Voltaire supposedly said:
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
The logic is that if people surrender their reason and accept illogical ideas, they become susceptible to manipulation, leading them to commit terrible acts, often stemming from false ideologies or dogma that overrides moral judgment.
Apparently, the quotation is not strictly accurate: it paraphrases ideas in his book Questions sur les miracles (1765), although it does so correctly.
Why note this? Because it seems to me that neoliberalism has now led us to the point where fascism is the real risk. The acceptance of its absurdity across the political spectrum has paved the way for far-right extremism to follow, with mainstream politics gutted of its ability to respond.
Robert Reich finished his Coffee Klatch video yesterday, looking straight to the camera and saying that the USA is now a dictatorship.
The risk of civil war in the US is now very obviously real as ICE oppose the state-controlled National Guard, local police and state and local politicians.
And in the UK today, we have Robert Jenrick, the wannabe Tory leader who looks much more likely to defect to Reform. saying on X yesterday:
The fight against Islamism is the fight of our generation. It's a battle for the soul of the country.
This is very obviously absurd, but it is typical of the lies people have been fed about the society they live in and the political issues we supposedly face.
Meanwhile, lies are told, day in and day out, about the economy and what is possible within it, whilst the lie is told that the state is powerless, and we have politicians who have done their best to prove that point, whilst talking total nonsense to the media.
Even as I write, Cabinet Minister Heidi Alexander is telling Trevor Phillips on Sky that the UK government wants people in Iran to enjoy the same right to protest that people in the UK have, which is not a lot then, given the extent of the crackdown on our human rights in this country by both Labour and the Tories.
Time after time, the fact is that absurdities have been promulgated in neoliberal states by politicians either too indoctrinated to know what they are doing or too greedy to care.
Now we see the result: atrocities can and are happening, and they are going to get worse.
What can we do about this? That is the question, and right now I have not got a clear set of answers, as the descent into chaos is happening so rapidly.
I would, in fact, be curious to know what you think. There is much that I am angry about, but what should I be concentrating on? Please offer suggestions. They will be appreciated.
Loading ...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!
Aggressive campaigning to massively improve awareness of the household budget lie
I think we need emergency campaigning and education on core economic issues. There are a lot of people with a lot of imagination in the wider population who could apply their creativity to politics if the financial side were not so obscure. We always end up getting told that we ‘don’t understand why that wouldn’t work’. And in a sense it’s true. I’m trying my best but every time I think I understand something it seems there is a different side to it… I think that something we should pay attention to when formulating policy ideas, such as for example your excellent ideas in the Taxing Wealth Report, is making one of the policy goals to have policy that is simple enough for average people to understand. I try hard but I struggle a lot and I wish there was a way to apply the goals of the ‘Plain English’ campaign to political policy. We need honesty and transparency but we also need a reduced level of complexity so that we average humans can easily understand and form an opinion about the law, the economy and the tax structure. Why is it legal to have shell companies and profit shifting? Why is it legal to create and sell something called a ‘Collateralized Debt Obligation’? How can democracy work when the governance and regulatory infrastructure are allowed to become too complex for citizens to understand?
I like your thinking.
I am not sure what to do with it.
Any script writers out there?
Anja makes a good point. I think an even better example of bad language is a credit default swap (CDS). CDOs prove that debt and even insurances can be sold on and on and that is no better than a loan shark does and is open to abuse.
A credit default swap works like insurance works except that instead of insuring something that you own, you are placing a bet on something that you do not own, but will get a payout for if it does not perform in some way. Now of course, you need the money to pay those premiums if the value of what you are ‘insuring’ goes up. But if things go wrong, a big pay out can await. And you can take out CDS’ on CDS’!! And a CDS can be used to bet against a CDO.
But really, Anja’s question to me is why is it that the financial sector is allowed to behave like this at all? How the hell should you be allowed to bet like this on someone else’s asset? The moral risk exceeds any of the moral risks that welfarism is accused of. But finance gets away with it. It’s outrageous.
I got my explanation of these ‘instruments’ (actually weapons of mass destruction) from books by Satyajit Das and Michael Lewis – who – when they wrote about them – saw that it helped recruit more people into finance. The same with films like ‘Inside Job’, ‘Margin Call’ and ‘The Big Short’. These explanations did actually strip the bullshit out of it all. But some people still found it attractive as a career in order to make money.
There was of course outrage too – think back to the Occupy movement. But finance held its nerve and politicians caved in and blamed those who did not create the 2008 crash for that crash instead and we are still paying for it today – the central bank reserve account of this country is massive post 2008 to keep this dodgy betting on failure alive whilst budgets for the NHS and infrastructure remain inadequate.
Making money out of money rules as basically, there are no rules anymore. That is one of the problems that needs to be explained to voters. Finance is essentially detached from natural law.
Much to agree with
Anja writes: “Why is it legal to have shell companies and profit shifting? Why is it legal to create and sell something called a ‘Collateralized Debt Obligation’? How can democracy work when the governance and regulatory infrastructure are allowed to become too complex for citizens to understand?
I’d like to add something along similar lines: Why is it legal for lobbyists to donate large sums of money to MPs in order to promote their personal political and business interests, when such behaviour outside of Westminster is deemed to be the serious legal offence of Bribery and Corruption? Why are MPs accepting such donations exempt from prosecution or parliamentary discipline provided they merely register the donations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests (for MPs) or the Register of Lords’ Interests, or the Electoral Commission’s Register (for large donations to political parties)? These registrations effectively facilitate the persuasion of MPs, Lords and political parties to further the interests of the donors regardless of whether these interests are in the interests of the public.
For instance how can the donations by American Health representatives, which inevitably undermine the future of the NHS, be classified as anything other than corrupt? And what logic is there in a convention which deems that the simple entry of a transaction in a register can somehow legitimise corrupt behaviour by both the donor and recipient? To make matters worse these processes aren’t unique to Westminster: they’ve been replicated in the devolved nations too.
Thanks
Much to agree with
Henry Normal (poet) posted this on Facebook today:
Overwhelmed by the constant newslaught I wrote this
SLEEPWALKING ON SUNSHINE
I dreamt of a dystopia
Where fifty percent starved
And weigh-loss-pills
Reduced the other half
Where peace prizes
And prestigious awards
Were given to those
Who start wars
Where shops lay empty
But prisons were full
Where libraries were closed
Next to crumbling schools
Where we all see the lies
But no one dare speak
Where the world stands by
While the weak fear the street
Where the old are forgotten
And the young have no home
Where mothers have no hope
And society is a phone
Where fields become deserts
Where water’s unclean
Where food becomes poison
And we serve the machine
Where forests are on fire
And animals go extinct
It becomes harder to breathe
And all life’s on the brink
I dreamt of a dystopia
And feared most for you
For I woke up and found
The nightmare was true
Very good
Richard, I do worry that we are putting an awful load onto your shoulders. I would like to see a discussion on how all of us can help you with this task.
Now I am settling into my retirement, I feel drawn to becoming involved in citizen journalism bringing my past experience of nearly 50 years of legal practice and writing for professional journals on the related issues. For example, the whole environmental legal system is today as fragile as public international law – the rule of law has given way to rule by force. But all may not be lost in the UK because, even though environmental regulations are undermined by starving regulators of their resources, the much revered common law system can still provide some fairly effective means of control. Imagination and courage is required.
Perhaps we could all spend some time on working out how we can all play our part. I do not want to depart this earth having left it in both a worse state than when I was born AND with the younger generations being stripped of all hope.
What do you want to write?
And apologies for delay – Sunday’s can be busy!
While on another planet (Laura Kuenssberg on BBC), Peter Mandelson lauded Trump as a risk taker who gets things done and who is misunderstood.
I wanted to throw up whilst he was being interviewed.
The ‘Trump derangement syndrome” trope was used, to support this morning’s video.
Why is Laura Yoonsberg interviewing the friend and supporter of Epstein ?
Mandelson, unsurprisingly given the New Labour Blair led adherence to the Strongman social ideology of Anthony Giddens, is in open alliance with Trump’s Katocracy. A form of governance that moves beyond authoritarianism, which is based upon claiming authority through shared beliefs in law or family, into state rule by violence and deceit alone: https://www.mind-war.com/p/no-authority-only-violence
Morning Richard. I am completely unqualified to offer any advice on this topic – but I believe you may be receptive to an opinion. This is your blog and your output and whatever you choose to put on it I will almost certainly read it. Whatever you choose to do will be ‘right’ I’m sure. My opinion is that perhaps to lessen chances of becoming overwhelmed; either prioritise an area where you think you can make most impact (be most influential) or an area which most interests or concerns you (a sort of “getting it off your chest” exercise maybe?). I would not like you to become overwhelmed because I am hoping to continue to read your output for some time to come! Thanks.
I am feeling numbed by events – but not overwhelmed. That mask deciding priorities hard. It is also making our normal reaction times seem long – and that is frustrating as well. That is what is getting to me, not being overwhelmed.
Fascism is a ‘RISK’?
Personally, I think fascism is a reality already for more than enough of our population and has always been if Hannah Arendt is to be believed as well as my own eyes. The ‘banality of evil’ and all that? Some people are already drawn to something that exists and is no longer ‘a risk’. Fascism for these people is a fact even if they are unaware of it as ‘fascism’. The risk is that it becomes more widespread and/or gets into power. I work with esteemed colleagues who want to stop the boats! They’ve fallen for it already. It’s awful.
Fascism is like a bouncing-betty mine – it has to be triggered. That wonderful U.S. army anti-fascist leaflet you shared with us actually tells you how one’s inner-fascist can be released. The emotion based absurdist science of fascism is all there to see. And so are the results in our society right now.
I say this only to reinforce my view that we need to reclaim contemporary Liberalism from being defined by the hyper-individualised mega rich. A classic ‘old liberal’ text ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ was all about the humanist Liberal mindset – using one’s imagination to put yourself in the shoes of another to understand their situation in order to know more about the world, to live as it were ‘consciously’. That idea still has legs, but a modern less individualistic Liberalism can only help if it accepts human capacity for wrong doing is ever-present and actively mitigates against this permanently. We have to also imagine the bad in ourselves and act against it.
For me this is the only way that the needs of the collective can be balanced with those of the individual – a very difficult thing to do in a world where dialectics seems to be dying out – and politics is most guilty of abandoning. So really, the ‘risk’ of fascism has to be accepted as if it is actually here, just like that bouncing betty mine waiting to be tripped (those mines are people re-disposed to fascism).
Why is this important? Because fascism is death. Fascism is an ever present, destructive force that can further unbalance society and needs to be acknowledged and managed. By rights, Fascism should stop austerity mongers in their tracks.
Thanks
Much to agree with
All of the above, but what we need from government, above all else, it seems to me, is more transparency. Fudge, evasion, secrecy, obfuscation have become so standard from political leaders that we no longer expect open and honest answers to pertinent questions. Worse, we expect politicians to lie, and they do so with impunity. It has become normal. As Hannah Arendt foresaw:
“The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed. ”
No transparency, no understanding of reality, no democracy. Are we too far down the road to fascism to recover? Not sure, but I’m not optimistic.
I wish I was more optimistic right now.
It is hard to give a specific response … So many ‘things’ crop up that threaten wellbeing of normal people. They deserve commentary.
That said …. When neoliberalism continues to collapse, there’s a need for the “so what is the alternative” question.
When you have written “big hitters” on alternatives (taxing wealth report, intl taxation, government finances are not household, your definitions, etc) there is a body of work than can be used to support an alternative. (Look how the SNP failed to answer that question in 2014)…..
So I welcome your commentary. But the “big hitters” are important in providing the foundation for the alternative and better ways of living in a caring society and enabling/distributing how things are funded.
Thanks
Noted
Just as a matter of passing interest, why is the BBC’s Kuenssberg being permitted to interview a man who has now been sacked twice from Government and brought home in disgrace from the UK’s most important Ambassadorial post? A man who is almost certainly implicated in the Epstein cases; who is friendly with corrupt Russian oligarchs; who misused his position as EU Trade Commissioner to gain contracts for chums; who wrote emails to Epstein from his official EU Trade Commissioner account; who has disgraced this country in more than one arena, culminating in global commentary on his removal as UK Ambassador to the U.S.?
A good question.
And the questioning was remarkably uncritical, in my opinion.
Because it seems to me that neoliberalism has now led us to the point where fascism is the real risk.
Yes !
Its roots are in eugenics, totalitarianism and torture.
What to do?
Call it out, that’s what we do.
Start using accrate descriptive language
Neoliberalism is Fascist Economics.
Agreed
Just did a check
Neo-Facist Economics might be even more accurate.
I wonder if relaunching the Taxing Wealth Report 2024, as the Taxing Wealth Report 2026 might be worth considering. I doubt if it would need to be changed much, if at all, so it would be minimum effort, but possibly gain attention from your new subscribers.
I agree with comments above that getting the message across is increasingly important, and we must all do what we can.
I am afraid it would take quite a lot of work…
Hmm, perhaps you could use some more staff?
Have you considered rebranding as a think tank and attracting external funding? Another potential benefit: “Now let’s hear from Prof Murphy, director of the Institute for Funding the Future”?
Amongst professionals we know just how little credentialism means – your credentials are extensive but it’s your words that matter – but that doesn’t stop Paul Johnson and others benefiting from it with the media and lay community.
I know it could be a threat to your independence, and perhaps to the perception that you are independent, but unlike Tufton Street you’d be 100% transparent.
Just a thought.
I would find that’s very burdensome. I am definitely not the persons to run a think tank. In TJN days I thought. John Christensen ran the tank.
Alternatively, when the 2026 crash happens, do we need to be ready with widespread political literacy about how a pause on rent and interest payments is more appropriate than price controls or another round of QE? This type of economic literacy strikes me as urgent in the face of the coming financial emergency.
I wrote a lot about this in 2020
Today I have invited a group of old friends who meet for lunch now and then to discuss ‘What to do?’. I will be discussing your taxing wealth report. I will also be reiterating my belief that when the 2026 crash happens we should stop rent and interest rather than printing money to give to banks and controlling the price of real goods that have actual production costs. I will be telling everyone to read your blog and shamelessly using you as backup for my ideas around rent and interest stoppage during the coming crash. I think it will help me stay sane and hopeful to have person to person groups to discuss this with so that we can grow local knowledge and local solidarity. The internet is good for developing knowledge and ideas, but flesh and blood people in the room with me give me courage.
Thanks Anja
I think n that is a very good idea
Thanks Anja
I think that is a very good idea
One question is at what point people will accept that the Trump regime is fascist?
We’re already at the point where their forces are killing people without due process or official consequences, both foreigners and US citizens alike, within US territory and abroad.
Their response to the protests in Minneapolis has been to send in more ICE, to escalate.
Having crossed into murdering citizens without warning, while meeting most of the dictionary definition specifics of a fascist regime, the question should perhaps more be – how close to home does the murder and repression have to come to you personally for you to acknowledge the fascism that is attempting to claim right of dominion over the whole world?
The following is a contribution to Richard’s “Politics of Care” although I’m inclined to think of it as the “Politics of Caring.” The reason I do this is because of an article about “caring” – “Care on Earth: generating informed concern” Holmes Rolston III. I read it a long time ago but it has reverberated around inside my head ever since trying to reason out the implications. I’ve posted a web link to this article recently on Richard’s blog, here it is again:-
https://api.mountainscholar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c08c4ee8-632e-4735-8239-4ac0c73d270b/content
It’s a lengthy article which keeps hammering home two points. Firstly, in evolutionary terms we should recognise “caring” has been developing in life forms, even that it’s always been there in the Universe or at least the seed of it. Secondly, we need to understand the “caring” comes in two forms that of caring for self and caring for others. I translate this for us as a human being species that we have a Libertarian outlook and a Communitarian one. I do this because we are highly inter-active with each other to better organise our survival but this involves making choices and this in turn makes us political.
Recent events in the world have especially focused our minds on just exactly how we should be political in terms of “caring.” The realisation we should pay attention to the “Rule of Law” has sprung to the fore. I decided to use Google AI to see what it had to say about it. Here it is:-
“Rule of Law means everyone, including the government, is subject to clear, publicly known, and equally enforced laws, ensuring power is limited and rights protected, while Rule by Law uses law as a tool for the state to control citizens, with rulers often above the law, making it arbitrary and serving power rather than justice. The core difference is accountability: under the rule of law, the law constrains rulers; under rule by law, rulers use law as a weapon against the governed, lacking true legal limits.”
I continue in a second post.
I find your economic analysis brilliant and important.This is further enriched by your call for ‘ politics of care ‘.It offers wider solutions to the economic,social and political problems.
This leads to discussions about Trump,fascism and pleonexia,the pathological pursuit of wanting more.Your fellow contributers add a great deal to this debate.
Your analysis of why Starmer would fail before he took office and then showing his proud boast of having no ideology was an admittance of not being a planner nor a politician was outstanding.
Then ,there’s the more ‘whimsical’ explorations,eg : about us old fogies not wanting more material goods and my personal favourite,how individual’s organisational skills,as demonstrated in their hobbies or interests,is neglected by management.
This breadth of discussion must bring in more viewers or readers than a purely economic blog.
Best wishes and many thanks to you and your contributers.
Thanks, Rob.
Here is my continuation.
The AI explanation is telling us very clearly we have a choice to make. How many citizens though recognise this? How many understand this choice is life enhancing or life threatening? For example, how many understand that “Rule by Law” means Libertarian activity that deliberately or thoughtlessly minimises caring for all in the broadest sense? Conversely, how many understand its opposite the “Rule of Law” means in full implication or detail? I would argue not well! Here’s my attempt at a full list in no particular order:-
It should stamp out discrimination against other human beings where there’s no threat to Communitarianism, caring for all.
It needs a coherently logical understanding of how a sovereign monetary system works so Communitarianism can fully function.
It’s essential that a fair voting system is used to identify where majority consensus lies on key political issues and politicians put into office who will work to implement this consensus.
It’s necessary to ensure that campaign funding of politicians avoids undue influence by wealthy individuals.
It’s necessary to ensure that the mainstream media is not unduly influenced in its content by the wealthy.
The many must have a greater say in regard to how private capital is deployed without destroying the Libertarian entrepreneurial element of market capitalism.
Global trading must be reformed so that the few who deploy capital, both individuals and politicians, do not do so against the wishes of the many.
Human beings must regulate themselves through a democratically elected international body to tackle climate change. Decision weighting by population size should be avoided.
Thank you
Apologies for delay – it was a busy day
Events are moving so fast that you barely have time to comment, but I’m finding that your comments plus your relating them to the general direction of the blog are most useful.
Most people who follow the blog are aware of your thoughts on where we should be heading, but those who don’t know are given pointers from your comments to look into topics for themselves and make up their own minds.
Thanks
One possible way of gently challenging the drift towards extremism might be to experiment, occasionally, with dialogue rather than monologue, through conversations or short videos with people who genuinely disagree with you, but are prepared to argue in good faith. Done carefully, this could model how serious disagreement can be conducted without hostility, and might help draw some people back towards decency, evidence, and shared humanity in political thinking.
I appreciate that this is not straightforward and that such exchanges might sometimes be frustrating, time-consuming, and perhaps misused by bad-faith actors. They may not suit every topic or every audience. Even so, a limited and well-framed attempt might set a valuable example at a time when examples are badly needed.
Just a thought.
I have thought about this, b ut I am not convinced as yet.
Who do you suggest the opponent(s) would be?
Jonathan Portes? Diane Coyle? Sam Bowman?
The first is too arrogant.
Do the others really add value?
OK. Let’s dream instead. Here’s a conversation between Trump and Noam Chomsky.
Trump: Noam, let’s be honest. Your ideas slow America down. Too much government, too many rules. Businesses get punished for success, jobs go overseas, and regular people pay the price. I cut taxes, cut regulations. Confidence came back. That’s how you run a country.
Chomsky: What you call confidence was, for many, insecurity. Deregulation increased corporate power, weakened labour, and left whole regions disposable. The result wasn’t freedom but domination. Private tyranny replacing public accountability. That corrodes democracy. My approach is to constrain concentrated power and rebuild social institutions.
Trump: Sounds like socialism. Government deciding everything. That never works. Bureaucrats don’t create jobs, entrepreneurs do.
Chomsky: Unchecked entrepreneurs create monopolies. That’s not a free market; it’s feudalism with apps. But let’s take your concern seriously: innovation matters, efficiency matters, incentives matter.
Trump: Okay. And I’ll take yours seriously. Big corporations got too big. Tech giants, defence contractors, they game the system. Not fair. So what if we actually enforced antitrust? Break them up. Real competition again.
Chomsky: That would be a major step. Pair that with strong labour rights, and markets could function without crushing people. Workers with power don’t fear change; they shape it.
Trump: And here’s my bottom line: if companies want access to the American market, they invest here, hire here, pay taxes here. No more hollowing out towns and calling it efficiency.
Chomsky: That’s compatible with democratic economics. Public investment – infrastructure, energy, healthcare – can set the direction, while firms compete within firm social rules.
Trump: So: markets, yes. But tough rules. Strong workers. Strong country.
Chomsky: And economic power accountable to society, not the other way around.
Audience takeaway. From conflict to convergence: markets with limits, government with purpose, and an economy that serves people rather than fractures them.
Fantasy?
Why do I come here? To find sanity, to know that in this crazy world there are a group of people who are also seeking a better , fairer world,
Thanks
You have done the constructive thinking – you DO provide an alternative, both a practical set of policies, and what motivates me, a sustainable level of moral outrage (with evidence).
My outrage started to grow around 2012, as I started managing a foodbank – I could SEE the injustice, and suffering, but keeping records and doing my homework meant I could see the lies of government and the ignorance of my contemporaries.
Ken Loach’s films didn’t shock me, it was just “another day at the office” for me.
I watched my then Tory MP who arrived in 2015, turn from a fresh faced sincere young Christian into a hard line quite nasty ERG extremist. His face even changed. He’s gone now, the LDs got his seat back in 2024.
Then I retired to a “safe” Labour seat and went through the “Corbyn” sabotage experience, from inside the party, and realised there was no hope to be had from Labour.
Then we had Gaza -I was already radicalised on the Holy Land – but another painful experience of seeing so much blindness and bigotry in my fellow believers, giving Israel carte-blanche to commit genocide becsuse they think it is God’s plan. That wound is still raw as is the rage.
Then this blog, and and my political economy education, not in an academic environment but here in the heart of WWC Reform UK Ltd deprivation territory, and the crying need for omnibus level explanations offered by those with reliable relational links into the community (which the intellectual left does not have). FTF/TWR2024 have been a crucial part of my journey.
And personal tragedy and family ill health, to keep us humble, to keep us relatable to our neighbours, all suffering their own tragedies and needs.
This blog feeds my brain, it gives me moral and intellectual weapons, it keeps me angry, it gives me hope.
Don’t get diverted. Keep the balance, at times it will be so upsetting, you will skid, you will steer erratically because the road itself is part of a global scale landslip.
Be careful, but stay angry. We all need to be angrier and more vocal, but always “giving a reason for the hope that is in us” (bible quote!) as well as a reason for the anger.
KUTGW!
This too will pass.
Many thanks.
And very much appreciated.
Go well.
It seems to me that the potentially fascist shift towards controlling other countries depends a lot on the ability to impose sanctions to slowly and surely destroy a country to the point that the sanctions user can just take over. While all have refused to sanction Israel sanctions have been imposed on Russia, Venezuela, Cuba…and more recently ( as far as I know) on individuals such as Francesca Albanese and members of the International criminal courts effectively rendering them helpless. It seems that the US wields the control over the sanctions mechanism through banks. I understand that Europe has a “blocking mechanism” . Could it use this to unblock the courts? With international law effectively unable to respond to ongoing violations an important control of those who would continue to bully and destroy other countries has been removed.
I am constantly appalled by the number of people who say that they don’t have anything to do with politics. It seems they don’t realise that politics has things to do with them!
It seems the education system has failed badly.
My partner keeps telling me to get off my soapbox when I point out what our government is doing.
It is good to find somewhere where people realise what is going on.
The problem is what can we do to change it, because without knowing voters we seem to be condemned to repeats. [I’m not talking about the television here]
Keep up the good work.
Thanks
And you are right: politcs is everywhere and everything.
I really appreciate your thoughts, on a daily basis. I cannot fathom how you approach so many topics with so much zeal and common sense.
I listen to a small group of individuals pointing out the massive flaws in the World today. Yourself, Gary Stephenson, James O’Brien, Carol Vorderman and a few others. I usually agree with them, the same as when I agreed with my Grandfather who leant me his copy of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists almost 50 years ago.
However, rather than get better, it seems to have gotten worse.
I think you need to talk to people pointing out similar ills, but who may not agree with you. It seems the defence of those benefitting from the current state of affairs is to divide the opposition, and then divide them again and again as they form a group of reasonable size.
How do we resist this division? I think it is the only way to progress.
I have offered. I can’t do more than that. It is for others to accept.
I haven’t commented recently primarily because I have not felt that I have had anything to add. I do however read pretty much everything you produce and most of the comments. The secondary reason for my lack of contribution recently is that what is going on in the world – the complete absence of kindness and care, the sheer lack of any semblance of humanity and the depth and speed that it is all being displayed, has left me in a state of shock. I just do not understand where these monsters heads are at. I do not understand why they do what they do and I do not understand why they do not do what they could do. At the moment I am at a complete loss other than to suggest that unless people start to care and show they care, nothing will change. I think caring has to come first and that the mechanics of how caring might manifest need to follow. So this raises the question – how can people be encouraged to care for each other?
By literally doing it, Simon.
I know nothing else.
I am shocked, too.
Simon, I think so many people do care, they care for each other and they care about much in the world around them but I think most just feel powerless in the face of structural societal degradation and don’t have the wherewithal to challenge what is happening. Either they can’t really see clearly what is happening…. where the power lies, or don’t have access to an alternative narratives or possible solutions.
Like you, I read this blog every day and to have this community gives me hope.
I really value that Richard is so solution focused although that has its own frustrations – I can see what could be done but isn’t.
We all need to find ways to spread the word and I only wish I had a bigger platform from which to speak and could be more articulate!
Yes, most of those in power are just awful at the moment….but it’s important to keep in mind all the very many good people.
I agree with your conclusion
Richard
Thank you, Judith
A common talking point when arguing about taxation is that the government is “spending the people’s tax dollars.” The inference is that in the absence of the people’s consent, a government is disallowed from spending however it sees fit. “That is our money the government is wasting on [waging war]” contains a powerful moral argument. How does an MMT framework transform that argument? “The government is betraying the people by issuing money against their interests”? And if MMT is correct, what is the People’s recourse (besides voting to replace the rogues in the next election)? Tax strike? Thanks!
The phrase “the government is spending the people’s tax money” is powerful by implying a household model of the economy: “we earn, we hand it over, they squander it”. MMT changes that framing, but it does not remove the moral force of the argument. Instead, it relocates it.
In an MMT-consistent view, a currency-issuing government does not need taxes in order to spend. It spends by issuing money. Taxes come later, to reclaim part of that spending power, with the dual goals of managing inflation, and better shaping the distribution of reward in the economy. So the true statement is not “they are spending our money”, but “they are using the state’s monetary and legal power to command real resources in our society.” That sharpens the moral question because the issue becomes who gets the resources.
When government wages war, bails out banks or subsidises fossil fuels, it is not “wasting taxpayers’ money”. It is choosing to mobilise labour, materials, energy and organisational capacity for those purposes rather than others. MMT therefore transforms the argument into something more direct, which is that the government is betraying the public purpose by allocating society’s real resources to the wrong ends.
That is stronger than the tax story. It removes the claim that “there is no money”. The constraint is whether the resources exist and what their use displaces.
Tax still matters though, morally, because tax is one of the main ways the public asserts control over money’s distributional effects. But consent is not about “funding”. It is about legitimacy: what the state is allowed to do with the monetary capacity it uniquely holds.
What recourse do people have beyond elections? Several, and none are costless.
A tax strike is politically dramatic but usually self-defeating: it strengthens the right-wing narrative that the state cannot function and invites coercive enforcement.
More effective are:
• Collective organisation to change policy between elections.
• Legal constraint such as judicial review, parliamentary challenge, and constitutional limits.
• Institutional reforms such as greater transparency over contracts, audit powers, and anti-corruption enforcement.
• Redesign of fiscal rules and central bank management so that decisions are judged against public purpose, capacity, inflation and distribution rather than debt ratios.
MMT does not give citizens fewer tools. It gives them a clearer accusation: this government is not “out of money” — it is out of legitimacy.
The rich have been on a tax strike for a long time now.
The rest of us are stuck with PAYE and don’t get a choice.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ( it’s nearly laughable to quote the declaration of independence when trumps ripping it up as I speak) . So basically my thoughts are making a noise is what you, what we all doing, we are doing thereby doing what is your/ our power, your/our duty and your/ our right to do and your/ our noise is creating future guards for future security so as long as well all make a noise no matter how small, like me making my able noise here on this post then I shall be satisfied I have made my point, my voice spoken though small in the drone of discontent and my unreasonableness known. We all need to take care of ourselves. The internet is just breeding hate (even all films on Amazon last night were algorithming war) it is too fast, too big and too much. I doubt we are listened to which is the shame, but here’s my noise, just concentrate on your noise what do you want to put to the world and what guards do you want to set up for future. In this moment who do I want to be what do I stand for and what is my line that won’t be crossed, post from the heart and be a unreasonable ( T-shirt campaign with that on it needed please)
Thanks.
[…] Erich Fromm in this series? The immediate reason is that I wrote a post yesterday, entitled 'What to do?' Jacqueline read it and assumed I would reference Fromm – whom we have both read – rather than […]