I was in Jeremy Vine's studio at the BBC talking about the budget yesterday. As usual, and as has been the case for more than a decade, my sparring partner was Mark Littlewood from the Institute fur Economic Affairs (IEA). The IEA has, of course, been at the heart of far-right Tufton Street thinking for decades, even though it is located around the corner.
It was Jeremy who suggested that Mark and I should do a blog together because of the way we spark off each other. He also joked that I always get the last word.
Mark has indicated his willingness, and I am tempted. This is a charge to nit argue the case around Tufton Street thinking, but with Tufton Street thinking, which Mark represents more than most do.
So, a quick poll:
Should I do a podcast with Mark Littlewood?
- Yes (32%, 193 Votes)
- No, because it gives him credibility he does not deserve (25%, 153 Votes)
- Yes, but make it a one off: there are better people to talk to (21%, 131 Votes)
- I don’t know but show me the answers (18%, 109 Votes)
- Only if you’re mad (3%, 16 Votes)
- No (1%, 8 Votes)
Total Voters: 610
Loading ...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:
One of the commentators in a previous blog mentioned “Ill fares the Land” by Tony Judt. I have a Penguin copy and re-read some of it. Many good points are made by Judt (particularly with respect to events of the 1960s) however, for me & with respect to the IEAs “foundations” he gets to the heart of the matter on page 101 with the destruction of the foundations of Hayekian thought:
“In the years following 1945 it seemed to most intelligent observers as though the Austrians (von Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter, Popper and Druker) had made a CATEGORY ERROR. Like so many of their fellow refugees, they had assumed that the conditions which brought about the collapse of liberal capitalism in inter-war Europe were permanent and inifintely reproducible”
Hayek claimed that a Labour victory in 1945 would lead to …………..fascism (difficult to not to snigger at this point – & Hayek was supposed to be a leading intellectual – really? leading imbecile more like). It is of course all nonsense, it was nonesense then, it is nonesense now, The IEA and its “small-state” theses based on Hayek have been shown to be trash, garbage or more politely, based on a CATEGORY ERROR. The trivial example of the UKs open sewers – ooops sorry – rivers – is an example of small-state/regulation vs state taking responsibility for a common good (or in this case not).
Richard, you are your own man – do what you wish. The IEA and paid imbeciles such as Littlewood (who does pay him I wonder?) are unworthy of your time – they are time wasters and have been since they were formed on an already discredited doctrine in the 1950s/1960s. Nasty people, funded by even nastier people (if I was the Russians – I would certainly fund them – albeit via cut-outs).
Thanks
I’m with Mike on this – it’s up to you?
What is your capacity for outrage? And what are your energy levels like? My concern is that it could exhaust you given all the other fronts you are pushing on. After all you’ll be talking to brick wall.
I think you’ve been doing well:
The Blog (& the glossary)
Twitter/Mastodon
The Mirror
The National
Academic papers with fellow professors etc.
Have I left anything out?
Wouldn’t you rather write a book? We’re about due one aren’t we?
There is more than that
But that’s ok
It is one thing to go sparring on the BBC, with Jeremy Vine as ringmaster, but if you did this podcast, who is going to have editorial control?
And is Littlewood going to be more transparent first about who buys his lunch? Who are the IEA’s main funders (over £10k say) and why are they so embarrassed about admitting it? How much of their work is done to advance the private interests of their donors?
I think this requires independent control
Yes – podcasts get great traction atm, if both serious and entertaining. However, insist upon the format and mutual mutual input into the agenda. Re format, don’t make it one-to-one face to face – insist upon a mixed palette of guests. Re agenda, use it as an opportunity to coalesce a community. Don’t ‘take on Tufton Street’ – make an opposing ‘Tufton Street’. Name it after a street – any suggestions?
Let’s see
I will certainly be looking to input to the rules…..
Hi Richard, I have no doubt that you’d wipe the floor with Mr Littlewood, and be able to demonstrate the complete failure of neoliberal economics since the late 1970s, following the breakdown of the post wat Keynesian consensus.
I voted don’t know in your poll, because I’m not sure if the event can be somehow rigged in Littlewood’s favour. I simply don’t trust the BBC.
If you’re relaxed about doing it, then “batter in” as we say in Glasgow.
It would be very interesting. The Rest Is Politics works because two people with differing views bounce off each other respectfully and don’t hold back challenging each other, so why not about economics?
Oddly, I think we could do the same
I have known Mark for over a decade
The penultimate paragraph should read:
“This is a chance to not argue the case….”
I can’t see any harm in a regular podcast if it is not too often — e.g. monthly or bimonthly.
As to giving Littlewod a credibility he doesn’t deserve, he and the IEA already have that in many quartets. But more important than his credibility is his influence and you may well be able to reduce that.
Given how the Tufton Street gang have been at the forefront of climate change denial, I really don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say they have been a part of causing, and accruing, incalculable human pain, making them some of the evilest human beings that have ever lived.
As much as I would like to see you take them on, how does that square with choosing not to go on GB News?
It will be a different platform
I hesitate to comment on matters like this; after all, I am not required to do as I say; but you seem to want opinions.
I would only rarely suggest that an attempt to have a real dialogue with an opponent, although with Tufton Street I might also remember Isaiah Berlin’s argument that rationalists assume all diiferences are resolvable; whereas the truth is often that real differences exist because they are incommensurable. I tend to think neoliberals fall into this category; there is nothing they seem to believe that is subject to rational decision, unless in the service of the ideology.
Think about what points will be made to you, as much as what you points you make to him, if you go ahead.
“I would only rarely suggest that an attempt to have a real dialogue with an opponent should not be undertaken,”
I forgot to finish the sentence before I moved on. Hopeless, i know, I know.
Mr Warren – extending your final sentence (Think about….etc ) this points in the direction of “what is the desirable outcome from a dialogue with the IEA”.
One outcome that is impossible (alluded to in your comments) is changing minds.
Littlewood & Co are stuck records nothing will move them off the groove they are in – despite the fact that St Hayek & co were wrong about almost everything from the mid-1930s onwards & never changed their minds despite all the empirical evidence that passed in front of their faces. Given thss why would Littlewood change what passes for his “mind”?
I suggest the purpose of the exercise is to show up Littlewood and co for what they are: frauds and liars, pushing ideologies and thinking that were wrong by the mid-1930s and demonstrably wrong by the 1960s. 63 years later………they have yet to change their thinking. Thus the podcast could/should show them up to be the fools, imbeciles, mental pygmies that they are.
As for how I regard Littlewood, the IEA crew and the Tufton St rabble, I leave it to Exeter (Henry V) to fully express my thoughts:
Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt,
And any thing that may not misbecome
The mighty sender, doth he prize you at.
It would be to show up the hollowness of their ideas
What might Mark Littlewood hope to get out of this? He is not going to be particularly interested to participate in a podcast where he may be shown up or misrepresented, any more than Richard would be.
To quote Admiral Ackbar, “It’s a trap!”
I don’t doubt that Littlewood is a true believer in the stuff he pushes – how else could he so quickly pivot from claiming Kwarteng’s emergency(-causing) budget was the best thing since sliced bread to taking the view that ‘They just presented it poorly’?
I suspect any podcast would end up with you legitimating the IEA nonsense. It doesn’t matter what arguments you put forward, it’s not going to change Littlewood’s mind, so it would end up as a case of he said/she said.
The problem with debating with a flat earther is that you end up talking about the flat earth theory, however obviously untrue it clearly is.
If you did it with more than the IEA from Tufton Street would it bring more of the government backers out into the open? We hear of Tufton Street but not of all the companies based there.
Quite like to see it advertised on Tufton Street in a Led by Donkeys way.
Unless you live in London the fabric of this country has been visibly falling to bits for the last forty years.
I would also argue that except for the very rich the quality of life of most people is worse than it was in the seventies. Some minorities may have gained rights but the virulence of the hatred to which they are exposed is now off the scale.
Values that we would have claimed for ourselves, honesty, fairness and compassion are now under constant threat.
British owned manufacturing has been diminished to the point of insignificance and we are pathetically dependent on others for the basics of food and energy.
If the Tufton street tosspot can accept that these are all the fault of the disastrous neo-liberal policies promoted by people like him then their might be some point in talking to him, otherwise it is just a useful way to waste your time.
I voted Yes Richard, as I think it’s time the pernicious influence of right wing libertarian views which Tufton Street and its many helpers in the right wing press wield was countered by someone able and willing to explain why it’sa nonsense, and what the sane alternative is.
Especially with regard to the real role of the state in an economy, and a properly funded public sector, as opposed to the IEA’s delusions. If you could show how wrong the household budget view is, that would be really worth doing.
Thanks
I could make reference to DeSmog and openDemocracy investigations, or Peter Geoghegan’s book Democracy for Sale, of course.
I’ll just ask about your cutlery. Do you have a long spoon?
Richard
I think you and others need to do a lot more mainstream media, print, blogging, interviews, youtube, twitter and social media in order to get your messages and thinking out there to the masses and to directly confront/address the lies and misinformation.
In my view it is so crucial and desperately needed, given the way things are going. However, it could already be too little too late.
Here are a few suggestions of other people that you could work with to debate, challenge, discuss, blog, talk, interview etc. I am sure you and the readers of the blog can think of other people/names and add to the list.
I appreciate you (as well as all the people on the list below) are all very busy and have a lot on so committing to additional things may not be feasible. But I would argue that this type of work needs to be prioritised and increased so that your work is more effective, creates the much needed awareness and brings about the change that is so essential.
For example, you could start with talking/discussing/blogging about money, money creation, fiat currency, banking etc etc and/or collaborating to produce youtube clips, social media posts, reports, analysis and commentaries that rebutt, disprove and counter the views and policies that are currently being imposed.
Stephanie Kelton
Danny Blanchflower
Gary Neville
Mariana Mazzucato
Dan Neidle
James O’Brien
Mehdi Hassan
Martin Lewis
Interesting….
Mariana Mazzucato top of the list
I like this idea and the reasoning behind it.
One more to add to the list:
Clara Mattei who has written the best account I think about how we are being ruled at the moment in ‘The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism’ (2022; University of Chicago Press).
It’s the most important book after ‘The Deficit Myth’ or ‘The Destiny of Civilisation’ that we should all be reading at the moment in my view at least.
The danger in doing a podcast with an opponent is what you say can be edited so that when re published your intended meaning is lost. They will have lots of time, money, people and publishers to get their message out. Which may reduce the great value of the work you are doing.
We will need a neutral host
Would Gary Lineker be the host?
No idea as yet
I suspect there is a gap in the podcast market for a ‘The Rest is Economics’. Ideally presented by two independently minded political economists seeking to provide their audience with greater understanding. They don’t have to agree, but to deliver a consistent engaging listener experience there must be mutual respect and good humour underscoring intelligent conversation. Competitive point scoring lacks joy.
A one-off is different. The time and space podcasts can provide is good for extended interviews.
Noted
The more outlets for the ideas the better – but…not sure. Richard is so good on screen / audio – eg commenting on latest issues not sure whether jousting with Littlewood would attract more people – maybe it would .
If a two-page manifesto – ‘what is to be done?’ can be produced – and published with an invitation to sign up might be another way to influence politics, if enough economists, and prominent people put their names to it.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it (Shaw, I think)..
If certain views go unchallenged then people don’t see a problem with them.
A podcast would give you an opportunity to do more than exchange soundbites, and that has to be good.
I don’t doubt you for a moment, but it also has to be civil, and if there is any, credit where credit is due (it has to be seen to be fair)
The other alternative is a boxing match, but I doubt either one of you would command a $17million purse.
Anyway, I bet you could think of better things to do with money, I would whether Mark would?
Why not try 2 or 3 episodes for starters.
I am reminded of the dilemma for Tom Daley in deciding on whether certain Commonwealth games countries should be banned for their anti-LGBT laws. In the end Daley changed his mind and waved the rainbow flag in their faces. https://www.attitude.co.uk/news/world/tom-daley-explains-change-of-mind-over-banning-anti-lgbtq-countries-from-international-sporting-events-404089/
After you’ve dealt with Mark Littlewood, I’d pay money to witness a debate with the so-called experts who appear regularly on the BBC.
Perhaps you could take on Ben Chu and Tim Harford of More or Less, with Andy Verity added to the mix as he’d be (more or less) on your side. Seriously though, I’m wondering if taking on the BBC would be more useful.
Let’s not run away with ideas as yet….
Maybe a Niall Ferguson perhaps on his little Hoover zoom call
I admit that none has lost me
I would say it’s certainly worth doing a podcast with Mark Littlewood as a one-off or occasional event. But probably not as a regular slot, because it would probably mean you having to do less of something else… and your insights are badly needed in other places (e.g. this blog, Twitter)!
Howard
The time will come when I need an assistant…
Or to give up academia
One of the two
Richard
As a fairly economically illiterate leftie who has been doing her best to educate herself on MMT, I would like to read a blog of this kind. I often read an argument and find it convincing but want to know what the opposing argument is to enable me to form a more rounded opinion. I think this would help me do so on this issue.
The best books I have found to provide “the opposing argument” are:
The Microeconomics Anti-Textbook: A Critical Thinker’s Guide 2nd ed. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Microeconomics-Anti-Textbook-Critical-Thinkers-Guide/dp/1783607297/
The Macroeconomics Anti-Textbook: A Critical Thinker’s Guide https://www.amazon.co.uk/Macroeconomics-Anti-Textbook-Critical-Thinkers-Guide/dp/1350323713/
They write: “Each chapter begins with a Standard Text section, a concise exposition of the conventional textbook material. This is followed by an Anti-Text section with our critique of the Standard Text. As such, we hope it will prove useful to students, to those professors who feel even slight discomfort with the hegemony of the conventional text, and to everyone else interested in understanding more about contemporary econornics.”
Thanks Ian
I see others have made comparison here with ‘The Rest Is Politics’. That podcast works, I think, because as a listener I can accept that both hosts have good intentions to strive for honesty, despite their differing views and shortcomings. There is clear mutual respect and a sense of legitimacy to the wide-ranging discussions.
The questions I would ask here are: Does Mark Littlewood have good intentions? Will he strive for honesty in his arguments? Do you have any respect for him? (Does he have any for you?)
I feel like I know the answers already to the first two of these, and I don’t see how a podcast could work well without these things. If respect is also absent, then even more so.
A one-off, perhaps… But I can’t help but think it would be more interesting and useful to hear you in discussion with economic thinkers currently informing Labour’s positioning.
All noted mark
But I would add those influencing Labour won’t talk because they will go nowhere near anyone who might embrace any element of MMT
Yes, they really are that small-minded
Mark – and others – have referred to the success of the format of “The Rest is Politics” podcast. As Mark highlights, “There is clear mutual respect and a sense of legitimacy to the wide-ranging discussions.”. These, in my view, are the overriding factors that makes the series so compelling. The last two podcasts – on the Iraq war and it’s consequences – illustrate perfectly how two people can respectfully disagree and share concerns about policies and decision-making, giving all listeners an opportunity to reconsider their own views.
I sincerely doubt that you can find any one person – or a sufficient number of reasonable people with opposing views – to deliver that kind of balance over a series of podcasts. I suggest that you try one out for size and then explore the potential for a series; call it “Mile End Road Economics”.
Just read the transcript of the excellent discussion between Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson “Trade Theory: No Room for Gunboats” here https://michael-hudson.com/2023/02/trade-theory-no-room-for-gunboats/ on the failed battle for Keynes’ bancor proposal post WW2. It is a video with a transcript and works wonderfully as an informative and challenging explication of why we are where we are today in the UK and the ‘West’ in general. Highly recommended.
Desai and Hudson are coming from similar positions and complement each other’s arguments. However, I can see how Eric C’s idea of a regular slot where you debate issues with various guests could work equally well. It’s an attractive and engaging set up.
I will take a watch