After a few days of fairly frantic blog activity, I trust I will be excused a quieter day, not least because work has got in the way, albeit most enjoyably.
Just a thought shared between those I was working with yesterday. We were at one point discussing the big issues politics should be addressing now. Like climate change. And the danger of monopolies and how the upward wealth redistribution they are creating is undermining our society. Or changes in the nature of work. And how we need to change much of what we think about the economy to let us move on to address the issues these matters give rise to.
And then we noted what current political debate is about. Brexit. Trump. Antisemitism. Boris Johnson.
Thses issues need to be addressed. But whilst they are we are ignoring the big issues that are going to really impact society. It's as if issues were being created to prevent us looking at the crises we are going to have to face.
And that, we concluded, was a fair comment on the poverty of modern politics.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
I couldn’t agree more. It’s all ‘distraction politics’, even most of the dire warnings about ‘no deal’ Brexit, which I suspect is to soften us all up for some smoke and mirrors deal which will strengthen the hold the ‘new right’ have to create a Singapore style economy which will only benefit the rich. In other words “don’t look over there folks, look over here” !
I couldn’t agree more; modern politics is all about me, me, me and completely misses the we, we, we.
And our politicians know that our media will focus on those very issues.
In the case of Boris, he is of course both politician and columnist, which seems incongruous. If he was not a columnist, it could be argued that the media would report his vile utterances anyway, as they have done in the past. However, allowing him to be paid to write his column seems ridiculous to me, regardless of whether he is now a back-bencher.
With respect to your 1st sentence & “our media will focus on those very issues”- that is partly because these issues allow a “he said she said” approach – where anybody can comment & all comments are equally valid.
Difficult issues such as climate change and the actions needed to combat it, require that commentators have knowledge, understanding and some level of expertise. This is mostly lacking in the media (& I include the Guardian in this comment – many articles are, frankly pathetic).
Much of the “meeja” produces content suitable for an adult version of the Beano & Dandy – this being partly a function of the expertise or lack-therof required to comment on substantive issues – & thus we have a self fullfilling situation – unable to address the difficult issues – they resort to utter trivia.
@ Mike Parr
“Difficult issues such as climate change and the actions needed to combat it, require that commentators have knowledge, understanding and some level of expertise.”
There does seem to be such a lack of scientific knowledge (or indeed in-depth knowledge of any kind) in the mainstream media. Although I may be a tiny bit biased, being a bit of an amateur scientific nerd myself 🙂
The operation of supposed “balance” which I notice most on the BBC is hopeless, e.g. 90% of peer-reviewed scientific evidence points one way so we’ll have one representative from that camp and equal representation from a nutter who has a hunch that it is all made up!
There have been surveys of retirement communities asking what their regrets in life were. Blown relationships came top. None of them said ‘devoting as much thoughts to the US Presidency as they can’. Did Lee van Cleef who was one of the oldies interviewed mention the politics of the Middle East? No, it was relationships, career regrets, giving too much money to his exes and health.
Sadly, Richard, you and your interlocutors got it in one yesterday.
I can’t be the only one who recognizes that we are at the end of the politico/economic dispensation that coalesced around the 1979 General Election. We must remember that Callaghan and Healey prepared the ground for Thatcher, and even New Labour played as the Thatcherism Continuity Band, in the fundamentals. It is, however, impossible to explain to some people, that “Maggie” did not “save the country”, or ” restore our greatness”, but instead, set us on a course that led inexorably to our broken state of continuing decline and inability to deal with it because of the systems and ideological straitjacket she bequeathed. “Credit” where it is due. On the social front, in conclusion, I am reminded of the story that, after reading Murray Rothbard’s description of “the underclass”, she resolved to create one in this country.
It all ties together, and the inherent selfishness of Conservatism is currently fighting a rearguard action.
Indeed-Thatcher’s ‘prophesies’ all turned out the diametric opposite:
House owning nation: house ownership in absolute decline!
Share owning nation : 11% of traded shares owned by individuals.
Trickle down: No need to comment.
I think Thatcher believed the guff, in that respect she was sincere but by 1990 she should have seen things were going wrong and spoken out.
It’s not even society. Climate change and nuclear arms are now a threat to the *species*. If we cared about our grandchildren they’d be the front page every day.
Macro v micro 🙂
Yes, it is like being the passengers in a large ocean-going cruise liner where the captain and crew have only sailed around the Isle of Wight. The Librarian of the U.S. Congress Daniel J. Boorstin said that the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance–it is the illusion of knowledge (quoting a German philosopher).
That is the why the authors of this terrible crisis we are about to inflict on ourselves are so complacent about steering us onto the rocks. You can always at the last minute dodge – in a yacht. Everything they know about macroeconomics is wrong. Just as most of what business knows about microeconomics is also wrong, but not so significant as to put a whole nation in peril.
Rest up now. I am.
the big issues politics (we) should be addressing now. Like climate change. And the danger of monopolies and how the upward wealth redistribution they are creating is undermining our society. Or changes in the nature of work.
Climate change and other ecological concerns are many times more serious than during the World Wars. The primary cause of climate change is the burning of fuel; in war-time fuel was rationed — as was food, clothing and other commodities. This was seen as necessary and fair — apart from the black market. I mentioned Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) in previous comment. Such a policy could do three things: first, bring about an immediate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions — and the speed of reduction could be accelerated as necessary. Second, it would reverse some of the ‘upward wealth redistribution’. Third, it would transfer responsibility: everyone would need to think about their energy use. Also, at present government tries to decide what to restrict; for example, it imposes Air Passenger Duty (APD) on those who fly but at a level too low to restrain the wealthy (who are responsible for most emissions). With TEQs, it would be a matter for individual choice (and/or buying extra quotas if affordable).
Two more matters on the question of climate; a) We (mostly in wealthy countries) must eat less meat — so there could be Tradable Meat Quotas. b) Bricks and cement manufacture create high levels of greenhouse gases. This needs to be considered for both infrastructure and housing …
‘Housing’ might have been included in the list of big issues (that) politics should be addressing. There are about 200,000 empty homes, 700,000 second homes and 250,000 people in the UK who possess eight or more rooms per person. Tradable Housing Quotas could a) bring under-used property on to the market and b) transfer funds to those who are currently inadequately housed.
I hope that Richard and Co. can produce ideas for how the rest of the economy would cope with all that; the imperative is the climate — powerful measures are essential and urgent.
CO2 reductions by individuals are hard to achieve, or else we’d already be seeing them. Also they are designed to stoke up individual guilt, when the behaviour of Big Fossil is not ordinary citizens fault. Nor would personal energy austerity achieve much CO2 reduction. With half oil and gas still in the ground, why would Bankers and Big Fossil, who have a booming business model more than a century old, give it up? No, they are entrenched. Public investment in gen4 nuclear to outcompete big fossil, and addressing adaption are the main ways Homo Sapiens have any chance of long term survival.
https://alexcoram.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mathsnuclearumass2o13oooo1o.pdf
http://iflas.blogspot.com/2018/07/new-paper-on-deep-adaptation-to-climate.html
Ahhhh – I commented to this effect in a blog below below but you have already seen the issue. Sorry.
But you too have been fanning the flames of Corbyn’s antisemitism along with the rest of the MSM, Richard.
I was arguing he should resolve and move on actually
He was indeed Carol. Richard was telling Corbyn /Labour what they needed to be told.
I do worry that Corbyn’s siege mentality (that he has developed to protect himself against the Blue Labour contingent) can sometimes make him over sensitive to criticism even if well intended.
But as I said myself, this was an argument that Labour just walked into because they over-thought process and put it before political expediency. The result: their enemies have had a field day.
Not good. And we must all hope that lessons have been learnt otherwise the wait for a better Government will be much too long.
What, resolve by accepting the IHRA definition of antisemitism with all its examples which will not allow free speech by any LP Palestinians or their supporters and which the author rejects?
I made very clear I do nit think that is what it means
I made clear why
I note Jon Lansman seems to agree
JonL is reported to be supporting adopting IHRA.
I have, with the caveat of ensuring appropriate systems of equitable appraisal of cases are in place
“I made very clear I do nit(sic) think that is what it means
I made clear why”
Of course, that isn’t what it is intended to mean. The writer of the definition himself has said that it isn’t. But that’s not the point is it? The point is, the way it’s worded, it sounds like it DOES include legitimate criticisms of Israel. That’s why Labour are cautious about accepting it, and it’s also why Stern has had to speak up to insist that it’s being abused by pro-Israel factions.
If you don’t think that’s true, what do you say to this guy?
https://thegreatcritique.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/another-example-of-fake-anti-semitism-in-the-labour-party/
Or to hundreds of others who are being silenced unfairly, simply because they highlight facts that are inconvenient to Tel Aviv?
I have explained this at length
I have explained how and why I think with purposive interpretation within the OECD definition of antisemitism this can work
And I have explained why I think Labour needs to make it work
And I have not ince supported the line of those who are using it to attack Labour, in my opinion
Macroeconomic Lessons from the Past Decade
1. Demand still drives (un)employment
2. There may be no economically meaningful long run
3. Conventional monetary policy is insufficient to manage aggregate demand.
http://jwmason.org/slackwire/macroeconomic-lessons-from-the-past-decade/
Bill Mitchell takes on James Meadway Part 1:-
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=40035
I imagine that James Meadway will be conspicious by his lack of response and counter-arguments cus MMT is rubbish! There I’ve said it for him!
He is unapologetic on twitter
Schofield
Thank you very much for this link to Mitchell. I do not spend enough time on Mitchell’s blog because I am so busy with work, kids, dementia affected parents – it’s sometimes hard to keep up.
My gratitude is underlined because I can now see how UBI might undermine or clash with MMT. I admit to not seeing this before. Illuminating…………………………..my enthusiasm for UBI is now more reserved. The Jobs Guarantee seems to be where things are really at with MMT.
If you understand how the UK’s monetary system really works you will not vote for the Labour Party with its current unethical Neoliberal monetary policy because A) it doesn’t understand why private sector clearing banks can’t satisfy the net desire to save and only government created money can and consequently because of its government must balance its books policy it believes B) only the private sector clearing banks can satisfy the net desire to save by way of money saved from their bank loans which we must obviously pay a premium to the few in the shape of interest to do so. If the Labour Party refuses to change its Neoliberal monetary policy a new political party needs to be formed.
@ Schofield – ” … a new political party needs to be formed.”
No need – The Green Party already exists. But for some disappointing reason it’s never captured the UK public’s imagination, in spite of its progressive manifesto and prioritising of ecological issues that affect everyone. Neither is it short of dedicated & talented people at both national and regional level. Maybe the renewed publicity being given to the global environmental crisis will breathe much needed new life into it, especially among the under 35s. It’s certainly an opportunity.
But, of course, like all other minority parties, it has been marginalised via FPTP voting. However supportive and sympathetic they may be in principle, people don’t vote for it at a GE simply because they say ‘it’s a wasted vote’. While there’s now an urgent renewed need to introduce PR, any meaningful initiative would be suffocated at birth by the 2 main parties. State funding for political parties also needs to be addressed. UK democracy is an illusion, a deceptive sleight of hand, and always has been.
And staying with the magician analogy to address G Hewitt’s point, politicians use misdirection. It’s a well-established trick that continues to fool most of the people most of the time.
So, what will it take to awaken voters to the fact that they’re being so damagingly short-changed by their elected representatives? In the current environment it’s very difficult to see how the country will ever maximise its potential. That’s what’s so disheartening & frustrating. Nevertheless, one plods on relentlessly, with hope forever springing eternal. What else to do?
@ John D
“No need — The Green Party already exists.”
I’ve commented previously on this. Basically the Green Party appears to be up to speed in understanding “reserves accounting” namely that when a clearing bank creates a loan it’s creating a debt for itself and needs to have existing government reserves or obtain new government reserves to cancel out that debt because of the need for a smooth payment settlement system. Other political parties fail to see beyond the loan the clearing bank has created and see that the clearing bank has also created a debt for itself!
The Green Party also seems to understand Keynes’s General Theory central point that the private sector, because of risk uncertainty in investment, doesn’t normally optimise employment and therefore demand except in rare boom times and government consequently has a role to play in optimising demand.
Finally, the Green Party also seems to understand Nature engages in balancing solutions we call caregiving, so for example, most human beings are raised to understand the importance of “passive altruism” which is simply ethical restraint from taking advantage of other’s vulnerability and that ideally as the Green Party argues that doesn’t just include human beings but everything that lives in the biosphere, some viruses deadly to human beings excepted.
OK so far so good but the fundamental problem with the Green Party is its name. It induces anxiety in voter’s minds because it doesn’t provide clear guidance how we can become “green.” It doesn’t tell us how much we should scale down our lifestyles. For example, should we and our family scale down to live in a “rabbit hutch” and just exactly how large should that “hutch” be. This is not to say there isn’t a large audience out there which believes climate change is happening and our attitude to using the biosphere needs to change. There most definitely is such a constituency but on many of the solutions required there is no precise detail available like the optimum size of our “rabbit hutch” or indeed family limitation size for that matter. Accordingly I would argue we need the Green Party because its members have a high level of reasoning ability but it needs to contemplate firstly, how it can go about changing its name to remove the anxiety induction associated with its name and secondly, in doing this how it can also make its pursuit of an MMT agenda also high profile.
The difficulty, however, in merely changing its name unilaterally is it may not be easily able to shake off its anxiety inducing associations for the electorate. Logically this would suggest it would be better merging with another party but given there doesn’t appear to be one on board with MMT understanding of economics and the workings of a fiat monetary system it would suggest MMT’ers need to set one up, merge with the Green Party and have the advantage of the Green Party’s organising skills in reaching out for members and to the electorate, etc. There’s obviously an imperative to do this given the UK is facing the continuing Double Whammy of firstly, continuing Austerity cuts either through re-election of the Tory Party, or sadly election of the Labour Party to power because it hasn’t shaken off Neoliberal economic and monetary system ideology. Secondly, the economy is most likely to suffer badly through a No Deal Brexit which looks to be the most likely outcome at the moment.
Whilst I’m on the subject of no existing UK political party outside of the Green Party having an MMT understanding of economics and the workings of a fiat monetary system it’s important to clarify key reasons for this. I’ve mentioned at the start the failure to understand when clearing banks create loans these create debts for the banks in the sense that they have to ensure they’ve purchased sufficient government created reserves or “payment settlement assets/balances” and it’s therefore ludicrous to pretend clearing banks have autonomous money creating powers including payment settlement reserves. Here’s an extract from an article by an MMT writer Dan Kervick which explains all this fairly succinctly:-
“If banks were previously carrying just enough reserves to manage their liquidity needs relative to the previous size of the consolidated banking system balance sheet, they will likely need to expand their reserve holdings to manage their newly increased liquidity needs. Banks will either borrow the additional reserves from the Fed directly or sell other assets to the Fed to get those reserves. There is no other way to get them. An individual bank can increase its reserve holdings by attracting deposits from other banks. But the commercial banking system as a whole cannot do this, since there is no significant source of deposits outside the banking system as a whole.”
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/bank-lending-bank-reserves.html
The widespread failure of UK political parties to understand Keynes’s General Theory central point is covered in this lecture transcript:-
https://www.srcf.ucam.org/marshall/documents/KeynesGeneralTheoryLecture.pdf“>https://www.srcf.ucam.org/marshall/documents/KeynesGeneralTheoryLecture.pdf
The practical importance of understanding Nature’s balancing solution of “passive altruism” is contained in this article:-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3471369/“>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3471369/
And what is the headline news on the BBC website today? The trial of a drunken cricketer. No mention at all on the home page of the war crime in Yemen in which our country is complicit. The massacre of 60 odd innocent people including 29 children by a missile fired from a Saudi plane is tucked away under the World News option. I used to be one of the beeb’s biggest defenders; now it’s just a digital tabloid.
It will be interesting if the BBC picks up on the Guardian story, which reading between the lines, seems to be hinting that Arron Bank’s huge £9 million personal donation to the Leave Campaign might not have been personal after all but straight out of Russia! All part of Putin’s “divide and rule” master plan!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/09/revealed-detail-of-exclusive-russian-deal-offered-to-arron-banks-in-brexit-run-up
Well, when did politics ever address the big issues? The nature of the beast means its about staying in power so they go about trying to persuade us that they’re doing something, that they know what they are doing and that we’ll all feel better for them having done so. It’s going around fighting little fires, often of their own making, tackling the issues they think people care most about, while all the time making sure their paymasters get their just deserts while the rest of us can really go hang, so long as most of us don’t notice, or if we do can do nothing about it.
Nothing and nobody forces them to address the big issues. It really is a kind of dictatorship, albeit they have to seek the electorate’s permission every so often to continue to dictate. Perhaps a people’s deliberative democracy would be different where the issue of a party maintaining power no longer guided every move and big issues could be addressed.
Only the scientific community and concerned citizens have grasped the impending disaster which is beginning to look increasingly inevitable – while some politicians are actually deniers – a disaster which might easily lead to the extinction of the human species. It is salutary to realise that virtually every species eventually goes extinct. The much ridiculed dinosaurs lasted around 160 million years. Will humans last even another 160 years?
The kind of political set up we have looks like it will never address this issue until it is upon us and too late. But I don’t know how we can change it.
This is a critical issue which speaks volumes about our values , we are in the thrall of a jingoistic arms industry prepared to accept genocidal alliances without question. Shame on our nation.
I have not participated in recent threads. I am at a loss to understand why anyone here has any expectations at all of the Labour Party; either of understanding, or action. It is all a complete and utter waste of time, and it is transparently obvious that it is a waste of both time and energy.
Only the Labour Party? So the other party is doing well then?
I did not write “only”. The subject was the Labour Party, and not something else. Perhaps it is now a little more obvious why I did not participate in the ‘debate’.
Thank you for your comment, you rather make my case for me. QED.
Carol
I understand your point but it was the perceived lack of engagement about the decisions Labour took, not necessarily the decisions themselves in this case.
I believe that on issues like this, (on a definition of any anti-racist policy) there needs to be a level of ‘co-ownership’ between the group being protected and the protector. You have to go to the ‘shop floor’ and not just through your committee structures if you see what I mean. Otherwise it looks as the protector function is being formed in ‘splendid isolation’.
This co-ownership reinforces the legitimacy of the protector and those being protected.
Labour should have foreseen this – they have an otherwise excellent record on these matters. But most of all, they should have foreseen the reaction from Jews in the Establishment as well as the Establishment itself who have seized on the opportunity to stick the boot in (‘existential threat’ my gluteous maximus! Really!).
The Jewish establishment have talked at him not listened, not engaged. They do not represent all jews. Why should he be dictated to by these people? The IHRA definition is dangerous. The number of Labour members suspended for antisemitism represents 0.01% of us. The only case I know personally was for retweeting something about Palestine.
I think you do need to accept there is an issue Carol. I am not saying it is bigger in Labour, but it has to address it.
That is why is must have equitable and purposive interpretations of any rules.
The IHRA rules, which are not optimal, could work in this way
And then the issue could be addressed, Labour could move on and even turn this to its advantage.
Carol
Remember I have no ongoing problem with your views here on this blog – sensible as they are. And you are certainly more pro-active than me – something I admire a lot (and I am not trying to placate you with praise either).
I for one have problems with the IHRA ‘definition’ for reasons I have already set out and I am empathetic with your view.
But Labour – with the state of the Tory party, the oncoming BREXIT fiasco and the ongoing gouging out of wealth from wider society – is presented with an opportunity do something about it. They have bigger fish to fry than disagreements with Jews from whatever community.
The state of the country is the overriding issue. We are going backwards Carol. We are going backwards.
We will not be allowed to ‘move on’. The fight against Jeremy and a socialist goverment is relentless.
Carol
Then it’s Labour’s job to deal with it
No one will vote for a party that thinks it’s a natural loser and that’s the prevailing attitude of too many
Richard
There will be no winners when mean temperatures reach the 2% mean increase, we are presently at 1 point something. Unless the world “authorities” wake up, and soon, my grandchildren will witness catastrophic changes within the next 50 years.
President Trump (of course he won’t be with us) will have to scuba dive to reach his Florida properties. Denmark and Holland will disappear. My home in Scarborough will be perched on the edge of a chain of islands off what’s left of the north east of England.
If you haven’t seen it before take a look at the National Geographic shoreline changes graphics at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/#/01-ice-melt-north-america.jpg
Next time you vote, there is only one issue that demands attention, global warming. As far as I can see the rest (Brexit, et al) is just a worrying distraction.
Too many people I talk to have loved the recent weather and welcome it happening again in a rather unquestioning way. Don’t expect the climate to be a big agenda for many I’m afraid.
P.S. Carol
……and Labour should have foreseen the Establishment reaction because I feel that the Tories et al are increasingly worried that Labour could win an general election so the gloves are off. The Tories and the Establishment will do anything to sully Labour at the moment because they are in a panic which also explains Labour timidity over MMT and BREXIT.
At the moment I have a little fantasy of my own to keep me positive. Indulge me a moment………..
If I were Corbyn and Co I’d just simply lie about what we were going to do. I’d tell people exactly what they wanted to hear (all the orthodox crap) and then – once in power – I set out doing the sort of stuff we talk about here instead. And then – if done properly – let the results speak for themselves.
And why not? Lying – as the Tories have done now for nearly 9 years – is what modern politics is all about. In an age of fake news and ‘alternatives facts’ why not use the same underhand methods to deliver fairness and justice to the people? Why not use lying to deliver a truer path to a better society? If people are too dumb or too busy, too divided or too disaffected to listen, then how else do you get your message across by not getting it across until you are in power?
No doubt the growing legions of ‘political scientists’ could cook up a name for this sort of thing.
My worry is that Labour might very well be courageous and then pay the penalty at a general election by losing simply because of MMT, BREXIT etc., not being widely understood.
‘Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t’ – right?
And then what would we say? Well, the Left and other progressives would then launch into a navel gazing examination of where things went wrong for another 10 years in the wilderness rooting out blame ‘It was Corbyn’ ‘No, it was Milne’ ‘ No it was Jew-gate where we lost it’).
And the Tories and their hinterland would be left to finish the job we all know they are here for. Avoiding this is worth telling some lies in my view.
It does not sound palatable I know, but we must match the Tories/UKIP BREXITers at their own game.
OK, it’s a strategy
But that would require that thinking on the alternative is being done now the used when required
And I know that is not the case
I have no idea what Labour’s strategy is at the moment. Absolutely no idea. My contribution is what it could be about – or what I would like it to be.
But I cannot vouch for whatever their strategy is now. And I share you concern that it is just more of the same ineffective orthodoxy. I really do.
Richard Comments are closed on the post to which these replies refer With your permission may I post here?.
John S W said, “your argument on the power of mathematics ended by committing the fallacy which your opening remarks on Whitehead sought to demolish” Whitehead was not critical of the process of abstraction – precisely the opposite. The universe we inhabit is far too complex to understand fully. For us to comprehend and interact with that universe, we have to divide it into manageable bits. That is what is meant by the process of abstraction. These abstractions are not inferior ways of seeing, they are essential to our comprehension, but as well as their insights, they have their limitations. Knowledge advances, our abstractions in turn develop, and some may, in turn, be completely disregarded. Unless I have misunderstood your comment, recognising that this process is essentially a mathematical and conversational one is not IMO committing any fallacy.
G Hewitt said “I don’t see the relevance of (Einstein’s theory) to social theories ……. and “Much of Einstein’s theory has been verified through observation and experiment the same cannot be said for Economics.”
Einstein’s theory refers to the subject domain of mathematical physics. Cybernetics as a science is not dependant on the laws of physics for its validity. It has its own laws. Relativity applies to all systems not just those in the domains of mathematical physics. The relativity I refer to in economics is not derived from any (Kim says) “forced analogies between MMT., economics and physical theories” and please explain “Einstein’s General in terms of economics”. It is built up from the general principles of relativity, as applied to a different domain from that of physics with different system boundaries. The imperative in (the exploitative systems of) economics performs the same function as a master clock. The fact that master clocks are forbidden (larry’s point) does not prevent their employment, however, their employment in so far as they lack social agreement can only be imposed through force. Austerity is such a force. There is a price to pay, the necessities of life for the many become progressively out of reach – a positive exponential cost curve. That is why we have near zero rates of interest. The system is close to collapse.
Scholfield says “To change a system of governance to a genuine “conversational” one there first has to be a widespread recognition…… there is not, however, a very conscious recognition …. In our society”.
Our universe is and has always been a conversational system. For some reason, we exclude it from any role in our economic governance. Violence can only exclude it. We need to remove that violence.
Both G Hewitt and Schofield do not see “how Labour only needs to make minimal changes”.
The only minimal change that Labour needs to make is one rooted in democracy-choice
After all, the prospect of changing economic systems can be very scary. What if it all goes wrong? What then? We could all end up in a worse place — Stalinism and all that. Labour must find a way to alleviate these concerns.
Therefore, many even on the left will, and do oppose such radical change. We should not be over critical; history teaches us they are right to be cautious.
One way to allay fears is to choose between joining or forming a WSDE a democratic choice. Thus, the community-based WSDE and the Capitalist system would co-exist as two separate systems. Members of one would be free to join or leave the other whenever the grass on the other side looked greener.
If they choose to become part of the WSDE movement, they all agree to join the same bank constituted for that purpose. To keep the two systems, separate, protect the WSDE’s investments and keep them out of the hands of the “banksters” and at the same time ensure proper funding. Members of this bank can include the NHS, social care, local authorities, county councils, research, artistic, sport and academic institutions and by agreement small and medium enterprises. There will be certain protocols that members will need to follow, but if each candidate can demonstrate that their activity adds value to the economy, the entry should be automatic. Zero-sum business models that enrich a few at the expense of the many will not be allowed. They must remain in the Capitalist system. Economic rent seeking, and rent-extraction will not be permitted. They too must remain within the Capitalist system. The WSDE’s are free to set their pay rates, which should closely follow the ratio set by the Mondragon Co-operative Corporation, i.e. 8.5 to 1 and they like any viable economic system will produce enough “surplus” to meet all their own social security, security and investment needs.
It is important that all members of the WSDE movement belong to the same bank, because in so far as they transfer funds against one and another the net cost across the whole system is always zero. Every debit will be cancelled by every credit. If the WSDE movement covers every single aspect of the economy, e.g. Agriculture, fisheries, housebuilding, health, social care, transport and so on and all our needs can be meet from within that community — the cost to the community is zero. Of course, that will not be the case there will be trading between members of the WSDE community and between the WSDE community and the Capitalist community and trading between home and abroad. Capitalism, feudalism and WSDE’s will co-exist for many years. Any economic system must serve all. However, the only net funding the WSDE system would require would be where it owes money outside its own system. In those cases, it would trade its own surplus, or pay from reserves. This sector would be a perfect platform from which to launch Richards New Green Deal.
Andy Crow says Yes, sure ……..these things just wither and die like leaves in autumn.
No economic system has lasted forever. What is certain change will come. Capitalism didn’t suddenly replace feudalism. It had many false starts. Both slavery and feudalism have lost their dominant positions as economic systems. To say Capitalism won’t suffer the same fate is if I may say so, tempting fate. Capitalism exists because people believe in it, once that belief is withdrawn, as a system it collapses. That withdrawal of belief is not simply “we don’t like Capitalism”. People need confidence in its replacement. They need confidence that they, their families and communities will be better served. If we agree that the system must change then we all need to get on board to help design a better one. After slavery was abolished in the USA, some slaves asked to be taken back into slavery, understandable it was the only system they knew. However sincere we are about wanting to reform the deficiencies of Capitalism, wanting to remain a slave is not IMO a good starting position.
Mr Adams,
I think you have indeed misunderstood my comment. I am not criticising abstraction, nor of mathematics; nor analogical argument. I am critical of their inappropriate application. Analogy is effective, but it has also been misapplied in science (in anthropology for example).
Mathematical abstraction cannot be applied to everything, or with equal rigour or reliability. The standards of physics have tended historically to be considered the ‘gold standard’ of scientific method, but cannot be used with the predictive power of physics effectively in all disciplines (such as the social sciences): for example, because the phenomena being examined in social sciences cannot be identified with sufficient precision (the same precision as in physics – and please note that dynamics gave way to statistical mechanics because of the difficulties of observation, even in physics), or abstracted with the clarity that applies in mathematical physics. Other methods may be required to study the phenomena in other sciences, using a different method, and a different standard of rigour, with the corollary of lower expectations in the reliability (or predictability) of the results. It seemed to me that you lost the sense of the limitations inherent in ‘abstraction’ as you developed your them, which you attempt to avoid by use of the rather loose term “conversational”. That was my impression. I can say no more.
John There is nothing casual about Conversation Theory, it has a mature scientific pedigree. That you may be unfamiliar with it says more about you than it does about that branch of science. Your definition of Mathematics seems to limit it to only one with a serial logical architecture and an “it” frame of reference. In which case your criticisms are justified. But Conversation Theory and its accompanying mathematics are of a totally different sort. As Gordan Pask said “Conversation Theory is a precise method, but it is concerned with a Participant, not External (as in the case for areas of science to which you refer), observation of events. The data of Conversation Theory are of a different kind to “standard” or “objective” data. Strictly speaking, agreements and the like are intersubjective refinements of meaning. But the process of refinement makes them just as “hard” as the data of mechanics, biology or physics. Moreover, they are just as open to formalisation. But it is formalisation of a different nature, of what Prof. deZeeuw calls double level nature, involving modal logics such as those of Von Wright, Braten, Hellerstein, Greenblatt, Spencer Brown, Kauffman and Gunther. These logics have complex lattices of distinct kinds of truth value, basically logics of distinction (various sorts), coherence (various sorts), self-reference and other reference, technical imperative values and social imperative values, together with event structure appropriate to systems that are organisationally closed and informationally open”.
You may ask all this sounds very esoteric but what on earth has it got to do everyday living?
Gordan Pask and I were working over 30 years ago on the application of Cybernetics to the problem of terrorism and other violent crimes. Then neither the technology nor infrastructure was in place for such a solution to be employed. But we knew it would be on its way, and had our proposal been accepted, it would also steer research and innovation in the right direction. What we envisaged was being able to pick up acts of terrorism or other violent crimes at the planning and immediately before the execution stage, and help prevent them, rather than wait for discovery after the event. The big drawback with our proposal was that none of the data could go through market exchange as a commodity. It could not be moneterised. During the “loads of money” eighties it is no surprise it got nowhere.
Is the prospect of being able to pick up and prevent child abuse, attempted rapes and murders and so on not precise enough for your taste?
@ John Adams
“After all, the prospect of changing economic systems can be very scary. What if it all goes wrong?”
Sure there’s fear out there born of economic and monetary system ignorance which the rich few have for the moment succeeded in planting erroneous ideas in the heads of the many how the overall economic and monetary system works. The Labour Party leadership if it too wasn’t suffering from the same ignorance bolstered by similar economic advisers would try to think tactically. It would not announce it would aim to reach a target of balancing the government’s books it would announce as I described in another post that there was now a great deal of doubt whether a permanent balancing of government books target justifying austerity cuts was not in fact undermining the UK economy. Accordingly as an elected government it would set up a Commission to investigate how the UK’s monetary system actually works and publish for public education purposes a complete Commission document how it does since none exists at the moment other than the partial one published by the Bank of England in 2014. Labour will state that such a Commission document will be as close to an argued and agreed consensus as possible. I believe what I argue makes sense, the country has to arrest the economic decline its been in since 1947, seventy years if not longer!
Good idea
If we are to replace Capitalism as a failing system, we need a solution that is universal. Economic democracy at the micro-level fits that bill. Since workers already do the work they certainly know or can easily acquire all the skills necessary to run their workplace as an enterprise. The Mondragon Co-operative proves that. We need the information architecture at every level from the micro to the macro-level to support each individual unit. We have also to bear in mind that any economic landscape will most likely for a long time consist of a mixture of feudal, capitalist and communist forms of enterprise. The information architecture should serve all.
The new system will be rooted in democracy. Although disagreement and conflict will still feature, the destructive antagonistic conflict between labour and capital will have largely disappeared. What follows is “a starter for ten” — kick off to get discussion going.
What qualities should this new architecture possess?
– It should be rooted in democracy
– It should be universal, applicable across the globe in all societies.
– Its internal complexity should approach infinity but its interface easily understood and operable by all users. This is a re-statement of the Law of Requisite Variety from Cybernetics.
– The main economic unit should be a worker self-directed enterprise. Other forms of enterprise can exist by agreement.
– Running parallel to the above there should be bottom up political democracy with discussions conducted under the protocols of Syntegration. This ensures that all discussions are truly democratic and cannot be highjacked by special interest groups.
– The default management control system for enterprises should be the Viable Control System (Stafford Beer)
Enter the courageous citizen. Our courageous citizen is modelled on Chef Ramsey and the information system architecture modelled on the way Chef Ramsey operates. The one thing our courageous citizen is not she is not a moderate. Moderates in any walk of life achieve nothing.
Chef Ramsey is called upon to help turn around failing restaurants and hotels. He is an expert in his field and therefore he has many successes.
Chef Ramsey is expert because he is passionate about what he does. Because he is passionate he has taken the time to practice and learn his trade over many years.
Chef Ramsey approaches each project with enthusiasm. Where he sees, things wrong he is critical. He will advocate a course of action to put things right. He does not deliver a 4-hour lecture on how to cook a carrot 27 ways — in other words he is not a political bible thumper or gas bag. He will roll up his sleeves and get stuck in. He will demonstrate. He will teach. He is a doer. What he advocates he is prepared to help put into action. Chef Ramsey also swears, and he will often change the colour scheme and do a makeover. Swearing, colour and design have an important place in the spatiotemporal world of Chef Ramsey. This is not the case with Newton Man. Newton Man can swear all he likes at a falling apple, but it won’t fall any faster. He can change the colour of his apple, but the law of gravity will still work the same. Chef Ramsey does not just concentrate on how to cook a better roast chicken. He studies the social psychology of the situation. In all cases the social interactions in the work place are found wanting. He helps improve things for the better. Chef Ramsey’s world is a world of complex systems. It is a world in which the quality of the food, the kitchen equipment, the colour scheme, the ambiance and the social interactions between managers, staff and customers are all equally important. The spatiotemporal world of Chef Ramsey is very different from that of Newton Man. Chef Ramsey doesn’t just advocate and help introduce change and then simply disappear: very importantly, Chef Ramsey checks on his results — he audits. This is in no way meant as a criticism of Newton Man. Newton man audits as well. It just that he restricts himself to a limited system boundary. Newton man will always have a significant role to play. We just need to integrate that role with that of Ramsey Man.
I confess I did not quite follow that
Maybe I should read it again….
@ John Adams
“Scholfield says “To change a system of governance to a genuine “conversational” one there first has to be a widespread recognition…… there is not, however, a very conscious recognition …. In our society”.”
I think a “conversational” relationship strongly exists between individuals although I would call it “caregiving.” The problem is it’s just not properly recognised nor how it affects the way we raise our children, work together and govern ourselves. One of the best person’s to explain all this is a professor of psychology Darcia Narvaez and she very comprehensively covers much of the ground around the critical role “caregiving” plays in human societies. Her work is found on the internet much of which is brought together in her excellent book “Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality.” I have also posted David C. Bell’s paper “Explaining Society: An Expanded Toolbox For Social Scientists.” on Richard’s blog several times explaining the critical role played by “caregiving” in human governance but here it is again:-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3471369/
Yes you are right Conversational systems do exist in society. Conversational systems are ubiquitous throughout Nature. They don’t exist within the property relationships within Capitalism. Since Capitalism is the major provider of our wealth and thus a major influence on how society works this is a serious handicap to help address its defects. Democracy is most absent where it is most necessary – in the workplace.
It is increasingly hard not to conclude the whole point of ‘modern politics’ (media and all) is to miss the big issues.
A deliberate. theatrical diversion.
Or,more simplistically, that the whole point of modern media and politics is financial. A steady, continuous flow of resource from the many (those who daily work) toward the few (those rentiers who daily adjust their controls of the means within which work is done). It may seem journalism has lost its way. No, it is keeping the environment of misunderstanding constantly balanced.
Confidence in Parliament has pretty much collapsed:-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-new-poll-public-final-say-no-deal-scenario-a8485161.html
Well done May and Corbyn!