Background
Having finished the first series that I plan to publish on quantum economics (others are planned), it became clear that explaining the use of this thinking was important before moving on to further ideas. The result is a new series, called The Quantum Essays, of which the fourth is below. Previous posts are listed at the end of the post.
RobertJ, who comments on this blog, asked that I write a blog post with the above title. I hope this meets his expectations.
Economists often like to pretend that their subject began with something akin to a Big Bang. By their use of language, they imply there was a single moment of creation when the truths of their discipline were revealed, fully formed, immutable, and beyond question. But that has never been the case. Economics did not emerge from some cosmic explosion of insight. It has always been made up of choices - political choices - all of them relating to the moment when the economist was seeking to influence thought - that have then been dressed up as if they were natural laws.
And that, I think, is the point we have to bear in mind when listening to Rachel Reeves. She too speaks as though there is an economic reality “out there,” fixed, inevitable and unchallengeable, like the laws of physics after the Big Bang. As a consequence growth is, according to her, the one and only thing that matters, although this is framed within the ideas that fiscal rules are sacred, markets must be reassured, and debt is a sin. But none of this is a natural fact. All of these claims represent her ideological preferences, and not a revealed truth.
In physics, the Big Bang is a point beyond which we cannot see. I think economists would love us to believe that there is a similar point of origin for economics, as a result of which they would have us believe that concepts like “sound money,” “balanced budgets,” and “prudent finance” have existed since before known time and that they explain everything that follows. But they are wrong. Economics is not a universe expanding from a single truth. It is a set of practices and beliefs, that are always contested, and which are continually reshaped by politics, power and human need.
That is why Rachel Reeves' insistence that Labour's entire economic framework must be built on growth is so troubling. Growth is not like gravity. It is not a force of nature. It is a political narrative. And it is a narrative that conveniently ignores both the limits of the planet and the fact that growth without redistribution leaves most people no better off. What Reeves is doing is imposing an origin story on economics that lacks any of the evidence that supports the likelihood of the Big Bang. Her ideas are, in fact, closer to Genesis than modern physics.
That's because the real economy did not begin with a bang. It began with people. It still begins with daily acts of care, cooperation, labour and exchange. And it starts with the relationships and responsibilities that make life possible. Reeves' fiscal rules and devotion to growth as an article of faith deny all this. They strip the economy of its social purpose and replace it with a story designed to reassure the gods of finance, leaving ordinary people on the margins.
That is why, when Rachel Reeves speaks, we need to remind ourselves that she is not describing the laws of the universe. She is simply repeating a story — one carefully written to preserve the interests of the City of London. The choice she makes is to align with their narrative. But we can make a different choice.
We can decide that economics is not about mythical beginnings, or about sustaining the authority of markets, or about fiscal rules that tie the hands of government. Instead, we can tell a new story, which says that the economy exists to deliver well-being, justice and sustainability. That story would have a very different trajectory, because unlike the supposed economics of the Big Bang, it would be grounded in human reality.
And that is the challenge that lies before us: not to accept the myths that Reeves and others would have us believe, but to insist on creating the narratives that we really need if we are to have any hope of building a better future.
That is what the whole discussion of quantum economics is all about. It is about building new narratives to suit our time, our needs and our hopes.
Previous posts
- The Quantum Economics series (this link opens a tab with them all in it)
- The Quantum Essays: Observing and Engaging
- The Quantum Essays: Quantum MMT: The wave function of sovereign spending
- The Quantum Essays: Is equilibrium only possible in death?
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.s
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!
That stretched my economic AND theological muscles very satifactorily, and set several economic and theological hares running!
What this “quantum” series is doing for me, is stimulating lateral thinking, and, sometimes, because of the various analogies, helping me to finally “get” something that previous prolonged linear headscratching has failed to clarify.
Unfortunately, Reeves and almost the entire political class are the sort of fundamentalists whom it is almost impossible to persuade, because changing their minds is tantamount to heresy, heresy is sin, and sin means excommunication.
But nevertheless, KUTGW!
Thanks – and appreciated
Taliban style heresy seems to afflict most voters and political parties. The government can never have any money of its own come hell or high water!
“She is …… repeating a “simple” story — ..written to preserve the interests of the City of London”
Speaking of simple (or simplified) stories that great work of fiction: bible – old & new testament. Wonderful work of art, some good stuff in it – but with all the veracity of “Dracula” by Mr Stoker. It is mostly used to justify the exercise of power.
Extending: current economics is like the rings of Saturn – an accretion disk – filled with rubble, some of it valuable, most of it not. That suits Reeves & her backers. Few years back I challenged Delors adviser on EMU with respect to how the EU funds itself – the reaction was aggressive/defensive – a dead give away & doubtless Reeves & co will have the same reaction – but we will never find out becuase her thoughts (or those of her acolytes) are never forensically examined, in public
(temple, curtain, solider to Titus- “hey boss, there nowt here” – behind the curtain).
[…] More » […]
I always enjoy Mike Parr’s posts, especially his healthy “rage against the dark”. Stay angry Mike!
On temple curtains and what lies behind them, the Jews had always known there was nothing there (see the IKEA assembly instructions in the Pentateuch, and Kings and their explanation in the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews) but even more interestingly the dramatic symbolism of the tearing of the temple curtain in Mat 27.51 at the point in the story when Jesus dies.
It was the Romans who expected to find something – an image of Yahweh made of wood or precious metal. But Yahweh wasn’t there.
And all we atheists and theists alike just have to lump it, and get on with that reality in our different ways. Infuriating isn’t it?
Which brings me back to political economy.
Two questions…
1. What does Rachel Reeves believe is behind the curtain?
and
2. Which supernatural economic event is going to tear the curtain in twain from top to bottom? (or do we have to wait for an invading Roman soldier to pull it aside, just after he has sacked Whitehall?)
It’s obvious now even to Labour MP’s that Reeves and Starmer do not / cannot ‘discuss’ or engage with anything – about policy or about how the economy works. They are obviously terrified of ideas in case they open up possibilities which they cannot / will not get their head around.
Their fear of engagement and discussion blends conveniently into their authoritarianism which has characterised Labour since the fraudulent McSweeney take-over
A result of Rachel and no steer parroting the City’s mantra there is no money, there is no other way etc is it generates the breeding ground for the far right.
To quote from Kenan Malik’s article in yesterday’s Observer when asking a former Labour Party activist in Mixenden why he no longer supports Labour but the far right ” the Labour party takes our votes but will not do anything for us, no one will, they all just piss on us” .
Brilliant! Excellent simple composition, should be the foundation for any economics course. Economics is not a science.
Richard,
Good article.
I think your right the use of scientific language and mathematical models has not always been useful.
Stuff like the:
Laws of supply and Demand
Phillips Curve
Fishers Equation
Gdp definition
Etc
All give an impression of a science not a socially complex phenomena.
This has happened across social sciences/humanities to some extent.
Ironically I tend to see the phrase “quantum economics” were you are apeing quantum mechanics in a similar light.
Thinking about economic/social matters using our understanding of complex networks & dynamic systems is fruitful though.
Much to ponder on.