There are, as they say in the BBC, other economics blogs available. I should add, some of them are also rather good. Flip Chart Fairy Tales, written by Flip Chart Rick is one of them. In the context of John Rapley's argument on how economics became a religion the following extract from a post there in the potential demise of small state thinking is of interest:
The important thing to understand about right-wing libertarianism is that it is a very eccentric viewpoint. It looks mainstream because it has a number of well-funded think-tanks pushing its agenda and its adherents are over-represented in politics and the media. The public, though, have never swallowed it. Countless think-tank papers, opinion pieces and editorials, telling us that shrinking the state is just common sense and that re-nationalisation is a loony left pipe-dream, have had remarkably little effect. The majority of people still want the railways and utilities taken back into public ownership and the proportion who want significant cuts to public spending has never even reached 10 percent. After three decades of haranguing by well-placed and well-funded small-staters, public opinion hasn't budged.
Chart from British Social Attitudes 34, June 2017
Over the last few decades, public opinion has swung between spending more and spending the same, support for the latter peaking during the period when David Cameron and George Osborne persuaded lots of voters that Labour has crashed the economy by borrowing too much. Yet even at this point, there was no support for cutting the size of the state. As Chris Dillow never tires of pointing out, Cameron and Osborne never really made a coherent case for state shrinkage. The Big Society came and went and the moment passed.
I would like to think Rick is right. I sense a very strong change in public opinion right now: among parents facing education cuts it seems to be especially strong. It seems that lines are really being drawn in sand. The myth that we cannot afford what has so obviously been achieved in the past is simply not believed. If that is widespread then the trend revealed in the British Social Attitudes survey looks to be what I am sensing.
But, and this takes me back John Rapley and my comments on his theme, thinking we need more spending is one thing. The reality is that a very powerful elite control the state religion that cutting the size of the state is required. Such elites are overthrown, and state backed hegemonies are rejected, but only when there is a better narrative to take their place. I would like to think that is in the course of development. I have to live in hope.
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:
Thanks for this – ‘will have a look.
One of the phrases in the article struck a chord “The reality is that a very powerful elite control the state religion that cutting the size of the state is required” – having a (dominant?) “elite” monopolising discussions always leads to very poor outcomes (historically? – the Reformation). I say this in the context of having recently read this book:
“Against Elections – the case for democracy” by David Van Reybrouck
In a nutshell: if we trust citizens to do the right thing in a controlled environment (law courts/juries) why not in the larger body politic – cue politicians crying nooo!!
I hope the above is not too far off the mark – but there seems to be a massive gap between political elites (& their economic views) and the (economic) reality experienced by citizens. This seems to require Democracy II which is quite different from what we have now (Edmund Burkes version of democracy = elective aristoracy & thus elective elites), which never was fit for purpose and is now falling to pieces.
I think there is something in this and will look up the book. I’ve been blogging ( https://johnpaulwares.com/ ) on politics ensuring fair distribution of power for people and communities to exercise. This needs resource so runs counter the ‘efficiency’ narrative of both left and right, instead favouring choice, diversity and competition. But it is not big state in the sense of monopolised services.
I think it’s a chart that shows more and more people are waking to the fact they’ve been hoodwinked for the last ten years.
For this reason, I find this long opinion piece in today’s Guardian endorsed on Twitter by Monbiot earlier troubling: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/11/how-economics-became-a-religion
From what I’ve read so far, it sets about equating the whole of economics with neoliberalism.
While this is an understandable view for a lay person, and was largely my own opinion until about ’08 when I started reading about the subject a bit and getting exposed to its ideas, it seems a dangerous and rather unfortunate viewpoint to be propagated by a significant part of our press.
Professors and academics — you need to rise up and size your field back from charlatans!
The point is that for all practical purposes economics is neoliberalism: that is the hegemony that pervades and it is nigh on impossible to teach in an economics department without subscribing. That is why I work in politics and international relations. It is why other good economists I know work as geographers and sociologists. This is the only way heterodox economics can be done. Getting rid of those who now call themselves economists per se is not as absurd as you might think. Their contribution to the world is now deeply questionable.
People beliefs of one sort or another come from the past and what is said about it. This is not always entirely correct. The issue is that the future always differs from the past by virtue of its unpredictability.
The term “Increasing Taxes” is highly misleading when used alone, without context or explanation.
Anyone receiving a pay-rise will pay “increased taxes” – yet who in their right mind would refuse one?
The term used on its own fails to differentiate between *existing* tax rates *automatically* bringing in higher levels of tax, as Gov spending increases – the effect remaining effectively un-noticed by the taxpayer – and increased *rates* or *scope* of tax imposed either in the uneducated belief that they would be necessary to fund increased Gov spending, or as an emergency measure to cool an overheating economy.
Nothing wrong with the former – and yet only the latter is what always seems to come to mind whenever increasing public spending and taxation is discussed.
“Anyone receiving a pay-rise will pay “increased taxes” — yet who in their right mind would refuse one?”
Quite a lot of people actually. There’s two reasons why they might. One is that if the higher pay is to be in return for greater effort or responsibility then if the tax is higher the person might think the after tax income would not be enough to compensate for the extra effort or stress. The other reason is ‘tax morale’. If you think politicians are basically thieving bandits or (more likely) you do not approve of the uses to which your taxes are put or fail to see that you benefit from them (in some cases you may not benefit except in a very indirect way) then you will be very reluctant to pay more and you would then decide you are better off taking more leisure and less pay but with the satisfaction of paying less tax. Tax morale is a function of social attitudes and outlooks, it’s independent of what the actual tax rate policy is so a country with high tax morale is going to be willing to pay a much higher rate of tax without people changing their behaviour than one with low tax morale.
Whoosh…..
“The Big Society came and went and the moment passed.”
Went to the launch of the BS in Liverpool with c.140 people present [we were all given a little brownb envelope at the end with used notes in ~ I kid you not!]. Picked 6 projects to support; the money on offer was so crap that the £200 for each was agreed to be given to one project at the end, and none ever got off the ground.
BUT ~ one of the first things the Coalition did was cut grants to the main CD [Community Development] organisations nationally, that had taken years to build up [disclosure, I was CDx Treasurer for a couple of years, and my house mate was Treasurer of the Urban Forum]. The BIG SOCIETY main organisation went down in flames less than 2 years later, having promised the earth, with an investigation by the Charity Commission.
So, not just “a bonfire of regulations” BUT a bonfire of civil society organisations as well. The in-joke amongst CD practitioners was that BS stood for b*llsh*t!!
Two comments
Deep rooted public perception takes a long time to shift. One tiny phrase struck me weeks ago – saying Spend and Tax in debates and conversations shifts the view from Tax And Spend. Those people I have mentioned it to have been really struck by it and it has caused them to stop and think about their assumptions. One can only hope for a ripple effect.
Yes, there is a need for an alternative narrative and the lack of discipline within the Labour party leaves me staggered. I am not a Labour adherent but the need for a really effective opposition is high. They are squandering their chances in front of a near open goal.