There has been a lot of feedback on my presntation style over the weekemnd. When I had 800,000 media views over the weekend, based on our channel, Channel 4's output, and my appearance on BBC1, that matters.
On the Channel 4 YouTube channel, 1% of comments criticised my style, not the substance of what I said. I think I can safely ignore those making comments there.
Some supporters here have suggested I need to show more tolerance for others' opinions. I should be more gracious, in other words.
I will reflect on that.
One thing many are not sure about is my use of the word neoliberalism. Some suggest I stop using the word.
They say most people do not understand it, that it sounds academic, and that I would communicate better with simpler language.
I understand the concern, but so far I disagree, saying which, I am seeking opinion, and not just to be gracious.
Neoliberalism describes the economic and political ideology that has dominated much of our politics since Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979.
It promotes markets, competition, private ownership and the restriction of government intervention in economic life. It has encouraged privatisation, deregulation, the weakening of trade unions and the prioritisation of shareholder interests.
I think this ideology has failed.
But the important point is that these policies are connected. The failures of water privatisation, the obsession with fiscal rules, the shortage of public investment and the growing concentration of wealth are not necessarily separate issues. They reflect a common way of thinking about how society should be organised. Neoliberalism is a term that encompasses all of them. So, if I stop talking about neoliberalism, how do I explain that connection?
I could call it market fundamentalism, free-market economics or corporate capitalism. But none of those terms captures quite the same combination of economic ideas and political power.
Of course, I have a responsibility to explain what neoliberalism means. I do not expect everyone to know already.
But unfamiliar words are not necessarily bad words. Sometimes learning a new word helps us understand something important.
My concern is that if we cannot name the ideology that has shaped our economic problems, we will struggle to understand why those problems persist.
That is why I think I should continue talking about neoliberalism.
But I am interested in what you think.
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!
Burnham is using the word so we need to stick with it. It’s far easier to pushback on something if you name it. The right captured woke and have had success with it even though it was not meant to be pejorative. 800,000 views is great and your style is certainly front foot. I don’t blame you for that, so much to say MMT, deregulation etc. We need to get this word into the mainstream. I’m certainly doing my bit on my socials.
Thank you
Neoliberalism is unambiguous.
By design, “Free market” is interpreted by different people in different ways (free for whom?)
Agreed
Hi Richard
Nothing wrong with your Fourcast podcast performance. It was excellent. If anything you let Ms Pryce off too likely over her confusion with MMT. It is time you got into the ear of Zack Polanski again and edge James Meadway out of the way!
I am finite.
Politicians can call, but I do not do party politics.
Thatcherism – web search:
“Thatcherism refers to the political and economic ideology associated with UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979–1990), emphasizing privatization, free markets, reduced government intervention, low taxes, monetarism, and curbing trade union power.”
Most young people have no idea who Thatcher was. As a term, Thatcherism cannot work.
Market Fundamentalism and Free Market Economics both sound, to me, like naturally ocurring phenomena that people just accept.
How about Market Extremism, or Free Market Extremism?
Exploitative Capitalism.
Someone, possibly you Richard, used the term Greedonomics, which I quite like, as in Neoliberalism (Greedonomics)
Greedonomics sounds corny.
It will be heard as Green.
And neoliberalism is about more than markets.
And Free is a loaded word.
Thank you, though.
I think Neoliberalism works, but I think it has to be accompanied by Monetarism, and the core principles of that which have infected all mainstream economic thinking. Namely that money is a scarce resource, that inflation is inevitable with any increased money supply, that spending has to be “fully funded” and that interest rates are an effective tool to counter inflation.
Monterism had failed by 1985, so why mention it?
This is difficult. I would like to say monetary absolutism but, of course this is abstruse.
Yet what else links Vicky Pryce, John Healey, Nigel Farage, et al. People who profess a rejection of neoliberalism accept the belief that money must precede existence; as well as the neoliberals. You made the point that Healey’s budget will be immediately rendered otiose by unfolding events.
You also made the point that people must gain a greater knowledge of the systems that govern their lives, yet the C4 interlocutor was unable to understand what you were saying.
I think you are on to something here, how do we simplify, retain the essence of the message yet retain mass impact, this is a key issue for society and one that a political party should be advocating.
Without a state their can be no money, ergo the survival of the state must be the primary concern if the value of money and its productive uses are to survive.
Bit that would be impossibvle to sell in an interview