the economy (starting with finance) by actively promoting cooperative/worker owned/mutual/social ownership models.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/16/jeremy-corbyn-to-confront-big-business-over-living-wage