I am considering what series of videos we might want to make next.
The wealth series has several more videos to go, but I will, I suspect, complete it next week, and I do plan these things in advance.
There are two options on the cards at present. One is a series explaining what bonds are, what their significance is, and how they function within the economy, as well as how the bond market might be reformed. Given the confusion surrounding bonds, there appears to be justification for such a series, but I am also considering an alternative.
This is a series on the myths that underpin neoclassical and neoliberal economics. They, I should stress, are not the same. Neoclassical economics is appropriately described as a theory, whilst neoliberal economics might be more correctly described as an ideology. Although they are linked, the assumptions differ.
I have often been asked about the assumptions underpinning both these ways of thinking and how to tackle them. I am, as a consequence, considering such a series and how to write it. An outline plan suggests that it could be up to 20 videos in this series, which would have to be spread over a reasonable period of time.
I suspect that both series will, eventually, be made, but which would you prefer first of all? There is a poll below, and if you want to suggest an alternative, the comment section is available.
Which series of videos should I make next?
- A series on the myths that underpin neoclassical and neoliberal economics, and how to address them (63%, 124 Votes)
- A series on bonds and how they work (35%, 69 Votes)
- Something else. Please use the comments section to say what (3%, 5 Votes)
Total Voters: 198
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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 voted for the myths that underpin neoclassical and neoliberal economics.
But Richard, you are retired! You should do whichever you most want to do.
I am having fun.
Good! You have the luxury of doing whatever you want to do. And I imagine the satisfaction of seeing it having some real impact.
Yes, to both.
The message is getting through (via YouTube) about the need for a wealth tax. But there is lots of misconception about how to effectively tax wealth. You may well have this covered in the final edition planned for in the Wealth series. But this seems so important at this juncture it feels like it deserves a different approach – perhaps a collaboration with one or several other progressive economists and commentators.
I had not planned it, but might well add it…
My vote goes for the myths of neoclassical economics.
But I would also like to see some light put on the neoclassical theories that dominate the Oxford PPE as that seems to be the vehicle through which such fantasy economics still inform dumb arsed policy choices.
I am also interested in how ‘research’ like that of Reinhart and Rogoff that was shown to be based on invented data years ago, still informs austerity and government debt reduction ‘rules”.
They teach the myths…
For me the continuing big issue is why most economists and voters can’t cognitively understand the reasons why the government’s role in the economy is different from that of businesses and households in terms of balance sheet flow – the government rarely to seek balance the latter to always do so. This obviously needs to be extended to cover global trade where some countries seek balance sheet surpluses at the expense of other countries deficits.
I like that
‘Why the government is not like a household’
Hi Richard
– I’d love you to do something on ethical and profitable investment.
Kind regards
Q
Not my field to talk about, I think
FWIW, I voted for explaining bonds. Both series would be valuable but it seems to me that understanding bonds (maybe Treasury bills, the repo market as it affects government financing) is key to understanding how neoliberalism is implemented.
I say this after a fascinating long session with an AI yesterday. As far as I can see today’s AIs are good at summarising what they have found on the web, but less good at actual thinking (I also use them for coding). I was asking about the underpinnings of UK government financing. I thought I understood this, and I guess I did, but I certainly learnt a lot of details. It seems the current arrangements are governed, in part, by 19th century laws, which were applicable to a gold standard economy, but are certainly inappropriate for a modern, fiat currency, economy. And government issuance of gilts, the how’s and whys, is central to this.
It is difficult to pitch information to a general audience. But, it seems to me that, without some understanding of how government financing works today, which is definitely neoliberal, it is difficult to appreciate the egregious myths purporting to underlie neoliberalism.
Just my personal pennyworth. 🙂
I made the point about this being a market well past i9ts sell by date a few days ago.
Tim Kent,
Like you, I voted for Bonds. I know the basic stuff, but it’s a tricky subject that would be great to have a clear straightforward exposition of. And be useful for explaining to others, as Bonds feature in the news often.
It will hapen. Only the order is in question.
I’d like to see interviews, or discussions with other people.
The problem is, they take a lot of time to produce and edit…
I voted for the Neoliberal option.
The reason is that this ‘ideology’ is a false god to many and it needs to be slain. Until it is deposed from its unjustified pre-eminent position, we will all continue to suffer needlessly. But it is a huge task and education needs to come first. We need a reference to which to turn for enlightenment.
Thanks
Hello Richard.
I’ve voted for a video series on bonds.
My reasoning is that people shall, in my opinion, watch videos relevant to current situations before a more general learning situation.
We have been living with the curse of neoliberalism for many decades now, and although a video series on the myths underpinning this is definitely welcome, I feel it can wait.
You’ve highlighted an overvalued stock market, being in bubble territory, possible crashes. The public shall be told by the government that the government can only do what the bond markets want once a crash happens. I feel a better understanding of bonds is a more immediate issue.
On a slightly different topic, I was thinking about Starmer meeting Trump and Starmer’s position on Palestine. Politicians have always been bought but he looked a total lapdog to Trump, whilst Trump insulted him with a backhanded compliment, and Starmer didn’t dare speak truth to the power of the US president. It was shameful. A man that can basically not be moved by a genocide the whole world is witnessing is dangerous. if he can acquiesce to a regime that has no jurisdiction in the U.K., whilst it carries out these atrocities, then such a person can be easily persuaded to do harm to the U.K. population at the request of unaccountable foreign governments. Starmer needs to go as soon as possible if not before.
All noted
A history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
That is for others, not me.
Wikipedia pulls no punches in describing Zionism as racist fascism so no surprise that it’s engaged in Final Solution activities:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
May I raise one concern that has occurred to me?
If bonds are covered first, that will be done with neoliberal ‘thoughts’ – memes might be better- as the canvas against which the explanations about bonds are given. There will be nothing to which reference could be made that is accurate about the realities of our country’s financial system. The neoliberal-based understanding is the wrong backdrop around which to describe bonds and all associated with them. – Just a thought.
Bonds are coming out second
The poll is also running on YouTube…
Good Morning. How about a series on growth? Definition(s), history, limits, alternate ways to measure, links to the success of capitalism / neoliberalism, what happens if faltering growth (steady state and / or negative growth) becomes the norm, links to population growth / emissions and pollution, can growth be decoupled from energy consumption (as some suggest but don’t seem to be able to demonstrate), and the list goes on. Essentially a series that can help readers & viewers understand how growth impacts everyday economics, our lives, our politics and ultimately geopolitics too. Not to mention how growth influences how the Future can be Funded. Thoughts?
On my list
You have probably covered it already, but I am so frustrated by the constant talk about the importance of growth by politicians and the media without talking about what constitutes growth, so that expenditure on public services are ignored in that context.
I will get to this…
I would like to suggest that the following are explained and the consequences.
When the government expenditure is reduced the government tax take must go down.
It would be useful to explain that government debt is peoples savings including people’s pensions.
Noted…I have a master file of ideas..
I voted for the myths.
But also figure we need to keep repeating how the 1% are draining resources from everyone else.
I know people like Gary are out there doing it and Led By Donkeys have done some fantastic campaigns but the message still needs to go out.
A lot of the public boot-lick for the elite without realising it’s at their own expense. We need a lot more focus on it.
Noted
I think that you need to revisit resource accounting side of things?
Maybe an update?
A lot of what we take as accounting is obviously bullshit and we treat a lot of resources as ‘just being there’. Look at the relaxing of banking rules for example, what impact will that have? And the depletion of world resources I feel is still under-appreciated and mis-understood.
There is one coming that might lead to more….
Hi Richard, it may be not everyone’s interest,but I’d like something on Scottish independence and how that would work without the bank of England, I’d like some understanding
Thanks
I am afraid too narrow for here.
But I do have a blog post coming on Wales when I get time…
Lucy, much of this is detailed in the book ‘How to Start a New Country’ by Robin McAlpine of CommonWeal. He wrote it before the 2014 referendum but I guess most of it still applies (I haven’t read it since pre 2014).
I think it much more recent than that Ken.
I was involved in its production.
I’ve never been asked about neoclassical theory on the omnibus.
(But I do remember a lot of bad press over “post neoclassical endogenous growth theory” which Gordon Brown once mentioned in 1994, but that might be because of its emphasis on the role of government investment (don’t tell Ms Reeves).
I have occasionally been asked about bonds but still don’t feel I have any omnibus-suitable explanation for how they work. And I thought the “REPO” market was something bailiffs did with their execution warrants – cars TVs, sofas, phones etc.
Maybe Gordon Brown’s famously geeky phrase could be a starting point for the neoclassical video. In 1994 I hadn’t a clue what he was on about.
But once you hear what I have to say i think you’ll like this stuff, Robert.
I voted for Bonds. It might be more difficult to understand because of their role in the economy and the intricacies of that roll, yet I feel we are being taken for a ride by financiers. As you’ve often explained, the market in bonds is very useful, but is not essential to gov spending. We are sick and tired of hearing on the news how the market may react and too often this dictates gov policy. It definitely shouldn’t. The politicians and the media don’t understand bonds. The wider population has no clue. Enlighten us please, Richard, so that we may spread the truth abroad in the land.
I think it is running second…but I am certain it will happen – not least because at least six are written…
Option #3: A series on the historical failure of tariffs and the economic damage they caused.
Too narrow, I think….
I voted for bonds as my tiny brain struggles with the notion, but whenever … But I would like to hear how nationalisation of certain industries could actually work. My worry is always that even if the extreme profit motive is deducted from the equation industries /public services such as water could ultimately be run by a collective of Jobsworths with no imagination. How could nationalisation be truly put in the hands of The People, and local, and creatively /expertly, rather than a behemoth State monopoly ? I am always interested in How an idea can be implemented.
I have added nationalisation to my list – it’s worth a mini-series.
The idea of a social charter, an ordinary person’s ‘magna carta’ that talks about a much fairer redistribution of wealth and other forms of truly representative democracy might help.
Price controls for necessities. Tax breaks and government funding for small businesses. A better minimum wage. Fairer welfare and benefits. Nationalisation of gas, electricity, water and public transport. A looking at just who is essential in running society and it isn’t tax dodging millionaires and billionaires. Looking at tax havens. A wealth fund like Norway has. A people led and debated modern day magna carta that cannot be ignored. One that places economic justice at the forefront of political thinking in the UK. One that the many can coalesce around.
Something like that.
Noted thanks
I know it’s not exactly what you asked Richard, but I have thought it rather inspiring that we had a kind of grassroots social charter that could be taken up as a template for all social democracies that cannot be ignored. Underpinned by fairness, justice and reasonable demands.
No need to reply to this.
But, as I said, noted.
I would also like a social charter and how it’s perfectly possible given a political will.
What’s to stop you, I or anyone writing one? An unofficial one. The Magna Carta was cancelled by King John once he got greater levee over the barons but it didn’t matter, that still stands as a valuable proto democratic document.
I voted for myths. What bonds are, what they are for and how they work is definitely required but a breakdown and dispelling of the myths surrounding neoclassical and neoliberal economics is more fundamental in my opinion. I think it would get to the core of how we’ve ended up where we are where we are and I think more and more people are crying out to understand how it’s all come about and what can be done about it. I also think that having this understanding will give people hope
Thanks
Stephanie Kelton did a very good talk on to issue bonds or not to issue bonds available at
https://youtu.be/ql0OFY7W3Qs?si=xzL8H3OTMmPmhSf0
Thanks
[…] asked what series of videos I should make next on both YouTube and here […]
101 Where does money come from? Not taught in economics, banking or accounting. Politicians no more know than the general public (and assume they did until asked). Worth revisiting.
Thanks
In response to Richard’s post of this morning in relation to ‘How to Start a New Country’ by Robin McAlpine:
Apologies: you’re right Richard; it was published in 2018. I did a mountain of reading before the 2014 referendum and assumed it had included Robin’s book (my copy of it seems to have gone AWOL in the interim). Apologies also to Lucy whose post initiated this: seven years on it’s still well worth a read.
It was a good piece of work, even acknowledging my partial involvement.