I watched Gary Stevenson's latest video on economics yesterday.
In summary, Gary drew attention to a paradox where, despite decreasing inflation and soaring asset prices, living standards for the average person continue to erode amidst rising inequality. His answer is to increase taxes on the wealthy, with which I do not disagree.
However, Gary has had four months at least off to think about his channel and its direction, and I was hoping for more than that in this, his first substantive video since his return. It left me wondering what his theory of change is.
A theory of change, according to ChatGPT, is:
A Theory of Change (ToC) is a comprehensive framework that outlines how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context. It is often used in project planning, evaluation, and implementation, particularly in social, environmental, or developmental programs. The ToC identifies the steps required to achieve a specific goal, the assumptions underlying these steps, and the causal linkages between actions and outcomes.
Key Components of a Theory of Change
-
- Goal or Long-term Outcome: The ultimate change or impact the program seeks to achieve.
- Intermediate Outcomes: The specific changes that need to occur for the long-term goal to be realized. These are often milestones along the way.
- Activities or Interventions: The actions or strategies implemented to achieve the intermediate outcomes.
- Inputs: The resources required to carry out the activities (e.g., funding, staff, materials).
- Assumptions: Beliefs about how and why the change process will occur. These may include external factors or conditions that are crucial for success.
- Causal Pathways: The logical connections between activities, intermediate outcomes, and the final goal, often visualized in a diagram.
- Indicators: Metrics used to measure progress toward achieving each outcome.
How It Works
A Theory of Change maps out the "if-then" logic:
-
- If specific activities are conducted, then certain outcomes will result.
- If these outcomes are achieved, then the overarching goal will be met.
It goes beyond simply listing activities and expected results by explaining the underlying logic and conditions for success.
This is what the same source said of Gary's theory of change:
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:
Stevenson seems to have something that appeals to people who for reasons I don’t understand are turned off by the idea of sovereign money creation.
It seems to me that ‘tax the rich’ narrative offers a simple solution to the problems of our orthodox neoclassical economy without challenging its false logical and dodgy maths. The problem is that too many people are unwilling to engage with the realistic assessment of our current mainstream assumptions provided Murphy and others.
Thanks
Tax the rich is equally a slogan that turns off a lot of people. It suggests jealousy. It creates high levels of emotion among conservatives. Its story is about class conflict.
Whereas the monetary policy of the nation state is something that all people share and have a common interest. Taxation is really about monetary policy. Yes, there are people who are hostile to MMT, but they aren’t necessarily conservative. Pro-market, anti-government right wingers, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, like the Mises Institute or Liz Truss, are against MMT because MMT stands in the way of their anti-state narrative that is destroying our country.
Having read Richard Vagues ‘The Paradox of Debt’ I see both your approaches as complementary to be quite honest. Stevenson seems more micro and you are more broadly macro?
There is a role for managed debt which can be managed by the adequate use of non-debt money (printing base money, MMT) for a start; monitoring private debt which challenges and causes problems for the private sector and state alike; making suitable strategic interventions in markets; the use of wealth taxes to tackle inflation – in fact any taxes that destroy money to control inflation is key; more control of the housing market; debt jubillees for socially sensitive debt like student debt.
We may have more stability – social, economic and political as result but we know that markets like to kick back – even though right up to the crash of 2008 they told us everything was hunky-dory so to me the market has no credibility anyway, it gets carried away, it cannot even value assets are gauge risk properly.
But the big issue is how to break through.
Our mode of wealth creation is a form of theft anyway – acquisitions etc., privatisations, asset stripping at sub value, passing on costs of production and wealth transfer to the public, undervaluing or not even valuing natural assets until they are commodified – it is the world made by the rich that will not stand idly by whilst these ideas struggle to deliver something.
And that is because politics has become the holding pen for new ideas which are consigned to the abattoir that is Neo-liberalism.
We can only assault politics with new ideas – lobby like hell, but can we match their spend on political parties? Crowd funding anyone?
The rich who run the gaff know how to defend their position and that takes money – lots of money. That is fundamentally the problem.
I think good ideas can win with the right narratives
They are the issue
In a world that is already dominated by bad ideas, and even lies, I am suffering cognitive dissonance with your reply on a factual basis.
As a message of hope, I totally get your comment.
We are dealing with what Satyajit Das called ‘extreme money’; extreme because the addiction to money and its power means that some will do anything to maintain their position. Extremists everywhere behave like this – whether religious, Right wing, Left wing, they always double down when under threat.
‘Reason’?
‘Good ideas’?
Why would not holding onto their position at all costs not be a good idea to (say) the Koch family?
If we are dealing with fear, then what are they scared of? Do we know?
I do not doubt they will try to hang on
I also do not doubt that in the end people will not have it
I agree it seems daunting but I look to history to keep me hopeful. The Labour movement and trade union movement succeeded in the face of violent opposition from the excessively wealthy classes of the day. They had far fewer resources than we have today and a problem of widespread illiteracy and no history to guide them.
Trade unions and labour movements used public education via leaflets, public meetings and cooperative/friendly societies as well as guilds and professional societies. Public libraries also played a big role for the literate. All forms of collective organisation. The question I’m struggling with is how do we reproduce these forms of solidarity in today’s digital age. We have really powerful tools at our disposal today albeit the algorithms filter distribution.
As I see it the challenge we have today is how to break out of the social media bubbles/algorithms and spread understanding to wider audiences building on their lived experiences. There is a lot of talk about organising in local communities but I think that is very difficult for most people without appropriate structures eg guilds etc. I have no doubt our message will be well received and prompt a change in understanding, as always it’s how to get it out there and what narrative works best. I’m sure early trade unionists struggled with this as well.
For this reason I’m still a member of the Labour Party not because I support its policies as they are today but because it might be possible to work locally to change understanding. The challenge I have set myself this year is how to get this message out on local WhatsApp groups hopefully culminating in a social event where we have a local debate about how we pay for the services we need. I’m not trying to change understanding to change Labour policy that won’t happen but to get the debate going locally. That’s all I can do I think.
Education has to be the answer.
That’s why I work on it.
I agree ultimately social media is the answer but I think we have to break out of social media sometimes to disrupt the algorithm and burst bubbles. Articles/letters in newspapers, local discussion groups, fringe events at conferences and anything else people can think of, we can all help. Christmas lectures perhaps!!
Agreed
But I am not taking tjhe Christmas lectures seriously, yet
People are aware, they see and hear history from the older generations, however unless privileged & educated enough to write books or do podcasts in their spare time, disillusionment, fear & illness have/will set in. Hope is all but lost within the masses, just look at the last election turnout. I am now educated & I try and tell others, but most would agree I am living in cloud coocoo land. I can not mobilise, I live pay cheque to pay cheque, granted, a little better off than most however too ill to fight for change. I my new fear, is for my Nephew.
But the big issue is how to break through and it’s one thing to have a theory of change, but what are the practical routes to obtaining the change?
That’s why I have been interested in what the Labour Party achieved in 1945 based on the Beveridge report.
It seems to me that it was building the grassroots movement through newspapers and pamphlets which detailed Beveridge’s scheme, plus the huge desire for change by the populous wearied by the war and scarred by the 30s, which enabled a socialist party to get into power and effect huge change.
However, the power structures under which we have always existed resisted the changes that introduced the socialist experiment and then began to systematically demolish them.
The people behind these power structures have become more powerful during the last 80 years and today either ignore the desire for change or actively work against it through the MSM and unregulated social media or actively regulate to stifle dissent.
Personally, I’m unsure now where to add my weight to effect the sort of change which we now desperately need, other than by thinking, talking and writing.
Ultimately social media is the answer, which is why they are now worried about its creation.
BBC Radio Scotland GMS interviewed Russell Findlay Scottish Conservative leader this morning. Pure muddled neoliberalism untamed. Classic Conservative Tropes. Nothing has changed; not least in the Conservatives. Nothing learned. Nothing forgotten. Low taxes (this from the high tax Conservatives). Cut taxes. Another Scottish Conservative leader who believes Scotland is already independent; because it has been lavished with ample money and Westminster is powerless in Scotland, and Britain has no effect on the Scottish economy. Findlay thinks he has new ideas; the 2021 Manifesto is all he can point to as policy. Findlay talks economics and business in the language of a person who has no experience or knowledge of either. He lives in a world of banal, bland populist tropes; in economics he has the range and depth of a tabloid front page.
Kemi Badenoch is credible. Badenoch will run Britain. Findlay will run Scotland. Scotland in Findlay-fantasy is both in and out of the Union. Asked about Badenoch’s failure to pursue an inquiry into grooming gangs when in Government; Findlay (who was a credible journalist) actually said he would rather talk about the failures of the SNP over abuse investigation; I am sure he would; but Findlay clearly isn’t a politician, and clearly doesn’t understand politics. And it seems Findlay is deluded enough to believe, he will run an independent Scotland, in the Union. As I said, nothing in Conservatism has changed. Nothing. Same old broom, with the same old worn, brushless broom head: Russell ‘Flounders’ Findlay. Somebody please send him urgent GPS data; he is obviously lost.
Thanks
It seems to me that a significant part of the increase in inequality over the last 45 years – and thereby increase in the misery of the majority of people at the lower end of the distribution – is under-taxation of the wealthy. This has become particularly acute since 2008, as asset prices were inflated by billions being being pumped to the economy through quantitative easing, in the wake of the global financial crisis and then the Covid pandemic, particularly since 2008. So his narrative of the wealthy getting wealthier and being undertaxed is correct.
In a complementary way, you might say that resources have been misallocated to people who do not need them, and we can address wants and needs by reallocating resources away from those who don’t need them to those who do, through increased public spending (on health and education and social welfare and housing and transport and police and courts and everything else we need to make society work better for the majority of people) along with increased taxation. And when you want to increase taxes you look to people with money – which means, in short, taxing the rich more.
Atlee had a plan or plans. Keynes’ economics and the Beveridge Plan. (Both Liberals) Nationalisation and NHS (Socialist )
Starmer and Reeves ‘plan’ seems to be balance the books, don’t increase debt, don’t tax the wealthy any more, accept the consequences of low state investment and encourage the private sector to expand which-eventually-might yield enough extra revenue to allow them to spend more. It strongly reminds me of 1931.
It is the classic bankers recipe.
I wonder what ChatGPT thinks of that?
In a word, bollocks
ChatGDP has an emotional side, I see. Like Mr. Spock.
I don’t know Gary Stevenson’s work (so I thank you for introducing him by this post).
However, if a part of economics is to a consider social policy that protects the most vulnerable in society and enhances wellbeing, then your recent work on food and public health (such as HFSS foods and the UPF consumable products market and its impact on very many chronic health conditions) might be listed here too as a important contribution to economic vision. ChatGPT failed to pick up this vital contribution to economic debate.
A shift in economic policy relating to food (farming subsidies, advertising, retail, taxation) in the West is both necessary and urgent.
On ChatGPT, on the face of your examples it is attractively concise and convincing; but only a few moments reflection makes me think it is a little soft-focused; like a surfeit of sugar. The real question is; can you examine the sources it uses to make the summary, and are they convincing and thorough? From a different perspective, I suspect the people this kind of fast, accessible material should worry, are teachers.
500 words can be produced to look smooth, persuasive and authoritiative; without rading or understanding ………. anything.
Sources are now available on ChatGPT and other systems. It’s not persuausive, but as a way of summarising the web view of something it has a use. I often ask the same questions several times, and then in more than one way to establish if the view I am getting looks to be reliable.
AI pops up with summaries when I Google some things, but not others. Sometimes when AI answers don’t appear, I change my question wording to induce it; and it still doesn’t appear. Curious.
I have no vote why that is….
I’ve just watched Gary Stevenson’s YouTube video “What is Money?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gcNMu40jqs
In this video he makes two important points. The first is that money is a “distributional resource” meaning that it’s a tool or device for allocating real resources. In a nutshell it’s a type of messaging service.
In the second point he essentially argues that currently the lack of democracy in the use of this distributional resource or messaging means that the rich are able to corner the market and obtain more than their fair share of the messaging service.
But he does not really show he knows what money is
Yes it’s got gaps whether he addresses these in his other videos I don’t know since I’ve only bothered to listen to this one.
He doesn’t, I watched what I think is the same video and in it GS states that the wealthy extract wealth from home owners because the savings of the wealthy are used to fund mortgages and therefore mortagage holders are in effect renting their homes from the wealthy he also seems to imply that the wealthy benefit from the interest paid on mortgages. He studied economics at Oxford and clearly is repeating what he was no doubt taught.
He was at the LSE, not Oxford, but it does seem that he thinks banks act as intermediaries. They do not.
For sure, Gary Stevenson was a more successful trader than me… but, I am sorry, I have worked with quite a few traders that have thought themselves the “Greatest Of All Time” and they are not. Humility is a requirement for long term trading success because, as Keynes said, “markets can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent”. The ability to recognise when you are wrong and change tack is essential. The “lone voice” hanging on to a position (eg. The Big Short) while all around doubt you is a lovely story; indeed, once in a while is true – but the untold story is one littered with those that lost their shirts.
Having said that, I do think his narrative is compelling for many people. So, if it works then great; his goals and policy prescriptions are pretty good.
However, personally, I prefer your approach…. but there is room for both of you; you are not competing.
I do not think we are competing
And I am not claiming to be the only solution
Stevenson is very persuasive and probably gets through to most people watching his videos. As you say you have a similar analysis of inequality. The problem is to get a mass movement to enable a transfer of wealth from the upper to the lower echelons of society. Maybe some sort of collaboration would be very useful.
Yes I think you both set out to educate, which many people would benefit from.
Have you considered approaching the Royal Institution about doing one of their Christmas Lectures?
They tend to focus on science, so the dismal science would count.
I think you stand a good chance as economics has never been done before.
You only have to find a way to make it appeal to the average 12 year old, which means it would appeal to most people
As a prestigious event, you could probably get the Bank of England to “loan” you £1-million in gold bars.
I’m sure the British Museum would lend you some tally sticks and quipu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu
And perhaps the Stock Exchange would let you see a £billion trade in action (perhaps Gary Stevenson could help).
Who Dares Wins.
That’s an amusing idea…
Apparently almost 3-million people watched the 2022 Christmas Lectures.
And if you do it right, you’ll completely enrage the Daily Mail.
Reference
https://www.rigb.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Royal%20Institution%20Impact%20Report%202022-23.pdf
https://www.rigb.org/christmas-lectures/watch-royal-institution-christmas-lectures-archive
🙂
I must say, having just watched last year’s Christmas Lectures, I have found myself wondering how to design a similar practical approach to illustrating (possibly through a series of simple tableaux) the way the idea of money developed and then the roles it plays in a modern economy. This would necessitate consideration of how it is created, how it determines what uses resources are put to and who controls the levers in that process. I can’t help feeling someone out there could design some models, possibly along the lines of JD Alt’s illustrations. I then came across this post https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/04/09/the-millennials-money-2/. Was anything ever developed from those suggestions and could it be used as a starting point?
Thanks for reminding me of this
I rewatched it last night
I will muse on what to do with it – but a remake is possible
That was interesting!
My objection to a theory of change based primarily on “tax the rich” is the ease with which it can be politically dismissed (and IS dismissed) by those holding the levers of power (the rich and those who serve their interests).
“Class envy”
“They will leave”
“They already pay a lot”
“We need them”
“They produce growth and growth is what pays for stuff”
(Check PMQs and Daily Mail/GBNews headlines.)
Whereas more basic arguments about how money works, and what taxes are REALLY for, have to be either suppressed, ignored, their advocates smeared, or, eventually, if WE all do our bit, ANSWERED.
I think that slowly, the suppress/ignore stage is coming to an end.
Prepare to be smeared, but don’t let that divert you from the business of providing answers that voters can understand and propagate.
Surely the Labour Party can’t object to “Change”? After all they did campaign for it.
A change in our understanding of money…
not sure about ‘class envy’ – I have not met any seriously rich people, but doubt that many of them have ‘class’. I think that some are just envious of the rich, but never ask if the rich are content, as the rich seem to strive for more.
I have met some seriously rich people. What they have in common is a desperate fear of losing their wealth. Nothing worries them more. That is class fear – that they might lose their status.
My quotes are referring to the shallow, never verified, dismissive political putdowns used by the right whenever they are challenged, and the ones I quote DO feature in the garbage uttered by the right in response to the simplistic “tax the rich” argument, and sadly, they are effective with the public (whom I often refer to as omnibus passengers, whom I chat to on my firstbus journeys).
They are LESS effective against the sort of argument used by Richard as he has data (and effective data-backed rhetoric) about regressive tax rules, easily implemented changes, the inflation-busting effects of more progressive taxes on the macro-economy, the substantial amounts of revenue available to be collected (+/_ £90bn to choose from), as well as his explanation about where money comes from, which challenges the entire neoliberal myth about money.
That’s less easy for Badenoch or Fa***e to dismiss.
I think the narrative has to begin by asking in straightforward terms what are we here for?
I suggest humans are here for love and hope, which is not very deep – but I think justified by observable facts:
https://www.progressivepulse.org/society/what-is-government-for
The economy consequently becomes a general description of how societal interaction operates and politics how you achieve it.
In a functioning society you need government to ensure stable societal interactions for the benefit of all its members.
Creating money is just the way government gets things done, so is actually simply a means to an end.
When we are told that it cannot be ‘found’ or there is none or there is not enough then that is important because it suggests that some or all of what government wants to do is impossible and consequently undermines democracy (if/when we have one!)
The only other way of government getting things done that I can think of is forced labour.
I surmise that understanding money creation and distribution is preferable..
Or perhaps people think we are here for reasons other than love and hope?
Peter
That’s helpful
I am doing more thinking about this and that post is useful, and reinforcing
Richard
Love and hope – and a sense of purpose, identity, meaningful existence. Which then extends (or needs to extend, to be fulfilled) beyond the individual. Love clearly is relational, but with/to/from whom?
My immediate family, in an atomised society.
My ‘community’ – which is what? Very likely not workmates in many cases. Maybe my mates down the pub, or in some club or hobby group, the parents at the school gates or at the children’s football training, sports, dancing or whatever? For some, coreligionists at the church or mosque; or those we team up with to act on some cause – climate activism, or (contrariwise) stopping the wind farm or something else In our back yard, or defending a local school or similar against some ‘predatory’ action being imposed from outside (these last all being group dynamics uniting against the common enemy).
Can community and ‘common weal’ be restored to a broader concept and motivation, in the neoliberal era when “there’s no such thing as society”?
I wrote a few comments on the thread about Ref**m and the alt right and why they’re appealing to some people (but the comments got lost: not your fault, Richard!). I think those groups create that sense of belonging, purpose, meaning and identity – but with a perverse agenda, based on exceptionalism and the suppression of empathy for ‘the other’. As well as the critique based on the facts about money, economics and the built-in inequalities of neoliberalism, an alternative narrative needs to call out, to resonate with, those other, good, parts of human nature: the part that digs into its wallet to give to TV appeals for children in need, that turns out to help neighbours when trouble strikes, that runs foodbanks and so many other good things. And somehow to meld all of those strands into a coherent force that can push back the rival narratives of both business-as-usual Single Transferable Party politics AND the false hope of Ref**m and the like.
Would there be any value with your good self, Prof Keene, Stevenson and others who may contribute, to invite “the Media” to a conference entitled “How to question Monetary Policy”, sub titled ‘are you ready to question the Neo Lib status quo?’
Opening gambit – Today’s generations require progressive answers tour global existential challenges, are you ready to drive a new narrative by questioning the status quo and investigating Modern `Monetary Theory.
Would it gain traction? It seems that something like this is desperately required to kick start the public debate through multi media exposure.
I think there is not a hope anyone would come.
I’d prefer questions like:
Where does government get its money from? (for the NHS, Pensions, Social Care, Social Security, the Covid pandemic and the global banking crisis of 2008/9?
What are taxes for?
Is our tax system fair?
Who should pay the most tax?
Who has all the money nowadays?
What is government FOR?
What can gov’t do about climate change, water, sewage, trains, buses and energy and can government afford it?
What was austerity all about?
Did it work?
If you had half an hour of Rachel Reeves’ time, what would you say to her? (a 5,000 word essay competition for sponsored attendees, with submission date of one month after attending the course/summer school. (The essay must be simple enough to be understood by an Oxford PPE graduate with limited understanding of philosophy, politics, and economics.)
Incidentally, for perspective on the importance of PPE as a subject for study, just put the letters PPE into a non-tracking internet search engine…
I would avoid the word “neoliberal” completely. I can honestly say I’ve never heard it used in omnibus conversations.
Of course the established journalists & MPs wouldn’t come, but go for the trainees & interns, the journalism students, the PPE students, the 6th formers, the MP’s staffers and spads of the future – we old codgers could sponsor them.
Maybe some members of the progressive thinking “Patriotic Millionaires” could cough up some sponsorship (& also attend to make sure they understand what the tax they WANT to pay, is FOR).
Part of the condition of being sponsored could include a commitment to vigorous targeted proselytism within their sphere of influence, and help on how to do it (especially in ways that might scare the political pants off their MPs) so maybe focus on taking any events to (or inviting participants from) some key marginal constituencies and cabinet members’ constituencies.
Just my ramblings…
Mine are this morning’s 14 questions
I’ve been watching Gay’s videos for longer than I have been watching your videos or following this blog. My take is that you are both providing valuable critical analysis of why, socially, economically and politically, we are where we are. As I see it, you both want to help create, or at least facilitate, a caring and equitable society that works for everyone. Easy words and might easily roll off the tongue of most politicians, left and right – ‘compassionate conservatism’ etc. The difference however is that you both know why the current economic system has never and will never work. That it actually cannot work for everyone. Most importantly though you both offer a way forward. That where we are is not the way it has to be. That poverty, poor housing, a crumbling education system, a disintegrating health system etc are the result of an ideology that has fostered both individual and corporate greed and that now threatens democracy itself.
I could go on but to keep it short, the most valuable thing you are both doing is educating and although no effect may currently be discernible I do think there is a synergy and a ripple effect being created by both of you. Yes social media is how the story will need to be told, be it Bluesky, YouTube, TED Talks, MSM interviews – who knows how else. People have had enough, they not only do not trust politicians, they no longer trust the state. People are afraid and are looking for solutions. Yes, there is a real danger from the Right, but an educated populace that understands how we got where we are will also understand the way forwards. Social, economic and political structures can and do change.
Thanks
I note that neither you Richard, nor Gary, questions the free market economy and its role in any of this, and the Chatbot reflections confirm this. Any amount of taxation and, or monetary policy will only affect the very edges. Unless the free market is purposely and fearlessly challenged and regulated until it servesxthe people and not profit, and this needs popular understanding and backing, nothing will change.
This is absurd.
I have never, for a moment, argued for what some might call ‘free markets’.
I argue fur regulation, the control of monopolies, environmental control, consumer protection, and on and on.
Why make up nonsense to the contrary? It’s tedious to read this stuff when it would be so easy to find out what I have written.
Richard good blog and good comments by all.
My initial thought is building an alliance of like minded people would be of considerable valuable if egos allow. How realistic this is given the individuals involved is one to ponder. My cause those who support neoliberalism to sit up but their funding, influence etc is huge. Prospects for success?
On the topic of taxing wealth I think it’s a kind of El Dorado for those on the left. HMRC has little ability to do this and would simply go after those in better paid jobs because they are easier to get at. To tackle wealth in a considered way would need political consensus. In the UK we’ve struggled since Edward Heath to forge one.
Actual policy proposals exist like your Wealth Report Richard but there is no political will. It seems we must wait for a major catastrophe eg 1930s eg 1940s before something gives. And as I write I’m conscious those events destroyed a great deal of wealth.
Wealth to me is a paradox we want as a society to generate it, hoard much of it once we’ve got it but never use it for improving the lives of all of us.
Govts redistribution efforts have increased for sure over the long term but often because inequality is getting worse. British public sector arguably doing too much heavy lifting because of growing inequality.
Labour’s more growth agenda really means I suspect more wealth for the already wealthy and perhaps better functioning public services for the rest of us. Inequality and Wealth disparities to remain intact.
I followed you for some years Richard and also Gary for some time. I would say you have related end goals but your ideas are more comprehensive and rooted in accounting and therefore more scientific which is my preference. Gary’s appeals comes from the caché of having made a bunch of money – which is attractive to a wide audience in the sense of ‘he’s rich, her must know what he is talking about’. It builds credibility. Also he’s from working class stock so is appealing in a ‘boy made good’ way
I reckon your audience profile plus his would be additive and large. Putting aside more purist differences, collaborating with Gary would in my opinion broader both your reach
Noted
My thoughts, on all things economic, are around the use of money as the measure. Necessary but not sufficient. By boiling down political economy to “that which money measures” many change strategists miss out on the perspective of material. Material use, for example, is banging against boundaries but these are not showing in the economic data.
The manufactured environment is now heavier than all of nature combined, the amount of CO2 in the air is about to tip our weather systems, sea levels, and the burning of carbon is so extreme it is using up more and more of the planet’s oxygen.
We need another profession to emerge that trumps economists when it comes to being the gatekeepers of policy decision information. A profession that can explain real capital status with the same bravado economists present economic (money) status.
How this profession will emerge I don’t know, as many economists – many I admire – seem unwilling to leave the secure “amount of money measuring the issue” environment.
[…] am reposting a comment I made on the Funding the Future blog here because I think it is worth repeating as it relates to a previous post here on […]
My Christmas library reading was Uncommon Wealth (Koram) and Globalism (Slobodian). They told me a story of the framing of the agenda and design of institutions, laws and rhetoric to make the globe safe for capital flows and adapt the leftovers of empire (offshore territories etc) to function as part of capital’s infrastructure. My background is Arts and ecology. I was riveted. I’d read Susan George’s satire, The Lugano Report, in the ’90s. All of this gives me the plot and its tactics, the characters (villains and victims), setting, and the Acts as they unfold over time. Not everyone’s taste but the narrative line is consistent with great literature and potboilers. Tax is too narrow a focus to grab the public mind. A detective story in the waiting?
Agreed tax is too narrow, although vital.
So, what does grab the attention?
“So, what does grab the attention?”
Humour me, while I go off at a tangent…
POTHOLES was the word that immediately jumped into my mind. You know I’m obsessed with omnibuses & their passengers, my neighbours, and how to grab their attention?
Potholes are one of the things that affect everyone, including omnibus passengers, especially if you are sat over a front or rear axle, and have arthritis.
Why are they there?
Why aren’t they being fixed? (including the ones on the national highways, as well as the local ones).
What harm do they do?
Who would benefit from fixing them?
How do we pay for fixing them?
What about the planet?
Take any theory of change and apply it to potholes and see how it affects something concrete (or crumbling concrete to be more accurate, our estate has VERY old concrete roads).
It doesn’t have to be potholes, but I chose them because almost everyone moans about them – they damage petrol Porsches, Tesla EVs, buses, Uber & council registered taxis, ambulances, trip up elderly pedestrians, unseat motorbike riders, and pedal cyclists, sometimes fatally, and they are all over the place. They raise issues of sustainability (but they have mass transit implications too).
Or take any other big issue affecting most people in the UK, things people are moaning about on omnibuses.
Getting a doctor’s appointment.
Social care (SEND, Sickness, Senility)
Cost of living (energy, heating, rent, mortgage, food)
Public transport (eg: getting to the shops, the doctor, the hospital appointment or an evening of fun).
(the list is v selective but I’m going for ones affecting huge numbers of people, ones we ALL have a connection with).
Discuss a theory of change using any one of those as your example, and ask/answer your list of questions in relation to that issue. People will be interested. They are already angry, but the Daily Mail, Twitter & Facebook send that anger in the wrong direction.
They aren’t interested in “economics”, but they are interested in potholes. “Potholes” also have the advantage of being very difficult to blame on the small boats, or benefit claimants.
Concerns about potholes also can’t be dismissed as “bleeding heart liberal/woke socialist” nonsense. Even petrolheads are angry about them.
They interest even the BBC!
There is private and public data on potholes aplenty.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=data+on+potholes&t=fpas&ia=web
One of the hits in that list even documents potholes in Essex!
Okay, you humoured me. I’m not really advocating a major shift in economic debate towards potholes, merely using them to illustrate my real obsession – how to change the minds of my neighbours and omnibus passengers, about money, government, and building sustainable societies. I admire what’s being done here, especially the building of hope. I’m all for hope and love!
Here’s a video title
What would Reform do about potholes?
I agree that Gary Stevenson’s approach and this blog do potentially have synergy.
On the face of it, Gary is more instinctive based on the maths he sees (and understands extremely well) and its relationship to the real world he still seems to inhabit, whereas Richard has a more analytical approach as well as a much wider range of facets included. Obviously each has a different history with consequently differing experience loads.
One element that shouldn’t be overlooked is the generational one: being able to talk to the under-30s is extremely important if we are to progress.
Final point: both Gary and Richard are very certain of their own minds so if synergy were to be secured, some give and take would need to be found!
I can give and take
I watch both of your channels, and think your approaches complement each other well. There are two differentiations I notice between the channels:
1) The obvious, communication.
Your style is (I think?) scripted, more academic and assumes some knowledge. The fundamentals are often implied. Gary comes across as someone following more of an outline than a script, uses very plain spoken analogies, and assumes little underlying knowledge. This is a vibes based analysis obviously.
2) Scope of message.
You respond to current affairs and policy, as it happens, with some broader societal discussion. If someone asks me about inheritence, the health service, or VAT changes then I can be confident that your channel will or has covered it. Gary moreso focuses on how we conceptualise money and the economy, particularly how wealth inequality is obscured in our understanding. He only occasionally talks about trends and solutions, but quite broadly. The difference in scope I think is reflected in your respective upload schedules.
I find both channels are travelling in the same direction but taking different paths, both of which have value. I’d be interested in seeing you have a conversation at some point.
Thanks, and appreciated.
For the record, the videos I post here are never scripted and very few even involve notes. I know the title, which I usually state in the frst line, and have thought about the issue, but that’s usually all the preapration I have done.
“For the record, the videos I post here are never scripted and very few even involve notes. I know the title, which I usually state in the frst line, and have thought about the issue, but that’s usually all the preapration I have done.”
I’m even more impressed now.
That is much easier than scripting and reading an autocue – although we do have one for educational work
This probably speaks to your experience as an educator, you use very few uhms, ahs, etc.
I also never use a script when presenting, but I’m afraid I’m far less polished than yourself!
We do edit mistakes, but I use ‘filler words’ of that sort incredibly rarely. Most videos have none.
Thanks Richard, your blog has always been informative, and this one has helped me in other ways, too.
I’m currently embarking on the possibility of forming a new political party, whose main purpose would be the introduction of Citizens Assemblies selected by sortition to govern the country, and the abolition of political parties.
Part of my reasoning is that most people are disengaged from politics precisely because of the existence of political parties. We all have plenty of problems large and small to deal with on a daily basis, and thinking about political issues just takes up too much brain energy. Political Parties are cool with this, because it justifies their existence. But there is a latent dissatisfaction with politics in general, which, currently, Reform are tapping into, spuriously claiming to be anti-establishment; that dissatisfaction exists on the Left, too, but with nowhere to go. The problem is that, as the popular lament goes, all the parties are the same; they may make different promises, but in power resort to very similar policies as each other. They are all wide open to large donations in return for policies favourable to the donors. And each one of them is vulnerable to unscrupulous and malign actors climbing the ladder to power in their hierarchy.
So I want some real democracy; government of the people, FOR the people, BY the people.
In order to release energy for politics amongst the citizenry, the Party, having won a GE (big ask, I know), would also implement a UBI.
I think this vision differs significantly from your own, but I’d welcome your comments.
This is not what democracy is
I oppose it
Stop presuming the world is like you and wants to take part
Stop assuming they can take part
And anyway, just ask the question, who sets the question? Then you will see sortition solves nothing
That’s an interesting response.
Democracy is supposed to be a mechanism of government which works to better the lot of the general populace.
I view the existence of political parties and the political classes as obstacles to achieving that aim.
1. Their main task is the winning of elections, and to do that they have to make promises they hope people will believe and so cast their vote for them.
2. Those promises rarely turn into policy. Policy is dictated by donors and the media. As a result, there is voter dissatisfaction, which they can’t express meaningfully until the next GE.
3. Because so few people seek office within Parties, it’s relatively easy for malign entryists to climb the ladder to leadership positions, leading to further policy not geared towards the people.
4. Most people don’t take enough interest in politics to be able to express that dissatisfaction; many have been let down by an education system geared to turning out compliant workers; many are struggling with day to day survival, and can’t give time and energy to politics. In my opinion this is a problem, but the Parties seem to be OK with it.
5. I can’t equate the above scenario with the word “democracy”. It’s government by the tiny part of the population called “the political classes”, and it doesn’t serve the people.
I’m sure I’m not the first to come up with the idea of government of the people, for the people and by the people; and to develop this basic idea into government by Citizens Assemblies using rotational sortition. And I’m equally sure I’m not the first to be slapped down so handsomely by a member of the political classes.
I am sorry – but you may want sortition but for 99% of the Uk that is their definition of a nightmare.
And I am not a member of the polotical class.
I am a defender of democr5acy – and sortition is a very long way from that.
The UK government set up a citizens assembly to consider what should be done about the climate emergency. https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/committees/climate-assembly-uk/
It issued it’s report in 2020 https://www.climateassembly.uk/about/index.html
When I asked ChatGTP what it had achieved the summary was:
“While the assembly’s recommendations were influential, it’s important to note that they were advisory. The government has incorporated many of the assembly’s suggestions into its broader climate policies, though the pace and scale of some measures have been subject to debate.
In summary, the UK Citizens’ Assembly’s report, titled “The Path to Net Zero”, helped shape the national conversation on how the UK can achieve its climate goals. It provided both a clear mandate for urgent action and a framework for ensuring that this transition is fair and inclusive. However, the effectiveness of its outcomes will depend on how much the government and industries act on these recommendations in the years to come.”
I wonder whether there would have been a bigger call for action by the government, if the conclusions had been condensed into a 16 page pamphlet and distributed to every voter.
I’m not in favour of using assemblies to do more than discuss the detail and then report, but I do think they offer a way of informing a cross section of the public which is condensed into a report for action which could then be used by a parliament voted in under proportional representation.
I admit the language and synthesis techniques used by “AI” are increasingly impressive, especially when it is summarising our own views . But it will only really be AI when it comes up with apparently original thought and analysis. Until then it’s just an increasingly sophisticated search or transcription engine. I was asked to use it for minutes of a meeting I chair, but found it irritatingly literal – impressive, but still at the intelligence level of an inexperienced and not very savvy graduate, who is only capable of thinking within very restricted boundaries. When it says to me “this is what I think you meant”, I.e. this is what you SHOULD have said, that’s when the AI moniker will be deserved IMO. Even then the question of self-awareness is begged, though personally I suspect that is an emergent and possibly delusional state, so that may just happen in practice once “AI” is indistinguishable from a rounded human 24 hours a day. Imagine that – a computer programme that insists it has self-awareness and demands rights! I have no good answer to that challenge posed 60 years ago by Asimov. Does anyone?
Much to agree with and no answer to your question
“Daneel” will no doubt be along shortly to enlighten us, or maybe his biological & telepathic successor, the hermaphrodite “Fallom”.
What is scary about the Foundation Trilogy is watching the way the “safeguards” of Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”, gradually break down as humans (and their robots) get more technologically advaced to a point where they can destroy all humanity across the galaxy/universe, and Daneel (from his outpost on the far side of the moon ?with Elvis & a B52 bomber?or maybe nowadays, Elon Musk?) has to resort to more and more ethically dubious and even murderous acts “to save humanity” but only by destroying an awful lot of individual humans, which he apparently finds v stressful.
Rather reminds me of the IDF definition of self-defence.