As John Maynard Keynes once said:
The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds.
If Keynes, Ken Galbraith, and William Beveridge - three titans of twentieth-century social, political and economic thinking - were alive today, and equipped with a modern understanding of how money and the state actually work, I doubt they would recognise the economic world they once tried to reform. The institutions remain, but the purpose has been lost. What they would, instead, see is a politics paralysed by fear, a state that has forgotten its own power, and an economy that no longer serves the people who sustain it.
So what might they say?
First, they would suggest that the greatest myth of our time is that government is financially constrained. They would note, as modern monetary theory has shown, that a currency-issuing state can never run out of its own money. The real limits we face are inflation, resources, and ecological capacity, not some arbitrary fiscal rule written to appease markets. They would be appalled that politicians still pretend otherwise, as if balancing a spreadsheet were the same as balancing a society.
Second, they would argue that unemployment and insecurity are political choices, not economic necessities. Beveridge designed the welfare state to ensure that no one would fall below a basic standard of living, and Keynes insisted that government spending must fill the gap when private demand fails. Both would be horrified that, in 2025, millions live in precarity while idle labour and unused resources coexist with record corporate wealth. They would call that a moral failure masquerading as prudence.
Third, they would point out that inequality is not just unfair but economically destructive. Galbraith understood the dangers of private power and how corporations and the wealthy distort both markets and democracy. The three of them together would condemn an economic order that celebrates rentier gain while starving the public realm of funds. They would recognise neoliberalism for what it is: not an efficient system, but a deliberate act of sabotage against collective purpose.
Fourth, they would insist that the task of the state is not to retreat but to lead. They would argue that the government's role is to mobilise the nation's real resources - human, technological, and natural - to meet the needs of its people and planet. Whether the challenge is climate breakdown, social care, housing, or education, they would say the same: the constraint is imagination, not money. A Green New Deal would not be optional for them; it would represent essential statecraft.
And fifth, they would remind us that democracy must be economic as well as political. Beveridge's “five giants” - want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness - remain undefeated because the economic system itself now reproduces them. The trio would demand not only redistribution but also reorganisation: a re-embedding of markets within social purpose and of capital within democratic control.
The consequences of ignoring what I imagine their advice might be are visible all around us.
The pretence of fiscal discipline has hollowed out public life.
The myth of market efficiency has handed vast wealth to the few.
The worship of growth has left the planet burning.
And the belief that money is scarce has made us poor in everything that truly matters, whether it be the chance of right livelihoods or care, security, and hope.
What, then, would Keynes, Galbraith, and Beveridge do now?
They would start by rejecting every fiscal rule requiring austerity.
They would fund public investment directly through the central bank, confident that the real economy can absorb it.
They would tax not to fund spending, but to reshape society by curbing excess, reducing inequality, and restoring democratic balance.
They would make the Bank of England accountable to the government and so to people, and not to the City.
And they would measure success not in GDP, but in well-being and sustainability.
Most of all, they would speak plainly. They would tell us that the state is us; that markets exist to serve, and not command; and that the purpose of economics is not to make the rich richer, but to make society beneficial for all.
The tragedy is that we already know this. The theory is written. The evidence is clear. The means are available. What is missing is political courage.
That, I suspect, is what Keynes, Galbraith, and Beveridge would most lament, and what they would demand we now recover, putting behind us old ideas which have ramified into every corner of too many minds.
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.
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!
Why are no politicians saying this, except perhaps the Greens?
Support for the Conservatives and Labour seem to be withering away, with the LibDems stagnant. Reform is charging ahead. Might the Greens be best placed to offer an alternative?
This highlights the lack of leadership in the modern world. In part we have people who are too scared to lead away from the status quo, in part they benefit from the status quo. It’s fertile ground for extremists. History is replete with examples of where this leads: Germany 1930s, China 1940s, Russia 1910s, France 1780s and so on.
The future is not bright unless we can find some real leadership.
Our leaders are paid not to do what Richard points out they should be doing.
Before taking power, Labour was awash with corrupt lobby money from the corporate donors who want to continue to loot the country’s assets.
We are well and truly in either a ‘managed democracy’ or in ‘post democracy’ where the public service broadcaster is subject to deep-state control – which complements the corruption of the bought and sold politicians and billionaire press , to ensure there is no other narrative than ‘there is no money’.
What we are actually looking at is the need for renewal.
Too much has been taken away and some are hell-bent on taking what is left. We do now need to recognise this but I fear that we are no longer capable – politically or in the civil service – to build a nation. All we’ve become good at is divesting ourselves of things and giving it away to the world’s non-citizens – the super rich who own themselves and belong to no one and are therefore unaccountable to the rest of us.
“as if balancing a spreadsheet were the same as balancing a society.”
I like that. Sounds ridiculous – and is!
Is it not said that ridicule is the most effective form of attack (or something like that)?
Hey folks, look what a ridiculous Chancellor we have! She thinks ….
🙂
My wife showed me the headline below earlier in the German press this morning. Not sure where to post but here would seem appropriate as it gets right to the heart of Labour and their lack of courage
“Prime Minister Keir Starmer is a morally hollowed out algorithm that promises everything that seems popular”
A. L. Kennedy writing today in Süddeutsch Zeitung
🙂
You are, as per, 100% right.
The problem is (always) how to change a system that is self-sustaining and resistant to change? The fact that the system is socially/societally counterproductive etc etc is irrelevant in the sense that for the system, this does not matter (ref: repression of South American govs by USA leads to lots of (economic) migrants which cause the USA a problem – this matters not one wit).
Also, “the system” commands most information mechansims: newspapers and latterly social media. If people have little understanding of the possible/possible change, how can they even consider it (ref: ACH – an old sales approach: awareness, consideration, hit rate (you need to be aware of a product before you consider buying it &, buying it is obvs the hit rate or in the political arena – votes). Question: GB News – why is there no equivalent that addresses real (as opposed to synthetic) questions & issues? Money. “The system” is happy to spend money on info outlets that keep “the system” in business. On a related note, “the system” tends to focus on short/medium term stuff – most related to “steady as she goes”. It ignores longer term events. This video outlines a longer term (+25yrs) event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDy7Q8iAtFg
It is well worth 30 mins of anybody’s time & note that we are in “when” not “if” territory. (spoiler: AMOC likely to stop around 2050. Middle of the UK is @ 53degrees North. So is the South of Hudson bay). “The system” is functionally incapable of responding to such events.
All you say is correct. I would also emphasize their success.
Keynes may not have called it MMT but he learned from WW1 and the inter-war years to deliver the architecture of the WW2 economy that gave full utilisation of resources without excessive inflation.
Beveridge ensured a repeat to post WW1 didn’t happen and allowed post WW2 governments to deliver astonishing results.
Galbraith did the same in the US and lived long enough to call out the drift away from that golden, post WW2 age.
So, if we wish to be “evidence based” we must ignore the “free market fetishists” who have delivered such poor results over the most recent 40 years and look to the 40 years before that.
A trio of scientists have just won the Nobel Prize for Physics for their work on applications of Quantum Mechanics.
quote from the independent’s report
“When quantum mechanics was discovered, it was thought to be applicable only to very esoteric situations,” Bagger told CNN. “What these guys showed is how actually, you can elevate quantum mechanics to apply to the observable, to the larger world, to the human scale world.”
They talked about mobile phones and computers etc But who knows that down the line there may be a Nobel prize for pioneering Quantum Economics? I expect Jacqueline would allow you to share it !
🙂