Universities have what we call reading weeks. As an alternative I have awarded myself a thinking week, officially starting today, but which actually began over the weekend.
As I mentioned in a post on Friday, one thing I really need to consider is writing a new book. I have only written two that I think are of significance, which are The Courageous State and The Joy of Tax. The first is now thirteen years old, and the second nine years old. You could, very easily, argue that it is time for another one simply because my own thinking has moved on a great deal since I wrote both of those.
That said, writing a book is, in my opinion, not that straightforward precisely because the process so contrasts with writing anything else.
The hope when writing a book is that the ideas within it should have some permanence. In that sense, the process profoundly contrasts with writing a blog post. They are always open to being revisited, revised and reworked. That's not nearly as easy in the case of a book.
A book should also contain ideas that have broad relevance. My two previous books were too UK focused for this to be genuinely the case. It will be good to write the one that succeeds in this way.
A book must also have a sustainable narrative that takes the reader through it, so that despite the detail, subplots, diversions, and explanations that are necessary to explore a subject an overarching idea can be perceived, and then be taken away from the work.
There is another, perverse requirement to mention that reinforces the one just noted. This is that the book has to avoid unnecessary complexity. An argument must of course be referenced to relevant facts, but if the argument of a book is that the arguments that others are using are wrong, which will be my likely theme, then it is the arguments and not the facts that must have priority.
I also have a personal loathing that I must take into account. This is my intense dislike of books that take 400 pages to tell us just how terrible everything is and then offer ten or so pages of hints at possible solutions before suggesting that more work must be done before anything solutions might be available to correct matters. I can think of an economics Nobel prize winner or two who are guilty of doing that, making their books a waste of time in my opinion. I will want to dedicate more than half of any book I write to what needs to be done. I cannot see the point of writing it otherwise.
This does, in that case, require that the ‘difficult thinking' ( (c) Rachel Reeves) be done before this book is written so that the reader gets the benefit, and not the agonising. That said, this will not prevent me bouncing the odd idea here, none of which will suggest the final content of what I might write.
In that case, let me start with some suggestions as to the arguments that are wrong. There could be a long list of these. I am not convinced that will help anyone, so I am working on the idea of there being just three that I wish to tackle.
When it comes to microeconomics my bête noire is that markets deliver optimal outcomes for society and that, as a result, government interference must be minimised at all times.
On macroeconomics, the argument needing to be addressed might be the household analogy, which is the mechanism used to ensure that impoverished microeconomic thinking dominates macroeconomic analysis as well, wholly inappropriately.
Then there is the question of human motivation, the understanding of which is necessary if we are to suggest how the economy should work. The current assumption that pervades society is that greed ultimately motivates all human actions. I disagree.
Let me be clear that there are other candidates that could be given attention. What I am interested in now are reactions to this list, and suggestions as to alternatives.
Meanwhile, I am going to muse on how to summarise what goes in their place.
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 book should also contain ideas that have broad relevance”
Sadly, economics does not fulfil this brief, and would make a poor focus. That’s not to say that a book should exclude everything about economics.
It seems to me that of broader appeal, is how we can all have a better life, which begs the question, why is society falling to bits now, and what needs to be done of attain The Good Life. This would need discussion about Football, politics, economics and the environment.
I don’t follow football, but recognise that many people do, and it is part of their good life. Others are more political minded in order to facilitate the improvement.
The book will be political economy, not economics, and that is a much broader theme.
A book which is list of things which appear wrong and possible remedies, can lack coherence.
On the other hand I have always had reservations about ideological driven politics. I went to teacher training college in the 60s, having been to a Secondary modern and left at 16. I had only O levels and had worked as an insurance clerk and factory worker. My grandfather whom I hardly knew left me some books-somewhat out of date. But my mother and grandmother with whom I lived had no original ideas. My brother was in the Navy so I had little knowledge of the wider civilian world. But I did read widely. My grandchildren don’t seem to.
There were a number of people at college who declared themselves to be socialists and articulate but I saw some were very intolerant while preaching that virtue. I soon learnt that their knowledge of the world was filtered by their theories.
I did get involved in politics in the 1980s with the Ecology Party then, for a few years, the SDP. Not really since.
All of which is a long winded way of saying (apologies for that) that the remedies you suggest need to arise out of a coherent view of the world and the values needed.
One thing that appealed about reading about Keynes is that not only did he look for practical solutions but they were based in a view of the society he wanted to live in. The euthanasia of the rentier being one such concept which got me thinking. An influential book can do more just deliver solutions. It can inspire thought for others to deliver. Your third point -on human motivation-is important.
I have been following you for well over a decade and I note those qualities in your blog. And in the contributors.
Happy musing.
I promise you, the thinking will becoming very firmly contextualised
no less than I expected. Thanks
On the household analogy surely that is logically debunked by pointing out that no household owns a central bank so comparing a household and a country is just madness….
“The current assumption that pervades society is that greed ultimately motivates all human actions.”
If we substitute self-interest for greed then I think there is little argument that self-interest does motivate us.
From a progressive point of view it is necessary to get across that collaboration is in the interest of the self – when it very clearly, and very often is – just look at parenting, setting up home and through individual (economic) specialisation in order to improve lives overall, even in money creation which is nothing without a society to create it in and indeed for.
What is needed is to try to put more balance in the way we are encouraged to live by showing how enhancing and improving collaboration is in all our self-interests. Making society better makes us all better…
Thanks
My tuppence-worth for an arc:
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance. Where and how do find our best life if we don’t know our “station”.
* Council > region > State
* Alliances > Aid
* Consequences of climate death
I prefer that to The Social Contract, but as you often make reference that, perhaps it is an idea that Thatcher killed and needs resuscitating.
Perhaps only a pennyworth…
“I prefer that to The Social Contract”
I like the idea that there is a government-public contract, that the government and politicians works for us.
For the many, not the few.
I have always hated the slogan ‘for the many, not the few’. It doesn’t unite society, it just aligns itself on the other side of the fight. I would prefer ‘for us all, not just the few’
🙂
Rawls certainly has an unfulfilled, even unexplored role in terms of political economy. I’ve not seen any comprehensive writings* which associate his justice as fairness triumvirate with how macroeconomics can work or ought to work …. but it would be an interesting prospect.
( * If there are any such writings please cite. )
I suppose Keynes full employment priority, reflecting his own values in his work, aims to confer agency to all, and that, too, is Rawls primary goal.
And Rawls specification that inequalities are allowed (encouraged) where they benefit the most disadvantaged is a fundamentally ‘levelling up’ principle.
The final element is that the ‘just savings’ principle is about sustainability.
It covers Pigouvian taxing of externalities, now over a century overdue for implementation as a taxation principle.
And if there is to be a liveable planet for mankind a century down the road, then ‘just savings’, though needing to be qualified, are pretty essential.
Richard’s intentions that a new book would be firmly fixed as political economy, means some underpinning value system needs articulating, to the macroeconomic framework, and I concur…. Rawls is much underestimated as an option.
I have spent time this morning sketching just that
Just started Daniel Chandler’s book: ‘A Free and Equal Society – What would a fair society look like.’
“ The optimistic message of this book is that the ideas we need are hiding in plain sight, in the work of the twentieth century’s greatest political philosopher, John Rawls.”
Indeed
Working up the slides for the 14th meeting on energy. Energy & Inflation.
The events of 2021 – 2023 showed what happens when prices for gas prices go bonkers. In a decarbed world (i.e. mostly PV and wind, with some hydro and perhaps some nukes) this could not happen. Any given renewable project has, once built, fixed costs (it is CAPEX intensive – that is where most of the costs sit). Thus any country that moves to say, 80 – 90% renewables will have, energy (elec & perhaps H2) that is fixed in price – over decades. If energy is a key influencer over inflation – this then carries with it the implication of ultra-low inflation – for decades. If inflation trends towards 0 or 0.5% what is an “appropriate” interest rate? Also, why not utlra-low interest rate for renewables (& energy efficiency) – that would get us to stable energy prices sooner. Just some ideas and observations.
Deeply relevant I points
There is a small marginal bust to production
I am often bemused by the household analogy thrown into our faces by so called learned politicians to justify why they cannot spend any money on reducing social ills. Especially when this is combined with the idea that the credit card is maxed out.
Well must households who are purchasing a house do not use a credit card to purchase, and they go into a lot of debt to do so. This debt is quite often will in excess of 100% of their annual income (or the household GDP if you like). Why then are people encouraged to buy a house on the presumption that is a good thing for them and the economy, but a larger household called the government cannot? After all the household is investing in their future by buying a residence. But a government is punished for wanting to invest in the nation by reducing future costs on health and poverty, but are merely “borrowing” against future income.
And why is it ok for a business to borrow to invest for the future, but it is not for a government to do exactly the same? After all there is little chance of government crowding out private funds as the limit to money supply is nowhere near as much feared by ill informed commentators who are yet to realise the fiat currency has made a large change.
I am waiting for a journalist to ask a politician more on the household concept, but fear I will have to wait a while.
Take the time to think Richard and please feel free to continue to share your thoughts with us on this blog.
Good comment
Thank you
Hank. I’ve found that using household or business borrowing as an analogy in this way is generally easier for people to grasp than the idea that money is created out of thin air. It’s just a smaller conceptual step to take and more persuasive for this reason.
UK government debt is officially over 200% of its income. It would be interesting to know the government’s debt to wealth ratio. The house hold with a new mortgage should have a debt to wealth ratio of a little under 1 assuming they paid fair price for the property and put down a deposit. While the house hold analogy is bunkum, the comparisons are worthwhile. Let’s you get a feeling on the scale of the problem or non-problem.
You are wrong
UK government debt is actually a pit £1.6bn
The rest is money supply
The rest is money supply
Why not talk about reality?
Professor Gold is correct.
UK government debt is indeed officially over 200% of annual income.
Just check the official numbers for the debt and compare to annual tax receipts plus small amounts of other UK government income.
When you said that UK government debt is actually £1.6bn, I think you have underestimated by a Ferguson and then some.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/12/24/the-good-news-this-is-christmas-is-that-trillion-of-the-uks-national-debt-does-not-exist/
Tell me what you disagree with, in detail please
It’s a bizarre point to disagree on. I’m well aware a large portion of the debt is money owed to ourselves, but I’m going off the larger official number for UK debt. Divide that by UK government income and it is over 200% now.
Why accept the official number when you know it is wrong?
I am baffled by that.
“When it comes to microeconomics my bête noire is that markets deliver optimal outcomes for society and that, as a result, government interference must be minimised at all times.”
Taking that Neoclassical economic argument about markets at face value requires a mechanism that ensures individuals are always going to be able to access sufficient money to meet basic needs. The rub is of course who will decide what should be on that list of basic needs let alone how the mechanism will operate and especially in the face of uncertainty which is with us always.
Agreed
What is the reasonableness test?
Amen to your observation about imbalanced books, Richard – and off-putting large ones at that. Your proposed structure for your new writing looks encouragingly clear and appropriate in its coverage. Only one point of your opening post gave me pause, ie. where you seem to be concerned not to focus so much on Britain. Although your inclusion of the climate crisis dimension will make certain, and rightly so, that the volume looks on issues, theoretical positions/arguments that go far beyond these shores, I would suggest that a section, perhaps a concluding and substantial one, should give policy specific conclusions, which should be exmplified in the case of the political economy of Europe – that is of Europe understood as including these islands. You have a huge amount to contribute to the debates on values in political economy and we also need to see the bite of this work on the real polity with which we are most immediately concerned,
Noted
Thanks
I would argue that before that question is the more important one of where would be the best place to enshrine it. You can use an Act of Parliament but that is fairly arcane for most people and we know such acts are relatively easily changed. Would a Constitution be the best place to ensure both the mechanism and define how the reasonableness would work. When I studied Comparative Government at school I decided I was against constitutions on the grounds that rights should really form part of citizens every day knowledge and therefore didn’t need writing down. Having lived in the United States I can see their usefulness imperfect though the US one is. Since money provides substantial certainty to promises surely this quality needs special certainty which a constitution provides better than an Act of Parliament!
It does not need to be law
It needs to be lived experience
Lived experience is always subject to “ideological shift” the question is whether it’s possible to resist negative ideological shift using a constitution document.
https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=61624
If you read the conclusion to Abby Innes’s Chapter Five on “agencification” (pages 170 to 172) in her book “Late Soviet Britain” what becomes obvious is that although Neoliberals have sought to privatise public services by bringing in market competition what they have completely failed to do is to provide the public as individuals the contracts that you usually get when you buy goods and services in the marketplace. This is why I’m suggesting we might start to look at the idea of constitutions that cover this right to have public service contracts. We can of course extend it to cover remuneration for labour both in the private and public marketplace.
Here is the key quote in that chapter’s conclusion:-
“These are the dynamics of rentier-capitalism, in which a growing number of UK firms seek their profits not through the disciplined endeavours of the competitive marketplace but through the pursuit of asymmetric contracts with the state – contracts that allow them to control or run public assets in an extortive manner at the public expense, with wholly negative consequences for the quality of public services, investment and the terms of employment. It is a system that actively invites political corruption.”
I agree with that
If you read the conclusion to Abby Innes’s Chapter Five on “agencification” (pages 170 to 172) in her book “Late Soviet Britain” what becomes obvious is that although Neoliberals have sought to privatise public services by bringing in market competition what they have completely failed to do is to provide the public as individuals the contracts that you usually get when you you buy goods and services in the marketplace. This is why I’m suggesting we might start to look at the idea of constitutions that cover this right to have public service contracts. We can of course extend it to cover remuneration for labour both in the private and public marketplace.
Just saw this in my Facebook feed: “Economics with Justice”, a 10 part course that addresses economics as a human subject.
This seems to be a better approach.
“History shows that whenever people work together, they can create great wealth. But for you to get rich do I have to suffer? For me to get rich do you have to be poor? If we both want to prosper can we do it without impoverishing someone else?”
https://schoolofphilosophy.org/collections/frontpage/products/intro-economics-with-justice
I have never trusted that offer
I can’t recall why now but I checked it out some time ago
“The first myth is that economists believe that the market solves all problems.”
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stavins/files/how_economists_see_the_environment.pdf
‘It is often asserted that supporters of a market economy believe that ‘greed is good’. This is simply not true. Economists know that people are capable of a range of thoughts, feelings, motivations and emotions and a market economy works regardless of whether people are selfish or altruistic.”
https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/selfishness-greed-and-capitalism#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20asserted%20that,people%20are%20selfish%20or%20altruistic.
Your book is on pretty shaky ground before you’ve even started!
With respect, you have clearly not noticed what is taught to undergraduates – because they are most certainly told what I am saying as the core belief of economics, and without these assumptions the maths they learn does not work.
That’s what they recall. The rest is a footnote. You are referring to the footnotes.
You are wrong – I have recently graduated in economics, so I know exactly what the syllabus is. We also studied the common myths about economics.
It’s so frustrating that you are putting students off studying economics by pretending that it has nothing useful to say about the real world. It’s not just disengenius, it’s hypcitical, it’s dangerous and it’s unforgiving from a so-called professor.
I’ve a good mind to complain to your University chancellor about this. I’m not sure they’d be impressed about you deliberately misleading people.
Feel free
Respectfully I disagree with you
The whole Rethinking Economics campaign and CoreEcon would not be true if what you say is generally true.
When did you graduate? Where?
From The Microeconomics Anti-Textbook:
“The typical introductory economics textbook teaches that economics is a value-free science; that economists have an agreed-upon methodology; and they know which models are best to apply to any given problem. They give the impression that markets generally are sufficiently competitive that (for the most part) they lead to efficient outcomes; that minimum wages and unions are harmful to workers themselves; and that government regulation is either ineffective or harmful.
The Microeconomics Anti-Textbook points out that all this is a myth.” (2nd ed, 2021) https://amzn.eu/d/0nas7lm
From the Rethinking Economics web site:
“The problem we face is the total dominance of a single and outdated form of economics at universities, which promotes the marketisation of society, leading to increased inequality, injustice and significant harm to the natural world. We need students of economics to leave university with a tool-kit of skills they can use to help us face these challenges effectively.” https://www.rethinkeconomics.org/about/
Precisely
Delighted to be here,
So you say ….
“…. economics has been worse than irrelevant. Economics, as it has been practised in the last three decades, has been positively harmful for most people” (Ha-Joon Chang, ’23 Things they don’t tell you about capitalism’; p.248).
Take it up with him.
Oh, and add some dignity to your life. Find a name you are prepared to use in public.
I so agree with the last….
In his twenties he is happy to hurl utterly ill informed abuse but not using his own name
I think the term coward was created for people like him
The other things I’ve realised that I missed in the previous contribution is that a functioning economy needs HOPE above all.
It seems that we are now supposed to be the second most depressed country in the world:
https://businessday.ng/news/article/uk-among-most-depressed-countries-in-the-world/
Hope motivates and gives aims – and also, what the Tories used to be good at, individual and even collective aspiration.
Any political economy must be sure to offer that hope – at a base level to counteract sickness – both mental and physical, but also of course in order to motivate those in that economy to strive for and have confidence in better outcomes – especially for their children (‘The Spirit Level’ et al) – and which can, I suggest, be improved only by a more collaborative approach.
Also, in order to give equality of opportunity and therefore in order to ensure that we don’t miss out from the contributions that those in constrained and difficult circumstances will not in all probability otherwise be able to make, we need to keep helping those with few resources – of particular note:
“If you convince the weak to be selfish, you will destroy society,”
https://archive.ph/su6W2
Indeed the whole idea of equality of opportunity is, I suggest, largely bogus –
https://www.progressivepulse.org/economics/wealth-always-trickles-up-its-all-more-maths
Pooling resources give you much the best outcome – by definition
So we have always to give extra help to the disadvantaged to ensure that their potential contributions to society are never missed.
I graduated from Warwick in 2022 (with a 2.1).
You are incorrect in what you state about the teaching syllabus.
Like you the ‘rethinking economics’ campaign are more about politics than economics and seemingly have to deliberately misrepresent the truth to try and gain support.
What is your economic qualification Richard, and how long ago was it obtained? Isn’t it highly likely that things have moved on a bit in the 40 years or whatever since you graduated?
Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences is my most recent recognition of status
Ah, so you are trolling then
If you criticise an economics course you are political
If you believe what you have swallowed hook line and sinker you are rational
Of course….
Next you will tell me you were chair of the Hayek Society, or the like, except I have blocked you as I have a life
Here you go Richard, I’m afraid it doesn’t support what you are saying:
https://warwick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/bsc-economics/
But I guess you won’t print this.
Pardon?
A brief outline course prospectus prices your point?
That really is very bizarre.
Dear ‘Delighted to Be Here’
I am far from delighted with your goading of our host to the point where I have to say something.
Whether you are a troll or a ‘genuine believer’ I had a look at your Uni website and here is an excerpt:
‘A level typical offer
A*A*A including A* in Mathematics
A level additional information
You will also need grade 6/B in GCSE English Language.
A level contextual offer
We welcome applications from candidates who meet the contextual eligibility criteria. The typical contextual offer is A*AB including A* in Maths. See if you’re eligible.
General GCSE requirements
You will need a strong set of GCSE grades including the majority at A (or 7) and A* (or 8-9). Your GCSE (or equivalent) English Language and Mathematics grades should be no lower than B (or 6). We also consider your overall GCSE subject profile.
Find out more about our entry requirements and the qualifications we accept.
Subject Combinations
We do not specify a subject mix at A Level, but we particularly value applicants who can demonstrate a strong breadth of study.
We are looking for students with strong mathematical ability and A-level Mathematics or equivalent is therefore required for this programme.
Further Maths and Economics are not essential, although they are fine subject choices for a student considering Economics at degree level. We treat them as any other strong A level subject: they have no special status.
We will only look at your top three grades (including Mathematics). A fourth A Level will not be considered.’
So, you’ve undone yourself, just like this ‘curriculum’ undoes itself. It says that they want a ‘strong breadth of study’ but also insist/emphasis on people who are good at math.
I bet that if you don’t pass the math, you don’t pass the course. I bet if you question the math, you don’t pass either? So on one hand the course is inviting intellectual breadth only to be funnelled into reductive, restrictive neo-liberal mathematical models. A typical Neo-liberal device and attempt at cod intellectualism.
Face it ‘Delighted’. All you have done is attend a Neo-liberal ‘madrasa’ where you are taught to recite models unthinkingly and apply them with hardly any reflection on what they mean for the real world. Knowing the models inside out is good enough.
And everytime the free market epiphany does not arrive, it’s someone else’s fault. And you – and too many of you doing courses like PPE – have been inducted through mathematics that will help you keep the faith because that’s what economics is now – an act of faith and nothing more.
You know, my daughters oft derided sociology course at the University of Liverpool has more intellectual rigor than the poor quality education you have just received?
I’d ask for my money back if I were you or was it pater and maters’ money?
Take some advice. Wake up – dreamer! Stop studying religion and join the real world.
I’m no economist but an environmentalist of long standing – perhaps too long ? What bothers me is that so many books remain for the most part unread by the many such that the words of wisdom they contain remain in a minority sense – hence within an echo chamber serving no wider social purpose .
I have become tentatively interested in the notion of the wellbeing economy – which aims to repurpose
economic thinking and practice for people and the planet -and offers a systemic and transformative way forward in a currently unsustainable and unequal world .
I hope your thinking and inspiration takes you along similar lines ?
That is a theme much explored in my book The Courageous State
I recognise the weakness in books – there will probably be more reads of this blog today tha n there will be of any book I write
But books are benchmarks in a thinking process.
I’m not sure that books are a “benchmark “ in thinking in the way you describe. They can be many things including a vehicle for those seeking a mandate for an unethical and damaging dialectic from an unhinged individual who seeks to influence and manipulate others .An author and their publisher must consider the purpose of a book – but as someone who is often invited to consider a book’s purpose by a publisher I think much more emphasis is placed on it’s ability to make the publishing company successful in sales and marketing rather than its epistemic contribution in advancing our collective knowledge.and more importantly it’s wise application .
I think shorter “think “ pieces like yours are more likely to do this but we may currently lack the empirical evidence to back this up ?
I do not presume the publisher and I share an objective when it comes to a book.
All we require is sufficient commonality.
I can want to produce a contribution to debate. They want me to do so 8n a way that sells. I really do not see the problem in that.
These themes are worth exploring. However, so many books have already been written about human motivation including a good one by Dan Pink – that’s worth a perusal – you’ll need to either bring something new to the conversation, or bring the best of the current thinking together.
I never write to summarise other people’s views
I write to create new ones
I have recently finished reading “Limitarianism” and “Vulture Capitalism”- these books and a much recent “political economy” literature seems to revolve around a central theme of inequality, within countries and between countries. I am not sure I still need convincing that disparities in economic and political power resulting from outrageous wealth inequality are driving this country and the world towards catastrophe. I was pretty much convinced after reading the “Spirit Level” and the follow up. If you are looking for a central theme for a book, why not start where this literature ends- a manifesto to at least reverse the current exponential growth in inequality
That is the aim
We know we have a problem
The thing is we need to acknowledge why we have it to design something better
That is the aim.
Regarding your next book, I agree there should be a greater emphasis on positive solutions and minimal recourse to concise ‘hand-wringing’. Debunking the need for the Fiscal Rules straightjacket, the deplorable ‘Household’ analogy, and the faux spector of National Debt threatening to swallow our grandchildren, all remain a high priority. I would be genuinely excited to read your suggestions for reallocating the majority of the finances raised via implementation of the Taxing Wealth Report. A workable plan is required with the investment directed towards securing public wellbeing by implementing the Green New Deal, rebuilding public services and appropriately refunding local Councils with a permanent and sustainable budget.
These positive instructions are desperately needed right now to seriously jolt our current impotent politicians into making important commitments to rescue the UK public from continued decline into penury. As suggested in an earlier post, I would greatly appreciate it if you formulated an alternative UK Budget to demonstrate where the funds generated by your changes to our existing taxation system could be allocated for the public good to drastically decrease inequality in our failing state. I hope you will seriously consider making that informative public service video, holding up a ‘Bright Green Briefcase’: thus creating impactful imagery to get voters talking and MPs nervously attentive.
I am discussing videos this week…..
There is a book I have long wanted to write, though do not have the knowledge or skills to do justice to, but perhaps you do. I would happily take the role of your researcher if you undertake it…
What the world very much needs is a complete exposition of how the economy of a country with UBI would work, and also how to create a path to that world, given the massive changes to both the tax and benefits systems that such a transition will require. Creating the ‘bible’ for this transition would be a real contribution to a better future. Perhaps a collaboration with Scot Santens would be useful?
That is not the book I aim to write
A pity, because that book needs to be written, by someone competent to write it, but I don’t blame you, it’s probably a lifetime’s thankless work!
There is something for me about ‘investment’ and what productive investment really is. What is ‘saving’ vs ‘investment’? What is speculation on asset growth vs real investment for economic productivity and health.
The investor/investment words are banded around as a panacea to all (the source of growth) while largely simply facilitating wealth accumulation to the already wealthy