One of the consequences of posting links to my blogs and videos on Twitter, Mastodon, Bluesky, LinkedIn, Facebook and YouTube itself, is that I see lot of comments on what I have to say. It would be impossible to read, let alone respond to, most of these, given that that there may well be more than 1,000 or more, most days now. I do, however, view at least some of them and I was quite amused by a series of comments that I noted yesterday.
One commentator on YouTube suggested that my analysis of the government's accounts and the consequent changes in the national debt, as properly stated by those accounts, was far too complex for them to understand, and asked that I make things much simpler.
Now, I am not suggesting that I do everything to perfection, but I did seriously wonder how much simpler I could make such a complex issue that did, inevitably, require some data to interpret it. I came to the conclusion that I cannot please everyone.
Another person had viewed my video on the wealthy, and wealthy farmers in particular and thought I was at risk of being too opinionated, too often. This I found quite amusing. The whole point of what I have done on social media for more than eighteen years is to be opinionated. I don't do it to be awkward. I never say something for the sake of it. I do think quite carefully about what I am going to say. But what I will admit is that if I am not offering an opinion that I think is going to upset someone I will not post.
The reason for that should, I would hope, be obvious. I write about things because I want to change them. Given that some people are always going to be happy with the way things are, then I am bound to upset some people every time I write. What I do not understand in that case is how I can now be too opinionated. My guess is that the commentator in question has either not understood why I write, or is trying to tell me to shut up. I won't be.
And then I was told that my comments on assisted during were too cynical. The same commentator thought that I should have more faith in government. So let me be clear, I have enormous belief in the ability of governments to deliver for people, but I have no faith in neoliberal governments because by definition they do not care. Is it possible to be too cynical about a government that sets out without the basic intention of fulfilling the task a government should undertake? I think not. I deny the charge made against me.
Why say this? Simply because I want to make clear I do care. I care enough to write about things, even when I might do something else. I care enough to want a better world. I believe one is possible, but that achieving that goal might not be either simple or straightforward, and some people (and most especially, I hope, neoliberals or worse) will be upset by what I say. That's the price of change. I can live with it.
And the answer to those who think I get short-tempered with those who disagree with me is implicit in the previous paragraph. I have little time for those who don't seem to care and I am not sure what is wrong 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:
Buy me a coffee!
That is the price to pay indeed. It could be much worse though. And it might well become so.
Nevertheless it is important that people like you, which have built an audience, counter neoliberal, anti-humanistic, zero-sum arguments in clear and concise words. As clearly as reasonably possible. I am sure you are aware that you are fighting an uphill battle but I, for one, hope you will keep on doing so for as long as you can justify to yourself.
I could write something about most topics you touch, especially assisted dying, which I witnessed first hand recently, but you are doing a better job and I don’t want to clutter your comment sections.
There is one thing though, I would wish for you to address somewhat more, which is imho crucial:
There is no good way out of our collective malaise other than international, cooperative action across all societal strata.
All the best
Let me muse on that
I say please carry on ‘regardless’ of some othersa. As previous, I find these blogs and opinions stimulate my (ancient) brain – Plato said that “Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance” and Aristotle told us that “All knowledge should be subject to examination and reason”. I value your opinion and your knowledge. Thank you.
Thanks
I would assume that majority of bachelor economics degree holders don’t understand government accounts. Never mind their ability to answer whether an analysis is right or wrong. At least the person in question knows that government accounts are not as simple as the media/government likes to pretend. He should be asking this question to his MP not you.
No economics degree that I am aware of teaches anything about accounting. They just assume they are right.
From Rob Link “There is no good way out of our collective malaise other than international, cooperative action across all societal strata.” Rob tbh I despair of such a view since nation states struggle to agree to anything and stick to it through to a satisfactory conclusion. Even if the Great Powers can agree. I think we are forced to act locally or individually on an issue to lead by our example. Richard’s blog works because it reaches ordinary people who are susceptible to a good quality pov supported by facts. This may seem slow and painful but it does change those minds open to change.
Eric,
I fully agree with local and regional initiatives as being necessary. I am by no means under the illusion that we, as individuals, can rely on national or international bodies to fix our problems. Being active and effective locally is very important!
However almost all humans today rely on other humans, systems, nations, foreign resources of all kinds to a fundamental extent, often without being fully aware of it. Similarly global (and regional obviously) are negative external effects like climate change, ecosystem destruction etc.
If the foundations of our lives are built upon non-regional resources we absolutely need international guidelines to prevent abuse. Its analog Richard’s calling for regulation on tax “havens” – having national laws is necessary but if these cannot be enforced internationally, they will remain fairly ineffective, especially in the context of international business.
Likewise, imagine we’d set up and truly enforce environmental protection laws nationally, we might be able improve conditions locally, regionally, nationally but in the current system we’d still enable abominable conditions on many regions throughout the planet. This can only be avoided by collective action on an international level. I worked in resources and experienced many dilemmas first hand and that’s why I keep talking about the basic stuff that keeps us alive.
If we don’t learn to either rely on solely national resources (which is highly unlikely without a major civilisational crash) or build support systems that are truly sustainable for all stakeholders, we are caught in a zero-sum game. I don’t count on our ability to innovate us out of there but I hope I am dead wrong on this one.
BTW the majority of Richard’s audience is probably from Britain but I, for one, am European and come here precisely because on some level his work is important beyond borders.
Thanks