Peter May, who is largely responsible for the Progressive Pulse blog (which I direct) posted this comment on this blog yesterday, and I thought it worth escalating to post status:
If you understand where money comes from, and that its issuance is a government function in a modern democracy, then you can call out fairness and justice.
Because it is much more difficult to argue against fairness and justice, than the ideology of socialism.
Conservatism is also an ideology.
Yet modern Conservatism has no place for fairness.
It justifies its stance by the language of ‘difficult choices' and by suggesting that there is no money, that we tax and spend, there isn't a Magic Money Tree and that the government is a household.
Once all this is shown to be a misunderstanding or even a deception, then Conservatism has to declare simply that ideologically, it is not in favour of fairness or justice.
Conservatives have to stop using economic arguments about money as a means of keeping the rest of us in check.
They are exposed as the naked and corrupt self-servers that they now are.
They are shown up as simply an elite wanting to keep resources for themselves with no concept of fairness.
That is why progressives have to understand money.
Even better is that all the – frankly outdated – baggage about Labour being too middle class and not supporting the workers can be avoided. And of course there would be no need either to have prolonged debates on what socialism is – or isn't…
The requirement would simply to be in favour – or not – of fairness and justice.
Hard to disagree with that.
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:
A simple yet powerful message.
Craig
Impossible to disagree with the post.
Using the logic of the post we arrive at a problem. Labour & Reeves have adopted tory ideology (balanced budgets etc etc). Previous blogs have quoted Reeves on the subject. By extension, & regardless of the “yesbut” responses that Liebore will come out with, the only conclusion left is that, like the tories, the current crop of Liebore politicos are not interested in fairness and justice (which are perspectives – not just words) rather they are, likes the tories, only interested in power and are trimming their ideological sails to suit consertive voters which they believe are needed in order to win power.
The intellectual vacuity within Liebore is thus exposed: they are incapable of imagining themselves able to make and win the arguments regarding money/gov funding/taxes and thus societal fairness and justice. Liebore: incapable & unimaginative.
You are right – the post is self-evidently true. I have previously argued that the wealthy have long understood the nature of money and MMT; they pretend not to because, despite being “ideologically neutral”, MMT opens up a whole host of possibilities that are currently “out of bounds” – possibilities that, if understood and embraced, would reduce their wealth and power.
I share your frustration with Labour (although, perhaps, a little less passionately) but they are in a bind. Politics is “the art of the possible” and without being in Power, nothing is possible.
The fact is that, whilst you, Richard and I might hold Peter May’s words as self evidently true, the public does not… and this is not helped by the Press who are keen to discourage understanding on any topic.
If Labour tries to reframe the debate about the “can we afford it?” question (which I think they should), they run the risk of ridicule and irrelevance… however valid their argument.
On the other hand, if they promote honesty, competence and fairness they are pushing on an open door… so it is easy to understand their strategy.
My hope is that “fairness” will be at the centre of any Labour campaign…. and that once won, “fairness” can be used to justify many of the policies that both you and I would hope for.
Because, if not Labour, who?
We can hope you are right and this is all a cover, but it does not feel like it
Certainly Rachel Reeves is a true believer in the Treasury line on most issues
I hear you about Rachel Reeves, her CV is not encouraging.
My hope may be forlorn…. but it is not “Bob” or “No”.
It is blogs like this and books like Prof Kelton’s that can start a change of weather…. so we keep on going. One day politicians will take it up
I live in hope…
I would also say that Conservatism justifies itself with some sort of perverse internal merit system based on it’s support base which is to do with wealth – that only the wealthy deserve to rule and that that is the natural order of things. Money is about naked power to them – it does not have a function in improving fairness and justice.
Peter touches on this but I felt it needed picking out just a little in the line ‘They are shown up as simply an elite wanting to keep resources for themselves with no concept of fairness.’ Money is a social utility intended to make things happen for everyone in my view.
Other than that ‘Well Done Peter’. I whole heartedly agree.
I may add that the Scottish Government has surprisingly now allowed itself to Greenwash freeports. I will leave others to express rage, but I feel there is too much rage and insufficient practical challenge to the consequences of these decisions.
I therefore acknowledge that given the kind of compromise being made here (a peculiar one); this may actually go ahead. I would rather contemplate a response that may actually prove useful. I would therefore propose that if the Scottish Government is going to do this, it should only do it if it provides the appropriate regulatory framework. Kat Forbes, who seems to have led on this compromise, made far too much of the claims that businesses seeking freeport approval would make of their intentions; in what we may call here their IPO. It does not require a cynic for eyes to glaze over at the worth of good intentions or prospectuses in business. What we require is a Regulator with teeth.
Here the British Government’s chosen Scottish spokesman, Iain Stewart MP (a Scot representing Milton Keynes, and an accountant) rather gave the game away; he claimed Britain had the highest standards of regulation; world beating, I presume. Here I merely reference British Building Regulations (Grenfell, tens of thousands of near bankrupted mortgagees); the Metropolitan Police (the failure list here is too long); The Financial Service Authority (shall we rack up the cost to the public purse?); the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; Companies House (recently there was a registered company director named ‘Adolf Tooth Fairy Hitler’); Audit Standards (Carillion, the audit of the financial sector up to the 2007-8 Crash; again, just a starting point);The Post Office (Public Enquiry into “the failings which occurred with the Horizon IT system at the Post Office leading to the suspension, termination of subpostmasters’ contracts, prosecution and conviction of subpostmasters. The Inquiry will look to establish a clear account of the implementation and failings of the system over its lifetime (a period of over 20 years)” Enquiry website. Hundreds of postmasters.misteresses found guilty in an outrageous misuse of the justice system). Will that do? More Guff from hapless politicians seriously out of their depth. Allow me to remind Mr Stewart that Britain can now wallow in its current world reputation as the Londongrad Laundromat.
The Scottish Government requires to establish a ‘cordon sanitaire’ round Green Freeports before Johnson traps it neatly in the vice of the Conservative mire. The way to do this is twofold. First by Scottish Legislation setting up a Scottish Green Freeport Security Commission with powerful legal powers to investigate, interrogate and take action (HMRC Custom & Excise powers provides a model). Second, to set up the Freeport Security Commission with a big budget and heavyweight, well paid professional lawyers, accountants, computer specialists, and close network relationships with the police. These two proposals are not ‘nice to have’; they are essential; sine qua non. I heard both Forbes and Stewart on BBC Radio Scotland GMS; I am not confident that Forbes (and academic economist and politician) really understands the importance, and Stewart is just a Johnson gopher.
Wise words
In fact I think the Idea of a Scottish Green Freeport Security Commission, with real teeth would actually boost investment. Why? Because Companies with a track record in these Freeports would be under constant inspection, and therfore carry a special stamp of public accounatability and responsibility; tested under rigorous third-party standards. What business wouldn’t want to possess that imprimatur? It would give Scotland a USP, which it will need as English freeports will act like a black hole, sucking investment, growth and light out of everywhere else.
I presented an idea rather like this in The National a couple of weeks ago
The National. Paywall. I do not read it, save if there is an open access story of interest.
Sorry….I have no control over that
During the height of Covid I very occasionally bought it at Waitrose; but that branch appears suddenly to have stopped selling it. I also noticed some outlets might stock it, but seemed to hide it (sounds absurd, but I recall wanting to read a story, and having to unover it from below other newspapers).
In any case, it remains a good idea in my opinion. if there is no Green Freeport Security Commission this will prove a very, very, very bad idea. Politicans really do have to stop passing legislation and setting policies without providing the means. effectively to implement them, or worse properly audit and support them. Without such well resourced back-up most political policies are a complete waste of time: like Johnson’s £37Bn Test & Trace; or the PPE Conservative ‘fast-track’ operation.
Of course the point of politicians providing no back-up to policies is often deliberate – it allow the Politics of Sound-Bites: it persuades the easily media-influenced of the over-inflated value of useless ideas, at little cost (or large cost, but in either case wasted expense – politicians rarely care); and survive until the next sound-bite. Or to give this process the appropriate nomenclature: modern Conservative-Neoliberal Politics.
I don’t think the post makes enough of the difference between those who support and benefit from the Tory ideology and those who have simply fallen for the false, household, logic of balancing the books and vote Tory. I have a lot of friends who vote Tory but who, to varying degrees, believe in fairness – if not equality. Certainly Labour needs to ditch the tax and spend nonsense and then the emperor’s clothes would be exposed for what they are and the scope for tolerating the gross inequality that exists in our society would be seriously reduced, if not eliminated.
@ PSR – and others – many thanks.
I think that we have to recognise that in nature – and humankind is part of that – that there is a tension between common interest and self-interest and that is why I’m (broadly in favour of but very) wary of ‘socialism’ as such.
By persuading others, who may themselves be convinced of that natural self interest, as, after all, the propaganda for the last 40 years or so has suggested to them, it seems to me worth downplaying all isms and upping morality.
Morality is simply more accepted…
Understanding money creation helps us delightfully, in that aim.
@ Robin Gardiner
“I don’t think the post makes enough of the difference between those who support and benefit from the Tory ideology and those who have simply fallen for the false, household, logic of balancing the books and vote Tory. ”
Sorry, if your friends actually know how money is created then they are being dishonest about their ‘ideology’.
If they do not, then they need, I fear, to educate themselves
🙂 to the last
The cynic in me wonder if The Canny Scots have intentionally set the bar too high for most would be Freeporters?
I hope so
You forget that ‘fair’ is a highly subjective term that means different things to different people.
Pretending that your definition of ‘fair’ is the only one and hence that you have the moral high ground is simply a false narrative, but so often used by certain people on this blog.
So what is your definition of fair, and why does it differ to mine?
Please tell
You have made the claim so you must be able to justify it, in detail, with reasons.
It’s blatantly obvious that ‘fair’ is a subjective term which means different things to different people.
There should be no need to justify such a blatantly obvious statement.
I asked you to say what fair was
It seems that such simple tasks might be beyond you
Maybe this is not the place for you?
Mr McArthur,
“…. ‘fair’ is a subjective term which means different things to different people.”
You may notice that you were given two ‘fair’ prompts to provide an explanation. You chose mere repetition: when all that was asked of you was a simple explanation of what ‘fair’ means – to you. Of course that was quite difficult to do, since your own obviously hostile comment, lacking the provision of any evidence whatsoever for the ‘pretence’ or ‘false narrative’ you claim, could scarcely be decribed by anyone, using any definition you like – as “fair”. Of course, perhaps the lesson is that you do not believe in ‘fairness’ at all; you certainly have a strange way of demonstrating it.
While I agree that Conservatism is most certainly an ideology against both equity and justice, I have serious reservations when it comes to MMT that I rather hope you can assuage me of, as no one has been able to yet.
1/ How can MMT be implemented effectively given the interconnectivity of the world – particularly with regards to production – debt holdings, and the very important role of diplomacy and cooperation in complex international relations.
2/ In what way can MMT be seen as viable in determining economic and wider governmental policy, given that governments will inevitably change?
With the above in mind, what in your mind makes it a better system than simply using Kensyian ideas regarding (in particular) fiscal policy?
MMT is not implemented
MMT is how money works now
And politics determines policy
MMT explains the options available, not what is done
We are not concerned here with the academic traditions of refereed articles. We do not need to avoid generalities and footnote heavily. It is true that fairness and justice are nebulous terms in a general, linguistic sense, but there is a context here that is clear to all serious participants. Broadly, we all seek transparency in governmental and corporate affairs that permits democratic scrutiny of process and content with a view to ending the anti democratic hegemony of all elites. Inevitably, this involves a concerted attack on the wealth disparities that lie at the heart of unfairness and injustice in our society. Is that a precise programme, sharply defined to satisfy the editorial panel? No, but it’s roughly the agenda that makes most of us want to continue our participation in this site. I am reminded of those who babble about political correctness. It’s always an excuse for anti wokeness. In other words, it is an excuse for not just stating that you actually don’t have a problem with racism, xenophobia and misogyny. Trying to avoid using fairness and justice on the grounds of imprecision is the same. It means you don’t really want them, because they mean big changes that you oppose. Give the terms your own slant and content, but do not criticise their use.
After three days peer reviewing (with the weekend in the middle) I am relived to note your comment…