Martin Sandbu argued in the FT yesterday that:
Liberal democratic capitalism is on the defensive against illiberal nationalism because of three combined economic failures.
One in the past: its neglect of those left behind and at the sharp end of inequality by four decades of structural economic change – in particular de-industrialisation and the native, male working class whose traditional jobs it ended.
A second is still playing itself out in the present: the global financial crisis and its aftermath, which has seen the young particularly afflicted with increased economic insecurity from a combination (depending on the country) of high unemployment, poor wage growth, precarious work conditions and lack of access to housing.
The third is, for now, a prospective failure but one causing real dread: the threat of further structural economic change in which technology will displace masses of jobs.
Or to put it another way, the pursuit of profit maximisation, come what may, kills the host economy that permits that goal.
Sandbu makes a fundamental error. He thinks liberal, democratic capitalism is what we have had for forty years. It isn't. We have had anti-democratic financial capitalism that does not seek to make profit from meeting need but does instead seek to do so by exploiting weakness and arbitraging rules to extract rents where none are due. It is this that is rightly under threat, albeit the source of the threat is to be deeply regretted.
Neither democracy or the capitalism of the mixed economy that might serve us well can survive unless the cancer of market abuse is eliminated. That elimination is the required solution. Tax justice is part of that, of course.
Right now, however, Brexit is driving us in the wrong direction.
Whilst Labour's plan to return natural monopolies to state control where they belong is being resisted mightily.
The saving democratic capitalism project is not going well 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:
I think that Guy Standing’s work on the ‘Precariat’ certainly highlights that the threat comes from those democracy is meant to serve – those who are having to cope with zero hours contracts, reduced state help etc.
And the onward march of human displacing technology does not seem to want to be abated because it means higher returns for those seeking rent.
I believe that certain sectors of the economy need to be repopulated with jobs. For example, during the recent bad weather, information at my local station and even the website advertising trains was well behind the curve in delivering information of disruption. So many of the stations on my line have been de-staffed with no one to speak to about what is actually going on. A human face or faces at these locations would be better in my view. That is what I would call a service.
Let’s do it – go back to basics. Bring back the jobs.
As has been discussed here, this hunt for continuous efficiency (narrowly defined by saving cash) is actually a false consciousness borrowed from the short investment culture of the City (always with a view to privatisation and creating nice fat rents).
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
” the threat comes from those democracy is meant to serve —…”
I’m cynical about this, Pilgrim. As far as I can see ‘democracy’, as we know it, is a political system which aims to gain public support, authority or acquiescence from the population for what the elite wants to do. (because they know what they are doing and we don’t…….er, right) I haven’t entirely made that up and Chomsky provides some evidence for this in pronouncements of the ‘founding fathers’ of the US. The Brexit referendum exhibits that in spades. Brexit ‘is the will of the people’. Yeah. Right.
“And the onward march of human displacing technology does not seem to want to be abated because it means higher returns for those seeking rent.”
That oversimplifies and misses the point, I feel. You are looking backwards with rosy tinted spectacles, and (reductio ad absurdum) you put us all back to growing turnips in muddy fields. Humankind has always harnessed technology from flints onwards to make life easier. Allowing more leisure to sing and dance and paint the cave walls. Extraction of rents is a separate issue – it has to do with perverse and aberrant incentives. Particularly the hoarding of whatever passes for wealth at any given time, be it livestock, gold, or a bank balance and the power and status that wealth allows to an individual or group.
“I believe that certain sectors of the economy need to be repopulated with jobs.”
I know what you mean, but I hate to see it expressed in this way. There is a lot of work to do and it needs to be done and it needs to provide the doers with a living (at least). ‘Jobs’ implies employers, and employers are rent seekers who exploit labour as a commodity. Given half a chance they don’t pay, they coerce and government is usually complicit. (reductio ad absurdum – and it’s not very absurd because it is currently widespread – you have slavery. Sex slavery is rampant according to many reports. Labour abuse tantamount to slavery is common in the production of the cheap agricultural produce we pick up in the supermarket.)
” For example, during the recent bad weather, information at my local station …..”
Agreed. It’s ridiculous. Local councils don’t clear the roads and pavements they close schools and issue colour coded weather warnings, and chuck money at private contractors in attempt to motivate them to do something they have given away control of.
“Let’s do it — go back to basics.” FFS that’s one of the most poisonous phrases in modern politics !
“Bring back the jobs.” Bollox, Pilgrim. You don’t go back. (You can’t go back) This is what terrifies people about the Corbyn prospect; they see going back (to the seventies) and it’s a propaganda gift to to the reactionary right. And my God, they’re milking it.
If MMT and attendant radical political and economic reformation is going to take us back where we came from I, for one, want to get off the bus now.
On which point, manufacturing is unlikely to ever return as we’ve known it. My external spotlight over the front door fell apart recently but I was able to glue it back together using one of those doodads which produce glue which hardens under UV light. Cost; a couple of quid. It lasted two days before Storm Emma took it out (would have lasted a lot longer under normal conditions), but it got me thinking. The spotlight consists of a central core with electronics in it, and the mount and brackets are plastic. It would make great sense to simply market the core as a unit together with links to online plans for the rest of the unit, which could all be 3D printed and assembled. This principle will no doubt become more or less universal. There’s a whole lot less jobs likely to be available right there. Jobs, dull and repetitive as we’ve known them, and the need for correspondingly dull personnel to do them, will be in relatively short supply. I can’t see ‘jobs’as being any kind of answer to what is probably a wrong question in the first place.
Andy,
“Bring back the jobs.” Bollox, Pilgrim. You don’t go back. (You can’t go back)”
Bollox Andy, That’s just conjecture. The modernist dogma of linear progress (if its newer it must be better) died in the ’80’s if not long beforehand.
Progress and history are cyclical, not linear. That’s why the privatisations (which took us back to the 19th century) happened and why the re-nationalisations will replace them. Pilgrim is right. Not all inventions are good. A lot of the “labour-saving” shite that’s being introduced into services is inefficient, ineffective, unwanted and a lot of it won’t last.
Little wonder that so much of that stuff is in monopoly and oligopoly services. The competitive sector is more labour intensive because customers that actually have a choice prefer real service.
Andy says; “You don’t go back. (You can’t go back) This is what terrifies people about the Corbyn prospect; they see going back (to the seventies) and it’s a propaganda gift to to the reactionary right. And my God, they’re milking it.”
You’re so right. Corbyn and the current Labour Party is seen as a throwback to a time when Labour was associated (rightly or wrongly) with some seriously bad managemnent of the country – skillfully milked by the neo-libs at the time and again now, as you state.
Under the current leadership it’s going to be difficult for them to distance themselves from their not so distant past. Liam Byrne’s ‘shortest suicide note in history’ was a tragic error of judgement and only 8 years ago, hence fresh in the memory of millions and always ready to be regurgitated by the MSM.
To a large extent it’s generational in that the ‘collective memory’ eventually fades for the majority. A critical turning point should be around 2040 when most of us born pre-1955 have shuffled off this mortal coil. In the meantime a new narrative has to be developed, honed and ‘floated’, offering a positive, achievable vision for the future. In a sense I feel the ‘Corbyn effect’ has served to delay progress rather than to advance it. While only the Green Party offers a radically new manifesto for the future, sadly it never seems to gain any meaningful traction at the polls – even among younger voters. If only it could get its act together (starting with a name change) it could be a new popularist party, in the positive sense of the word. However, my fear is that the UK will continue to muddle through, from one crisis to another, clinging to a mythological (Tory) or extinct (Labour) past.
Could it be that we need ‘Brexit’, ‘Trump’ and the ‘Alt-right’ to awaken the latent desire in most people’s minds for real democracy and fairness in every area of society – starting in the workplace which affects the majority?
Andy
I was basically going to shred every point you have just made because you seem to have put words in my mouth. But you know what – I couldn’t be bothered.
This is Richard’s blog so here you are. If it were mine I’d delete you for irrelevance.
Personally I find your contributions annoying and somewhat scatological? Maybe best if I moved on or did something else. Or maybe you could be a good chap and consider doing that first?
As for those who think that naming and shaming neo-liberalism is ‘being lazy’ then all I can say is for Gods sake wake up . Neo-liberalism has created a sort of intellectual justification for greed that has affected the price of utilities, made people unemployed and encouraged tax abuse.
It is not lazy to mention neo-liberalism. It is right to do so. Until it is gone (if ever).
It is also right to point out that the Left does indeed need to think of a more balanced economy between the State and the private sector. It should be called a social market and the aims of its operation would be to deliver the greatest amount of social utility or benefit to the greatest amount of people. This would of course mean a better distribution of wealth from such an economy and more regulation of certain activities that have been under regulated for far, far too long.
Finally may I recommend a book that I am just in the throes of completing called ‘Tragedy and Challenge: An Inside View of UK Engineering’s Decline and the Challenge of a Brexit Economy’ by Tom Brown (Matador, 2017, ISBN 9781788035316).
Brown makes a lot of sense and even though it is biased toward engineering he rightly calls out the roots of so many of this country’s problems and the possible answers.
Thanks PSR
Your voice is appreciated here
We (that’s contributors as a whole) don’t always agree with each on this blog
As I am aware I can be irritating to some I tend to tolerant of it in others when their overall aim is, I hope, sound
Pilgrim
Glad you liked Tragedy & Challenge, which I too thought pointed to many of the root causes of failure in the manufacturing sector, but has lessons for most other sectors. The two I’d pick out would be the role of banking and finance (the ‘City’), and how/for whom companies are run, with the two being closely linked.
In brief, he emphasises how companies are run just to maximise value extraction for ‘shareholders’ with all that means for lack of investment in R&D, skills, plant, process etc. All the actions needed for a business to grow and create the jobs of the future.
That behaviour is primarily driven by pressure from the City and incentivised by the reward system for directors. The City has no interest in or understanding of what is involved in building a business for the long term, let alone wider issues such as sustainability or the social consequences of their actions. Accountants and corporate lawyers are the City’s ‘fixers’.
It is telling that this book is coming from someone who has spent their life trying to build and run businesses and I’ve heard similar arguments from others in his situation. It also reflects my experience working in the IT industry in the 70s and 80s, which could have been a far greater success for the UK but which had minimal support from government and zilch from the City.
I’ve just been in a short, informal break-out group on ‘economy’, at a certain party conference…. was very much struck by how the ideas coming from people were all about creating more jobs in public services (eg NHS) or bringing jobs in the private sector back into the public sector (nationalisation). Nothing on where new and replacement jobs might come from and what needs to happen to to create them. Last time I looked, about 5 times as many work in the private sector as public.
This feels to me to be similar to the bulk of discussion that takes place on these august pages. Richard made a plea on behalf of the ‘mixed economy’ a few days ago. Tragedy & Challenge highlights a lot of what needs tackling if we are to have a successful mixed economy, rather than the skewed offerings that we are currently getting from the two main parties, polarised into state vs private.
I feel that this argument is the flip side (rather, double A side) of that on tax havens
Accountants and lawyers used them to take control of business
Now they are sucking the life out of that business, and the economy with it
I’m sorry to have annoyed you, Pilgrim,
I wasn’t shooting at you, I was shooting past you over shoulder and I’ve caught your ears with buckshot.
Bit of an own goal really.
One up to the neolibs we’re fighting each other.
Oh Pilgrim,
You so rightly say: “that certain sectors of the economy need to be repopulated with jobs” and that: “A human face or faces at these locations would be better in my view. That is what I would call a service”
Yes indeed but technically what you are calling for is a decline in “labour productivity” Oh dear. So many people blithely refer to “productivity” in such positive terms. They do so in this very blog and elsewhere without really thinking about what it means. Labour productivity refers to the rate at which labour is displaced by capital – and I mean people replaced by machines.
Its at the heart of the history of the industrial revolution and has, for quite some time, been considered the source of prosperity. Not anymore. The benefits that flow from productivity gains aren’t being shared like they used to. With particular reference to your point we could also say that, in many ways, greater mechanisation has ceased to improve our lives.
Productivity growth has, arguably, passed the point of diminishing marginal returns. Increasingly small and unshared gains are massively overshadowed by the de-humanising effects that come with them.
The robotisation of factories is something that most people never personally experienced or noticed. The de-humanisation of services, however, is very conspicuous and quite often doing us a great disservice.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic/04reich-graphic-popup.jpg
In fact he contradicts himself in the three paragraphs that follow the first on in which he uses the term ‘ democratic capitalism ‘ because if we had such a system then their would be measures coming forth from our ‘ democratically elected government ‘ to deal with the problems he describes . So I ask myself ‘ Why ? ‘ . The answer I think is this . The accepted economic narrative – whether you call it neoliberalism, or the market rules ok – whatever you want to call it, is the inverse of reality . So why don’t we have people taking to the streets to change this narrative ? Because we don’t have an alternative to put in its place that people – all or the majority of us – can say ‘ yes that’s it that’s the future and we want it and we are prepared to do whatever it takes to get it ‘ . There is though, I think, this nagging doubt in the public mind that nothing makes sense any more and that has to be the precursor to something new . It seems the journalists on the FT are going through something of a collective nervous breakdown what with their ‘ President’s Club ‘ scoop and a whole bunch of other pieces like the one you quote above where reality stares them in the face, but in order to hang on to their job that have to add some coda that toes the party line.
That break down is part of the transition to the new
Gramsci might be amused
I’ve just listened to Bill Mitchell’s introductory lecture in Finland – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IynNfA1Ohao&feature=youtu.be (thank you Robert P Bruce on a previous blog). I think his history of Neo-liberalism is relevant to this topic.
For those who don’t have the patience to listen to Prof. Mitchell (not the world’s most captivating speaker) he explains how the traditional ‘left-wing’ parties, who advocated and pursued the post WW2 consensus – a form of democratic capitalism – on both sides of the Atlantic, caved into the Neo-liberal agenda, starting in Europe with Dennis Healey in Wilson’s 2nd administration, thus pre-dating Thatcher. Healey, of course, later told the nation it had run out of money, necessitating the loan from the IMF. According to Mitchell, the ‘game changer’ was the 1973 oil crisis. In France, Mitterand abandoned his progressive agenda with disasterous results.
Subsequently we’ve witnessed a domino effect that brings us to where we are today. During this 30 year period the Social Democrats, having bought into monetarism, increasingly let down their core voters as they had (& have) no answer to their growing socio-economic problems emanating from stagnating wages. The recent political swings in European elections are the logical result.
Much is being written about the failure of European social democracy, but I found this piece from a Norwegian perspective particularly interesting – https://www.socialeurope.eu/crisis-social-democracy. What prompted me to post these comments is the fact the author also quotes Gramsci.
Thanks
“Liberal democratic capitalism is on the defensive ……” Like the Japanese soldier in his fox hole years after the war ended, all alone and nobody told him the war had ended.
“…..against illiberal nationalism ….” Well that sums up the Brexit mindset. Little England’s bid for unilateral independence.
“….because of three combined economic failures…..” Because of a failed political rationale more likely.
Apart from that maybe he’s on to something 🙂
““…..against illiberal nationalism ….” Well that sums up the Brexit mindset. Little England’s bid for unilateral independence.”
Well yes and it is also because corporate globalisation sucks and people have finally got sick of it.
When people like him say ‘liberal’ they are not referring the freedom of people but the unimpeded freedom of capital (money) regardless of all else. To them democracy is like shareholder voting. The larger your holding, the more say you have.
It is refreshing and encouraging to read this post and your previous one. Thank you. It is both good and useful that you, apparently intentionally, have avoided using the tired and lazy “neoliberal” label when you describe succinctly the particularly virulent and ugly mutation of capitalism that has emerged in the last 40 years – “We have had anti-democratic financial capitalism that does not seek to make profit from meeting need but does instead seek to do so by exploiting weakness and arbitraging rules to extract rents where none are due.”
But I fear you won’t receive any plaudits from the “true believers” on the left for whom well-governed and efficient market mechanisms and effective economic regulation are an anathema. Their preference is for state provision, ownership and control to the greatest extent possible. And this, in turn, repels many, many voters favouring a well-functioning mixed economy. As a result, the popular coalition required to elect sensible governance falls apart.
Labour’s proposed renationalisation of some utility services in response to the depradations of rent-seeking, market-abusing financial capitalism is a case in point. In the first instance, in relation to electricity and gas, it is truly ironic that a parliamentary majority exists in favour of introducing a price cap. Given that reasonably well-governed and efficiently functioning electricity and gas wholesale markets exist, the proposed introduction of a price cap is both damaging and egregiously stupid. It would make far more sense to establish statutory arrangements for collective purchasing and compel the energy suppliers to compete via auctions to supply tranches of consumers. This would be be the most efficient and effective means of securing the lowest cost supply for consumers. To its credit, the regulator, Ofgem, is trialling such an approach on a small scale, but primary legislation would be required to underpin its application and roll-out. But any parliamentary time available will be absorbed to enact this truly stupid price cap.
Ofgem also recognises that the previous network price controls were far too generous to shareholders and were gamed rapaciously by the regulated companies. It is now proposing much tighter controls. This is a much more sensible approach than renationalisation.
In this case the use of well-governed market mechanisms and effective regulation has the potential to deliver beneficial outcomes for consumers much more readily and efficiently than any combination of price caps and renationalisation. But can you see Labour pursuing such an approach?
I personally think renationalisation in the case of energy, water and rail, at least
They are natural monopolies
I know because if I change supplier the same gas comes out of the same pipe
What is an “efficient market mechanism”? Do they come with unicorns?
They exist if there is appropriate regulation
Without it they do not
No one says they are perfect, of course: but they are efficient enough
Your alternative is?
I expect we’ll have to agree to differ about renationalisation. My view is that an incoming Labour government would have so much on its plate that it would be much better to focus on those things such as the NHS, social care and housing where concerted resource and effort is required to improve things and to curtail the private sector gougers, rather than open up too many fronts in other areas. It is interesting to observe the sector regulators getting much more serious about their jobs when there is an increasing prospect of a Labour government. They rightly fear for their jobs. Labour, initially, could give them a chance to do their jobs properly – and if they fail then renationalisation should follow automatically.
Thank you also for your response to the inevitable smart-alec observation on my initial comment.
Paul Hunt,
“Given that reasonably well-governed and efficiently functioning electricity and gas wholesale markets exist,”
Where?
” It would make far more sense to establish statutory arrangements for collective purchasing and compel the energy suppliers to compete via auctions to supply tranches of consumers. This would be be the most efficient and effective means of securing the lowest cost supply for consumers. To its credit, the regulator, Ofgem, is trialling such an approach on a small scale”
I think that we have well past the point of considering minor adjustments and band-aid solutions. That game is over.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
Since you appear to be unaware of the existence and functioning of the GB wholesale electricity and gas markets there doesn’t seem to be much point in trying to engage any further.
Paul
I think he is entitled to ask whether that fabricated market (because that is what it is) is of worth
Richard
Paul,
I’d agree with you that some on the left prescribe state control almost as a reflex. It’s unthinking and silly. To be fair though it is not dissimilar to the knee-jerk recourse to “market solutions in all circumstances” frequently found on the right.
The “joy” of espousing a mixed economy based on an MMT understanding of macroeconomics is that we get it in the neck from left, right and the false centre! Does universal opprobrium show we’re actually quite fair and balanced or just totally out of touch? I feel like MMT is firmly in the centre ground but that’s what everyone thinks about their own position 😉
I like Neil Wilson’s viewpoint in this blog post from last year;
https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/running-a-modern-money-economy-ada9682a5fb9
Paul Hunt says:
“But I fear you won’t receive any plaudits from the “true believers” on the left…”
Just currently reading Leslie Riddoch’s ‘Blossom’. (Recommended; and although principally about Scotland much applies more widely to the whole British condition and mindset)…
She quotes an old Gaelic saying that ‘If you seek praise, die.’
Wider British tradition dictates we should be too polite to speak ill of the dead, but personally I make an exception for Margaret Thatcher. 🙂
If the “efficient market” was real then nobody would be talking about “price caps” “renationalisation” or having to be a “rate tart” moving from one “teaser” rate to another when the first ran out, or when booking a train journey start looking about 3 years in advance and checking that single tickets from A to B, B to C, C back to A and A to D(estination) wasn’t actually cheaper than a through ticket. The only efficiency is in parting plonkers from their money without causing social unrest.
Now, the Swiss have had 500 years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? Swiss railways, State owned, runs like clockwork.
Well said.
Ditto
Never been on Swiss railways, but if they work as well as you suggest that’s worth a lot of cuckoo clocks 🙂
G Hewitt,
Agree entirely but would add: markets don’t work in these particular areas because they are natural monopolies – no way around that.
Markets absolutely do work in other areas if, as Richard points out, regulation/tax is such that there’s a level playing field for all market participants.
Modern “capitalism” (of the crony variety, neoliberalism, financial capitalism – call it what you will) has harmed market, cooperative and state efforts. I think corruption is the best name for it.
An excellent discussion as usual.
There are several levels to the problem as I see it.
The Political Economy and Ideological based reasoning getting in the way of Fact-based analysis.
The Technological Economy and the realities of mechanised production changing the Production function
The Energy Economy and the realities of adjusting to the realities of a diminishing surplus of Energy returned over energy invested which is and has been squandered in many ways across the 2Oth Century and now into the “1st century,
Boiling it all down we need to apply all of the assumptions applying to each paradigm.
For instance to accept Richards Tax point we would have to look at the realities of What Taxation is and what Taxation is for as a policy interest within the Current FIAT Money paradigm, If you know the name Beardley Rummel you will take this point If you are not familiar with Ruml take a look at this,
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/05/taxation-for-revenue-is-obsolete.html
The problems in Political Economy as it stands presently and the question of future Political Economy based upon future Energy realities are I think helpfully separated which is something Prof. David MacKay is very successful with, in his presentation of the question.
The Problems are only weakly related with respect to future solutions and breaking the process into 3 parts is useful rather than lumping them all together. It is clear that the existing Form of Market economy and political economy is not able to solve the problem at stage 3 ( I.E Post 2050 post-Oil Economy)
Stage 1 requires a reform of the existing paradigm which involves facing up to the broken debt-based money system. Pension provision, the sovereign debt crisis and Public debt crisis are all addressable and will see improvements even within the deteriorating Cost of energy inputs as a share of output. We could call this stage lets fix what we know is not working.
Stage 2 covers the Post Financialised ( Big Bang Experiment) period to the oil running out in 2050.
This requires a much more long-term investment horizon and complicating the energy mix by overstating the ”Climate Change question** seems to be counterproductive, again I like the way Prof David Mackay dealt with the question including stating the necessities of **Clean Coal and Nuclear”. In this stage, we will be implementing ideas previously barred due to the denial inherent in clinging to a failing system.
Stage 3 Post 2050, This part is much easier than Stage 2 and stage 1, in my opinion, the myth-busting and levelling out inherent in solving the political problems at stage 1 and the challenge to vested interests in stage 2 are by far and away the largest obstacles to getting down to Brass tacks in my opinion.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/03/energy-returned-on-energy-invested.html
The current mendacity and or ignorance of many in Parliament ( regardless of Party) is founded on a Lack of knowledge of The Magic Money tree and a singular lack of accountability for continued failure. This applies also to Corporate Business and Finance establishment Leaders in the most part as well.
Thanks
Appeals to Authority or conventional pieties will not show us the way out of the bottle.
This is a Taxation Blog and clearly as part of the landscape of Political Economy and Civil Society Money is in a real sense that the Political and Sociological fishes swim in.
Regarding the Carbon Surplus problem, I did this brief blog re-framing the war on Carbon.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/11/re-framing-war-on-carbon-carbon-surplus.html
Cap and Trade, Carbon Credits and the petrodollar all feedback into the Government Spending/ Banking bailouts question, a consistent narrative that crops up is Climate Change? I subscribe to the idea of an intended Carbon Currency end game and this is the basis of my statement regarding overstating the Climate Change / Climate Change Politics / Climatology aspects of the question of Money creation and the logical basis of Monies and a category.
The original Article here from Richard asks the question of how well the project for saying democratic capitalism is going If you re-read what I wrote and some of the links you will see that the discussion really does not need to be focused on the enemy ( real or Imagined ) of CO2, some though do clearly suffer from the problem of using the Climate Hammer to treat all problems and questions as nails.
I confess I find what you are seeking to say very hard to fathom Roger
My Bad Richard,
The first sentence should read
This is a Taxation Blog and clearly as part of the landscape of Political Economy and Civil Society. Money is, in a real sense the water that the Political and Sociological fishes swim in.
On the other stuff perhaps this will help
http://leconomistamascherato.blogspot.se/2011/09/is-carbon-currency-endgame.html
Roger,
“complicating the energy mix by overstating the ”Climate Change question** seems to be counterproductive”
Really? That’s pretty hard to overstate.
” I like the way Prof David Mackay dealt with the question including stating the necessities of **Clean Coal and Nuclear*.”
They are not necessities nor clean.
I do not share your Climate Belief System Marco, Prof MacKay did ( I think share your beliefs) but acknowledged *Substantial error Bars’ for the data. Have you any facts which you can share with us that are backed up by falsifiable experimental data? In any event, the analysis I present argues that the Stages of the attempted transfer to non-fossil fuels is very important as Fossil Fuels will run out eventually, further distribution is not working properly under the current systems of Political Economy, I argue that is because a false scarcity inherent in the monetary conception of value and wealth does not apply to real-world resources.
Roger,
“I do not share your Climate Belief System Marco, Prof MacKay did ( I think share your beliefs) but acknowledged *Substantial error Bars’ for the data. Have you any facts which you can share with us”
I really don’t think that there is any shortage of that or anything additional that I could add (with or without aero bars).
Marco Fante says:
In his reply to Roger:
“…… (with or without aero bars).”
Love it 🙂
Marco,
I was going to make substantially similar points less succinctly.
Hmm.. I don’t know about the job pessimism over automation. I’ve just read an article about the therapy benefit of training certain types of dogs to work/relate to individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease (currently a very prevalent illness in many societies). The dog training is lengthy and costly in labour time but not in terms of training the trainers. There would appear to be a lot of human needs centred work that needs doing to offset job loss through automation.
I suspect that’s true
We just haven’t thought about what is possible as yet
“We just haven’t thought about what is possible as yet”
Because we’re stuck with this entirely disingenuous narrative that the fifth (or sixth) richest nation on the globe can’t afford to ……. do ……anything.
Schofield says:
“There would appear to be a lot of human needs centred work that needs doing to offset job loss through automation.”
Possibly, yes and realising those offsets would require a historic, unprecedented revolution in the way that income and labour is allocated. Markets (labour markets included) can’t do that.
I do suspect that a great many people are too being to vague, ‘philosphical’, relaxed and inattentive on this particular question.
Your suggestion is?
Artificial Intelligence : Humanity’s greatest achievement or its greatest threat? Dr Graham Downing presents the ‘Cutting-Edge’ science and US Government ‘Think-Tank’ documents to uncover the disturbing truth at the AV8 Conference (May 2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrQW_y7QBhI
Good link Roger,
Thanks.
That problem, BTW, is even worse than I thought.
Well Richard,
That’s a big one. I am not not going to pretend to resolve the technologically induced end of the industrial revolution and capitalism as we know it. Well, not today at least.
If I did it might kick-off another mega-thread debate about UBI and the Job Guarantee and I am not sure if you want that at the moment. As far as I am aware those two ideas are the only ones in the current discourse that address the concern that I have raised here. The good thing about those debates is that they address specifics and that’s one thing that I would suggest. I would also note that this concern is not one that be lightly dismissed as “pessimism”. It is real and closing in fast.
The revolutionary aspects of all this don’t merely relate to how things are done but also in thinking that goes with it. In another comment (supporting Pilgrim) above – March 9, 1:16pm. I raised issues about whole idea of “productivity”, labour productivity in particular. The idea that using machines to increase output per man-hour is always good, broadly beneficial and broadly efficient (in multi-function productivity terms), is under-pinned by assumptions that are becoming obsolete. Qualitative considerations are now becoming more important and more realistic.
To acheive the “offsets” that Schofield is talking about we need a discourse that evaluates the social and environmental benefits of labour. In the current, prevailing discourse those offsets would end up being statistically assessed as a reduction in productivity growth.
There’s a lot I agree with in that
Marco Fante says:
” I am not not going to pretend to resolve the technologically induced end of the industrial revolution and capitalism as we know it…..
The technologically induced industrial revolution is not coming to an end; it’s increasing its pace. That’s the issue. Compounded by the inability of ‘capitalism as we know it’ to offer any means of adjusting to it.
“If I did it might kick-off another mega-thread debate about UBI and the Job Guarantee and I am not sure if you want that at the moment.”
Perhaps not, but if we are going to have “a discourse that evaluates the social and environmental benefits of labour” what else is it going to be about that doesn’t involve some variants of JG or UBI ?
Are there alternatives we’re not considering ?
Andy says
“The technologically induced industrial revolution is not coming to an end; it’s increasing its pace.”
And after that it ends. By the way I didn’t say “the technologically induced industrial revolution” I said technologically induced END of the industrial revolution. The end of a 300 year phase.
Everything in history ends at some point. The history of the industrial revolution has been a history of human labour being replaced by machines. Initially it took over most of the farming jobs and put people into manufacturing, then took most of the manufacturing jobs and allowed more people to provide services and administrate all of that additional production. Now that machines are taking over services and white collar thinking jobs there will be nowhere left for the people to work (or so it might seem for now).
When automation has taken over everything that it reasonably can the industrial revolution ends. The “productivity growth” ends. By that stage people have already stopped thanking the machines for taking those back-breaking, repetitive farm labour and factory jobs. They rightfully start to feel threatened.
The 1960’s economist, William Baumol observed that no one really cares whether their disposable razor blades were handmade or machine-made but they prefer their services (especially services like health or education) to be provided by people.
Most people in our era have never lived on a farm or worked in a factory but when automation intrudes into everything everywhere, replacing incomes rather than raising them, de-humanising our services and life in general, when it becomes counterproductive and unwanted, the industrial revolution ends. Labour-saving ceases to be a leading priority. Other priorities become more important. We then enter into the phase that John Stuart Mill predicted and dubbed “The Stationary State”.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlP61.html
The beginning of the end of the industrial revolution is already with us. Serious concern is warranted of course, most of this is as yet unresolved but there’s no need to panic. It will probably take a while.
Thanks
I recommend the linked passage
Marco Fante says:
“And after that it ends. By the way I didn’t say “the technologically induced industrial revolution” I said technologically induced END of the industrial revolution. The end of a 300 year phase.”
A subtle distinction, but distinct nonetheless.
Some would argue that the industrial revolution has already ended and that we have entered the information revolution age.
Not sure I believe in the ‘stationary state’. Given the fragility of high tech, because of its complexity and sophistication, and the amount we take for granted, I think a period of ‘dark ages’ is more likely before we get there.
With luck it will, indeed, take a while, so I’m not going to panic yet. There are a number of natural events could easily knock us off our perch before we succumb to the limits of our own folly.