I made this comment on the post just published on having achieved 100,000 YouTube followers, but then I thought a separate note on the events of the last couple of days might be appropriate. It is very lightly revised here.
Do I regret suggesting that the City conspired to deliver what Musk wants, which is a crisis for Labour? No, I don't, not in the slightest. That's because I think that is what they did.
Using my antennae for real-world political economy, which has proven pretty robust and accurate regarding the City's past activities (tax havens, tax abuse, accounting failures, and more), I think my suggestion stacks up completely.
There is such a thing as 'City opinion'. It is a perceived collective view from which few dare deviate and in accordance with which most act. I think that is happening in this case. They will justify it by saying Musk created a risk to which they have to react. But the outcome is still exactly what he wants, and which they want, in the sense that the City does, rather bizarrely, see Labour as a far-left threat, which shows how out of touch with reality they are.
The cooperation was not illicitly planned. It happened in plain sight and quite legally, but it was there. The outcome will be a crisis that will affect most people in the UK. I don't regret calling that out in real time for a moment.
Some, though, will no doubt say I was too robust with some commentators along the way. So, do I regret that? No, I don't. Why not? Because without exception, they outed themselves as far-right supporters of what might be called the Worstall (search Tim Worstall if you want to find out more, but I wouldn't recommend it as an edifying task) view of this blog after a comment or two, as such people almost invariably do. The robustness was appropriate in that case. Those using financial power to harm people - as I think those creating this crisis in the City are doing - do not command my respect. So, regrets, I have a few, but then too few to mention.
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!
I’ve said enough over the past few days, and my position is clear, as is yours, Richard. So all I’ll add is ‘well said’ (or my usual short comment, ‘spot on’) 🙂
Thanks, Ivan. I have appreciated your support. You are amongst a small number of experienced political economists who have made it clear that my logic not just stacks, but best relfects what has happened, and is happening.
I have not agreed with you on this – at least, not in a narrow financial market sense. However, I am glad you posted it.. that’s what this blog is about.
Where I do agree is that there are powerful, wealthy interests trying to undermine our society and that we must push back.
Do read the essay in the FT today by David Allen Green. His point about the power of the State can’t be repeated often enough. We can stop these malign actors IF we have the will.
I am reminded of starling murmurations made up of thousands of starlings all moving in unison. Did they all think at the same time to land on that tree, or plan it? Was there a lead starling at the front, whose orders everyone was following? The fact is, they all act in unison, as if through the agency or intelligence of a single collective entity. Where does the intelligence lie, if we are to apportion blame? Scientists have tried to explain this phenomenon with physics , citing “scale-free correlation”.
conspire
verb
1. make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act.
“they conspired against him”
2. (of events or circumstances) seem to be working together to bring about a particular negative result.
“everything conspires to exacerbate the situation”
No.2 seems the more applicable definition here. I don’t think anyone is saying people made secret plans jointly.
I followed the coup arguments with great interest, although insufficient understanding to say anything. However it got me thinking.
If a coup is the overthrow of a democratically elected government by non-democratic means, I think there can be no doubt that is what is going on and has been going on for some time. The campaign against Jeremy Corbyn may be seen as an example, except of course the purpose of that was to prevent his leading a democratically elected government, so it doesn’t quite count using my definition.
But it does not matter whether the coup comes about through plotting and planning and furtive, clandestine meetings, or by those who simply use their non-democratic power to make the democratically elected government unable to function. If they do so using totally legal means there is a problem. It is hard to prevent the spread of lies and disinformation, even more so if they are actually opinion – valid or not – everyone is entitled to their opinion. And it is impossible to force anyone/ any organisation to invest or not invest in a particular way.
So I agree there is a coup under way. But I cannot see how it can be prevented. And that is depressing. So thank you for the time out photos, they were very much needed.
“collectable” or “collective”, Richard?
Whatever, it’s difficult to assess let alone label a phenomenon among traders that seems, to this distant observer, akin to flocking (as in murmurations) where individuals appear position themselves almost instantaneously with respect to those nearest to them. KBO.
Corrected. Thanks.
@Richard
“Some, though, will no doubt say I was too robust with some commentators along the way.”
Funding The Future is YOUR free non-subscription blog. You invited the world into your cyberspace salon each day. You have the right to say whatever you want to say in any manner you wish to say it. You have the right to evict and ban anyone you choose to evict and ban from your salon.
If people do not like your salon they do not have to come.
Thanks
I can see how this undermines the government but I don’t see that it leads to its fall. The Labour party has a sizeable majority and could, if it wanted to, change course and implement the kind of economic and social policies that Richard has outlined. It probably won’t do that with the current leadership so it will require a successful leadership challenge from someone capable of delivering this change. There isn’t a great field of candidates but if I had to choose I would go for Emily Thornberry drawing on a broader and more experienced cross section of the PLP to take over from the likes of Reeves, Streeting, Lammy, Kendall and co. I doubt anything too radical being implemented but I can’t see such an outcome being any worse than where we are now.
Follow the money. It’s always the same process, manufacture instability to create circumstances for exploitation.