Common Ground:

Oh dear.

So it's much more important to make the rich richer and the even richer even richer and equality is a load of nonsense.

And absolutely no explanation of how this is going to promote growth...

I thought Coppola was weak, mainly because Lilico talked incessantly and loudly to drown out her points. Her point about boom and bust was good and evidenced. Her question 'Why should we go through it again?' was pertinent and unanswered.

Also her point that economies where distribution is more equitable are economies with better productivity and growth, also valid but crowded out by Mr Gobby.

This was, I thought, an economists' technical discussion and meaningless to most people who might have seen it.

The really gaslighty bit was Lilico's assertion that the aid with energy bills is going to give people more money. It's money that they don't have in the first place... So it they're gaining more of nothing at all...

Coppola wasn't brought into the conversation for some time Maisie, nor did he make sure they had equal time. I thought it was poor interviewing.

I agree about the bit where he talks about the help with the energy bills. This is what Truss was saying in her interviews and it sounded as if she was missing the point in those. In fact, that was her point it seems.

But then he said, in answer to Phillips:
"If you care about these equality issues and I don't and I don't think one should"
Trevor Phillips interrupted saying, "you don't care about equality?"
Lilico replied, "Not at all. I have no interest in equality. I think it's an incorrect policy objective. I don't think it's either morally or economically sound as a policy objective, so I have no interest in that."
He then says, "Even if you did care about that, the main thing is they are helping the poor much more than the rich."

So, is this the point we are missing? The Conservatives, Truss and presumably some who vote for them do not think some level of equality is either morally or economically relevant. That would explain why they don't believe in a mixed economy.

That was the bit that shocked me the most. I suppose I knew some didn't care. We hear people on GN saying something like this. I thought they were outliers; I didn't understand this was their policy. The economics of countries with less inequality do better. They don't believe that. Nor do they believe equality is "morally relevant", so they must believe in elitism.

This is what Truss and Kwarteng's policy is. Is it what Tories have always voted for? I simply don't believe that. Or have I just been terribly naïve?

"So, is this the point we are missing? The Conservatives, Truss and presumably some who vote for them do not think some level of equality is either morally or economically relevant."

Yes, unless one understands that they don't care about equality, it's impossible to understand what they're doing. The rich don't want to share anything. Truss said it herself. That's the big difference!

PS. Every country has a mixed economy - it's not either/or.

There are three types of economy growstuff (I'm sure you know this)

Command - think Soviet Union where the number of tractors made was decided (commanded) by the government and economic planning decides all questions.

Market Economy - All wealth and resources owned by individuals. "Markets" determine all production.

Mixed Economy - A blend of Market and Command.

I suppose what I have always thought is Labour want more of the Command than the Tories, and the Tories want more of the Market than Labour does. What I didn't think is that we would elect a government that basically wanted only a Market economy with "small state" meaning less than most of us could imagine.

I just wonder how many of us have grasped that this government wants the kind of "small state" that only those with no care for any level of equality could imagine.

Thank you Maizie and growstuff for helping me work through this.

In two years the Conservatives will want people's votes. Remember what their real agenda is. They don't care two hoots about anybody - not just the low paid, disabled, etc. but anybody earning "in the middle" (most people) or below average income or people who rely on the NHS, state education or any other public service. Don't fall for their lies about supporting hard working people and meritocracy - the fact is that they simply don't think you're important!

I had taken in that they would treat people in that way, but I hadn't got hold of the "why".

Without a "why" you can always believe they won't go that far. I will try and explain the "why" where I can. In two years, they may have gone so far that we will not see it reversed.

Goodnight growstuff (and anyone else who is awake and looks in).

I keep banging on but it isn’t surprising at all.

Neo-liberalism - that relies on the market with small state will of course provide the sort of economy Truss and cohorts are seeking.

It is because the state doesn’t intervene in the market. The market is king - they simply believe in its rationality and predominance.

Everything flows from that. So concepts such as equality, protection, regulation etc etc are simply ideas that get in the way of the market functioning as it should ( in their view).

Conversely - almost without exception (remember, they are calling this the great experiment) the rest of the developed world understand that if the market is left to develop without hinderance, it becomes one of exploitation. Exploitation of all resources like labour, raw material, natural resources like land, water and air etc.

That is why it is almost university accepted that the state must use its power to ensure this exploitation is kept in check, because nothing else has the power to do so. The state uses its power to ensure, protection for those selling their labour, protection for natural resources to ensure that they don’t become exhausted or that the land is laid waste - like rain forests, protection of water and air quality, etc etc. All this whilst creating the space for the market to flourish on a level playing field, which is why we have the rules and regulation governing businesses.

The neo-liberal naively believe that the market will, left to its own devices, bring about all these things as well as providing economic growth.

History of course tells us otherwise. It doesn’t.

It it more vital than ever that the state uses its power to intervene in market activity because the world is facing the possibility of extinction with the climate crises. Neo-liberalism simply can’t address this. The market will never be able to address this.

It can never work.

It does become more interesting though. Some multi-nationals have greater economic resources than some small states.

That is why states cooperate to ensure these multi-nationals are kept in check and not using their vast economic power to exploit.

It isn’t always successful though, particularly where the huge companies operate in underdeveloped countries, where we are witness to vast tracks of land totally trashed. Labour utterly exploited. Whilst the company profits enormously the country where this is happening gets little in return, except perhaps bribery of the politicians etc.

And strictly speaking, what we operate under is a capitalist economy. A market economy is something different.

But I’m not pendantic about it so sorry if I seem to be?

Great post Whitewave. Unsurprisingly, I agree with the description.

Early on in the interview, Lilico gave his list of priorities for an economy which must be paid for by the state. He then gave a list of things which are only "nice to have". I was shocked that education and healthcare made it into the second list. In my opinion, both are essential to a modern functioning state.

“That is why it is almost university accepted that the state must use its power to ensure this exploitation is kept in check, “

Are the large industrial nations China, Korea, USA, paying any regard at all to exploitation, they consume resources at an ever increasing rate.

A market economy is a form of capitalism, as is a mixed economy, Whitewave. However, I doubt either of us are actually working economists. My hope for this thread was to work out what is driving all the policies of this government.

The market economy cannot exist as the only or overall driver if you believe in equality. Not the other way round. You say:

Everything flows from [the predominance of the market]. So concepts such as equality, protection, regulation etc etc are simply ideas that get in the way of the market functioning as it should (in their view).

I don't agree. I think it is the other way round. You cannot believe in the predominance of the market unless you discard any thought of equality. We can tie people in knots going into the economics but the question we should be asking ourselves is "Do we, as a country, believe in equality".

I would guess most people would say they do. However, you only have to read conversations on here and listen to some people talking to know that some do not believe people of a different race, colour, what they believe to be work ethic, religion, etc., should be presumed and treated as equal. It may be that, because we are human, we all have our moments when we short-cut our thinking on this. The point probably is, do we try not to because equality is a fundamental belief of ours or are we someone who does not hold that belief.

So, my next question would be "are we still a country that fundamentally believes in equality?" This government will win if we are not.

growstuff

Early on in the interview, Lilico gave his list of priorities for an economy which must be paid for by the state. He then gave a list of things which are only "nice to have". I was shocked that education and healthcare made it into the second list. In my opinion, both are essential to a modern functioning state.

I'm glad to hear someone else found it shocking. I think we must stand back to look at this.

If you believe in equality, you ask your state to try to give everyone the best education we can. But the first bit of that sentence is not education it's "if you believe in equality".

Maybe we have become used to thinking everyone does believe that we are all equal. That it's just some get it wrong sometimes. But some (how many?) do not believe equality to be fundamental to their view of humanity. And some of these people are running our government.

Probably the only example of equality we have is Cuba, where the economy depends on cash sent back by migrants in the US.
Survival is the only reason to get out of bed in the morning.
Russia is not equal, China certainly is not, there has to be the incentive to acquire a better life, more wealth, property or influence, otherwise there is no point in trying

Good article in the Sunday Times today by Robert Colville. He makes a good defence of the Truss/Kwarteng approach whilst also listing his criticisms of it.

I think that before we talk about equality we have to agree what we mean by it.

Are we talking of equality of income, equality of opportunity (if so, opportunity to do what?), equality of appearance, equality of respect, equality of status (no doubt others could think of more 'equalities').

To answer the question 'is this a country that fundamentally believes in equality?' is hard without a common understanding of the term.
Though I admit that my instinctive response would be 'no' and 'I don't think we ever have been.'

Baggs

Good article in the Sunday Times today by Robert Colville. He makes a good defence of the Truss/Kwarteng approach whilst also listing his criticisms of it.

Are you any good at links? Or perhaps cut and paste the relevant bits please?

Baggs

Good article in the Sunday Times today by Robert Colville. He makes a good defence of the Truss/Kwarteng approach whilst also listing his criticisms of it.

The Sunday Times has a paywall. I really can't afford to subscribe to every online media offering just for the occasional article of interest.

Any chance you could precis his defence for us, Baggs?

MaizieD

I think that before we talk about equality we have to agree what we mean by it.

Are we talking of equality of income, equality of opportunity (if so, opportunity to do what?), equality of appearance, equality of respect, equality of status (no doubt others could think of more 'equalities').

To answer the question 'is this a country that fundamentally believes in equality?' is hard without a common understanding of the term.
Though I admit that my instinctive response would be 'no' and 'I don't think we ever have been.'

I think you are right, but equality comes in all sorts of disguises.

So

Equality before the law, is one important one.

from that flows all sorts of other important equalities.

Wealth equality, however can never happen and neither is it a particularly desirable thing. But what I do believe is that wealth inequality left rampant without the balances and checks is highly undesirable and leads to a society that performs badly in a number of levels

DA
*The market economy cannot exist as the only or overall driver if you believe in equality. Not the other way round. You say:

Everything flows from [the predominance of the market]. So concepts such as equality, protection, regulation etc etc are simply ideas that get in the way of the market functioning as it should (in their view).

I don't agree. I think it is the other way round. You cannot believe in the predominance of the market unless you discard any thought of equality. We can tie people in knots going into the economics but the question we should be asking ourselves is "Do we, as a country, believe in equality".*

Yes I agree. That is why neo-liberalism has been rejected by the vast majority.

Katie59

Probably the only example of equality we have is Cuba, where the economy depends on cash sent back by migrants in the US.
Survival is the only reason to get out of bed in the morning.
Russia is not equal, China certainly is not, there has to be the incentive to acquire a better life, more wealth, property or influence, otherwise there is no point in trying

Your view of equality and mine are not the same Katie.

The belief that we are all born equal leads to equality of opportunity. It certainly doesn't lead to communism any more than it leads to the sort of government we have been landed with. They are two opposite and equal extremes. Both need inequality for them to work.

I had thought it was tacitly agreed that we vote believing that we are all morally equal. You seem to be someone who doesn't agree. I wonder how many would agree with you. Probably more than I would have guessed.

I had thought it was tacitly agreed that we vote believing that we are all morally equal. You seem to be someone who doesn't agree. I wonder how many would agree with you. Probably more than I would have guessed.

We are all born equal for sure, its what happens in the first 20 yrs that matters, the decisions your parents make, the decisions you make, that will define your life. Being born poor does not stop you working hard at school and going to university, being born dyslexic does not stop you excelling in practical skills.

There are plenty that know exactly what rights they have but do not acknowledge any responsibility to contribute, they are able bodied but lazy and don’t care. I have much more respect for the migrants who have risked their life to travel thousand of miles to do the work that locals won’t cross the road for. That I just can’t justify, having spent 40yrs nursing, raising a family along they way paid taxes, others contribute nothing.

I know the virtue signalers on Gransnet won’t agree with me but that’s their problem not mine

I don't think we need to agree on what "Everyone being born equal" means Maizie. At this point, I would like to know what proportion of the country would agree with the statement and, more to the point, how many don't.

The nuances in what that statement means to individuals have given us our right, left and centre parties. Not believing gives us the far-right and far-left.

If we stick to pointing out that "This government does not believe in equality", it gives individuals a chance to decide whether they agree with the government (however they interpret "equality") or not. I would guess that the two of us who have commented on being shocked at this will not be the only ones.