One of the new pages now published on the blog refers to neoliberal myths. At the moment this is a bit of a placeholder page, but it will not be in due course. Once the Tax Research Glossary is up and running with sufficient entries to make it useful the next issue that I intend to tackle is the myths that underpin neoliberalism.
Without in any way seeking to be exclusive these might include:
- There is money in the bank
- Banks lend out other people's money
- Tax pays for spending
- Government debt has to be repaid
- Growth is the be-all and end-all of the economy and nothing else matters
- Austerity is the right response to economic downturns
- Public services are black holes into which many is thrown
- Government spending can't add to growth
- Money creation is bound to lead to inflation
- The government must balance its books
- We can't afford pay rise during inflationary periods
- Profit is a measure of anything useful
- Government is like a household
- There is no such thing as society
- Our grandchildren will have to repay our debt
- The national debt is a burden
- We can no longer afford the NHS
Suggestions are welcome. Please email them to glossary@taxresearch.org.uk.
The aim of this exercise will be to:
- Explain what is being claimed
- Show why it is wrong
- Offer a counter-narrative that can be used to attack it.
I am hoping this will prove to be useful. Beating these false narratives seems to me to be key to beating the curse of neoliberalism itself.
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:
How about Neo-liberalism’s link to fascism and it’s effects on democracy?
This has to start with their claims
But i agree – a variation for criticism is also needed
“There is no magic money tree” might be a worthwhile addition to this list.
Thanks, and added to the main page
Great idea, Richard.
How about,
“A larger public sector is bad for the economy?”
Added to the main page
Thanks
Oh, how about:
* There is no alternative.
* The right (Conservatives, Republicans, etc) are fiscally responsible and their opponents are not.
* Increasing public sector pay leads to a wage-price spiral.
* There is a free market, and cutting regulation (“red tape”) will always improve its functioning.
* The Bank of England is independent of government.
* Cutting taxes paid by the wealthiest will ultimately improve the position of the poorest.
Variations have been added to the main page
Thanks
You are welcome. Some more suggestions:
* Markets act rationally and efficiently, on perfect information, with consistent self-interested goals, and always clear.
* Economic equilibrium exists in the real world.
* Inequality does not matter (so we can be relaxed about some people getting filthy rich).
Interesting to see some on the right making a similar argument: that a new lexicon is required to avoid fighting on the ground chosen by the left. https://thecritic.co.uk/the-need-for-a-right-wing-lexicon/
“Eventually, we need to dictate the terms of debate. If we only ever use the language of the left, we are fighting on their terms, on their ground and in their territory. We are charging up the hill.”
Thanks for both the suggestions and the link
I came across that site for the first time a few days ago. It has an undedifying list of writers
I was about to suggest much the same list as Andrew.
Might add something about markets being best left to regulate themselves
Thanks
It would be worth adding a glossary entry for straw man.
Added to the list
You’re welcome.
A straw battalion could be a useful one to add – a grouping of companies of straw men.
Possible suggestion for the list.
“Public Services costs are not a cost burden to society, they are an investment in society that repays us both financially, taxation etc, and by the greater benefits to society itself .”
Thanks and noted
Beating these false narratives seems to me to be key to beating the curse of neoliberalism itself.
Absolutely right
Another Freudian Slip I’m afraid
‘Public Services are black holes into which many is thrown”
Nice One
Oops….now corrected on the main page
Thanks
How about the Free market or red-tape myth.
The Neo-Liberal idea that well run Businesses providing the products and services that people want will inevitably thrive and grow if only you get rid of the laws and regulations that govern the markets in which they operate.
As the last forty years have demonstrated if you get rid of laws and regulations you end up with the monopoly position of small numbers of businesses controlling markets, offering over-priced products and rotten services.
The “Investor” is king, price competition is anathema and customers are treated with contempt.
Noted
Thanks
This promises to be a very useful section for we proselytisers.
I hope so…..
The ‘crowding out’ argument against public services – the economy is much more complicated than that – it is not one or the other but in reality both public and private.
The problem with regulation – that it hampers ‘natural market’ formation and efficiency when in fact it is deregulation or lack of it that causes major problems (I mean, look at OTC derivatives, and credit default swaps for goodness sake).
And Thatcher’s old lie – there is no such thing as government money blah, blah, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, ad nauseam.
Added
Thanks
Inequality doesn’t matter, pay workers the minumum you can get away with and make sure that people claiming benefits suffer. Worship billionares, they can do no wrong like offshoring wealth/
Thanks
It seems your whole approach is to invent sentences that are often nothing to do with neoliberalism, just so that you can criticise them.
Perhaps your starting point should actually be to understand the basics of neoliberalism before trying to point out flaws in the approach?
Go on then
Tell me exactly what you think neoliberalism is.
Try in 200 words. Be precise.
I don’t need to, I’m just pointing out that much of what you’ve written is rubbish,
If I wanted to try and understand a topic e.g. neoliberalism I certainly wouldn’t seek out the views of a hard left commentator. Just as I wouldn’t expect a right wing commentator to provide an honest, accurate and fair assessment of the sort of politic you espouse.
Not sure why that should be controversial.
You should just try and be honest for once – this is a purely a ‘glossary’ for those that already support your world view who want to feel vindicated in their views, not for those who actually want to learn anything and who want a fair and accurate view.
I am amused
You can’t explain a term with which you claim to be familiar and then say I shouldn’t try
And that I am not allowed to write an opinion for the benefit of those of similar inclination
That is neoliberal to its care. I grant you that
During austerity , ” we are all in it together “
Just heard the end of Any Questions radio 4 – Rocco Forte in half a minute set out the accepted model – the simplistic version: got to create growth (in the private sector) in order to fund public services – and that means tax cuts. Not challenged by Labour Steve Reed or Tory Robert Halfon. So simple and proved so wrong over the last ten years. Shouldnt be all that difficult to boil down the long list of neoliberal myths to an equally simple alternative model.
Interesting thought
You put your finger on a key point Andrew. Whilst the glossary and the examples being identified is very helpful and worthwhile, the biggest challenge is the ‘doorstep’ one. After 30-40 years of ‘framing’, most (I suspect) of the population have the the simple concept and metaphor of tax and spend, government as a household budget, deeply embedded in their minds. A task is to undermine that mental model and unpick it which is what is happening here. The likes of Stephanie Kelton and Steve Keen have been on the case for years.
Just as big a challenge is to come up with an equally simple concept and metaphors to describe the alternative. If you have ever tried to constructively challenge people with the existing mental model, even ones of a progressive, left of centre mindset, you’ll know what I mean. Not your Brexity uncle but people who want to believe that things could be different. No one has quite managed that yet. Might justify a whole separate thread.
Robin
The doorstep is where this project is intended to go
Give me time…
Richard
That’s good to hear. I’m sure the ‘virtual team’ will be only too keen to help.
I’ve found that starting with ‘where does your bank get the money for your mortgage’ can be a good start point. Whilst people still struggle with the idea of banks creating money as just entries in computer ledgers, Steve Keen style, they sort of get the idea that banks don’t have vaults full of £20 notes. Contrast with building societies in the 70s, when I was developing financial models for them – they really could only lend what others had saved.
From there one can move onto how the BofE creates money. However … still some way from a ‘doorstep’ conversation.
Government is dependent on markets. We can’t have healthcare or education etc without private sector wealth creation. The purpose of life is pursuit of success in the market place. Everyone is a self-interested, self-maximising economic being. Freedom equates to unfettered consumption.
Neoliberalism frees people from bureaucracy.
I think one of the greatest neo-liberal myths is that of the self-made man.
He (generally) who has accumulated great wealth by his own singular efforts. Neglecting of course we’ll-run states that provide education and health care for his workers, a police force to protect his property, legislation that ensures he is paid his dues, and a judiciary to uphold patents and IP.
Two suggestions in this theme this morning
I will update the list later
The conditions of your life are down to you and you alone. The wealth of one person has no bearing on the poverty of another. We’re all entirely separate from each other. Whether you succeed or fail is down to you. Meritocracy.
I guess that was a suggestion, not a claim?
Absolutely, yes, a suggestion, I don’t believe it at all. As most people are employees, their work, conditions and pay are decided by others, not them. Even self-employed people, like myself, rely on opportunities being made available by others.
Thanks
I highly recommend “Capitalist Realism” and the final lectures in “Post- Capitalist Desire” by the sadly late Mark Fisher, speaks of what’s being voiced here.
I will very much enjoy your skewering of these 17 myths. Looking at them, however, I am struck by the thought that the source of one’s critique of them may come from different parts of heterodox economics or political economy and, as a consequence, you may want to place these myths in different sub-groups.
To be more concrete … These ten myths are myths targeted by Modern Money Theory:
There is money in the bank
Banks lend out other people’s money
Tax pays for spending
Government debt has to be repaid
Government spending can’t add to growth
Money creation is bound to lead to inflation
The government must balance its books
Government is like a household
Our grandchildren will have to repay our debt
The national debt is a burden
They map quite well to the first six chapters of Stephanie Kelton’s The Deficit Myth. However, I think we draw upon other parts of political economy for these 7 myths:
Growth is the be-all and end-all of the economy and nothing else matters
Austerity is the right response to economic downturns
Public services are black holes into which money is thrown
We can’t afford pay rise during inflationary periods
Profit is a measure of anything useful
There is no such thing as society
We can no longer afford the NHS
Thanks
50 years ago as a teenager, I used to argue politics & economics with a good friend (who remains so). To the point that I wrote on my teenage bedroom wall:
Economics is not a law of the universe!
Not quite a myth, but I think during the years of austerity there was a lot of misunderstanding about the term deficit. Most people didn’t realise this was just the difference between spending and income in a given year and assumed that by getting the deficit down we were reducing our national debt. Instead our national debt rocketed during the Cameron years.
Not quite a myth, but I think during the years of austerity there was a lot of misunderstanding about the term deficit. Most people didn’t realise this was just the difference between spending and income in a given year and assumed that by getting the deficit down we were reducing our national debt. Instead our national debt rocketed during the Cameron years.
Noted
Ha Ha!
Oh I love it when you let numpties like ‘James MCcann’ on here. You Richard – ‘hard left’ Ha-Ha – honestly?!
So, for the benefit of you – ‘James’ (spelt ‘I-D-I-O-T’) – let’s just say that we’ve had many many years of the neo-liberal economics led by the likes of von Hayek and Friedmann and all some of us do is look at the mess it has caused and ask a simple question – Why?
And what a mess?
Over financialised industry that kills jobs, work, incomes and R&D to feed ‘investors’ leaving the State to pick up the pieces?
Legalised daylight robbery and asset stripping of decent companies through the stock market?
The legitimisation of not paying taxes that are legally due to the sovereign State that prints the currency?
The justification and sanctification of the sovereign rights of the individual over those of the majority?
The perversion of political systems by inserting the profits from the above operations into political funding to bias policy?
Fighting for and achieving deregulation and then causing market failure and expecting the State you abhor to bail you out?
The degradation of our environment because neo-liberalism’s reductionist approach to resources?
I could go on. And this is not my blog so I’d better watch my language.
But you ‘Jame’s…………………….you are………………….. lost.
If I had to answer the question what exactly the basis of neoliberalism I would say that it is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature . It is based on the idea that humans are naturally competitive and everything they do is motivated by money . I do not believe this to be true at all – and I even spent time working in a remote Australian Aboriginal settlement where everything brought into the camp was shared .
From what I have read and observed over many years , as long as people have ‘enough’, most people are content. When they witness extreme inequality the competitive money accumulation sets in . Therefore extreme competition and money desire will not run a decent society.