A link to a fascinating talk below. The beginning is rather depressing, but the finish supports the solution proposed in The Rainbow Economy.
Do listen to it all.
Austerity
The Rainbow Economy
My three posts “Austerity is working?” I, II, and III have highlighted that there is an inherent injustice in our world today. And Ian (comments) tell us that even in economic terms austerity is not working. What is the solution?
I reminded us of the amazing and bloodless transition from an Apartheid regime to a Rainbow Nation that was led by Nelson Mandela. It worked because he managed to change the hearts and minds of the people to repent of and forgive past injustices, and be reconciled to one another. He changed the attitudes of the people of the nation of South Africa. He, Desmond Tutu and others reminded people that everyone, black or white, was equally valuable; not equal (as in identical) but Sons of the same Father. His vision was a nation which was a single community which treated everyone as a brother, irrespective of colour. Mandela changed the rules of the game – he change people’s attitudes.
Economics is about predicting the outcome of different actions and regulations. Predictions are based on the response of individuals to those actions educated by the response in similar situations in the past. The distribution of wealth shown in my earlier posts is a result of the initial distribution of wealth, economic rules and regulations, and people’s attitudes. As a simple formula:
Distribution of wealth today = Fn(Distribution yesterday, Economic Policies, Attitudes)
We have seen that the trend of today’s equation is to distribute the wealth more towards the rich. We have seen that most people would prefer a more even (but not uniform) distribution.
But it seems that the only variable in the equation above that anyone advocates changing is Economic Policies. Whether someone is an extreme capitalist or extreme socialist, focus is on tax and spending regulations and regimes – about different Economic Policies.
But what about Attitudes?
I recall a radio interview with one of Margaret Thatcher’s colleagues or friends, asking how she reconciled her hard economic policies with her Christian beliefs. The reply was that privately she looked to charity to ease the discomfort of those who suffered. But of course it would have been impossible for her, or the tough government to tell the nation to be charitable, it would reek of hypocrisy. Instead, her government and policies changed attitudes in that they gave individuals permission to be selfish and greedy – echoed today in Boris Johnson’s speech headlined “Boris Johnson invokes Thatcher spirit with greed is good speech”.
Ian made another comment, that in today’s South Africa there is an “endemic entitlement mentality including laziness, victim mentality, and bitterness that redistribution has not brought what the poor expected”
From these two example. at either end of the wealth spectrum, attitudes focus on self-interest. Such attitudes might be justified by comments like: “It’s not my job to care about anyone else – that’s the government’s responsibility” or “It’s the government’s responsibility to give me a job – it’s my right, I shouldn’t have to suffer”.
In the past humans lived in groups and tribes where everyone knew each other and everyone looked out for each other. People lived in communities and all felt responsible for the good of the community as a whole. There were expectations on individuals to contribute to the community and to help each other if they found someone in need. Relationships were considered important (you had to live with each other after a dispute) and everyone pulled together to make the community work.
Today we live in states where (generalising) we look to the government to look out for others. We don’t really care about the community as a whole so long as we are alright. Relationships matter less because we can always move somewhere else if we fall out with our neighbours, move jobs if we fall out with our boss, and change partners if we fall out with our partner. Our role in and value to society is as a ‘consumer’, and policies focus on giving the consumer what he wants. We have expectations of our government, and having paid our taxes we don’t really see that we should do anything more to help them. As long as we as individuals are comfortable we see no need to do so. We have abdicated our social responsibility to the state.
I think it is time to take it back.
Our attitude needs to change from that of selfish individual consumer. We need to become once again a member of a community, a member of society who feels responsible for society as a whole.
We need to change our expectations of ourselves and others to do what we can to help each other. We need to embrace the attitude of “what can I contribute” and respond according to our abilities. In such a climate we would see for instance Mr Cameron the individual behaving as if we are indeed “all in this together” and using his personal fortune to benefit others. We would see those who are on state benefits asking what they can do to contribute to society – and being given opportunities to contribute.
We need to value each person equally and encourage each to grow to fulfil their potential. Love has been defined as exerting oneself for the well-being of others. We need to love more – achieved by looking outwards. Oswald Chambers said that ‘Self-pity is of the devil”. Self-pity in difficult circumstances leads to bitterness and a victim mentality. Self-pity in comfortable circumstances prevents doing what is right for fear of our own needs in the future.
This new attitude is not completely absent from society (see links at the bottom), but it is rarely promoted and needs boldness and courage because it is so counter cultural. But let’s all be part of the revolution. A revolution in attitudes rather than government. A revolution that says “we are all going to make our society healthy …. Starting with me!” A revolution that calls us to “love one another as we love ourselves”.
So where can we start?
Take a look around and ask “what could I do to help?” “How can I spend my time better?” “How can I spend my money better?” “Who can I help who is struggling?” “Can I be doing something more valuable than watching TV?” There are so many possibilities. Can I help a young person contribute to society and earn some money? What organisations or charities could I help? Can I mentor someone? Can I visit a lonely old person, or pay their heating bills? Now I’m retired, what can I volunteer to help with? Since I have no time with my busy job, can I support important work financially?
But also, encourage others to do the same. When our friends grumble at the government for this or that, challenge them to think differently and take back some personal responsibility. We need to give each other permission to help society, to expect it rather than be surprised by it. We all need to change mindsets. We need to spread the word!
And of course we need to let the government – our representatives know what we want them to truly represent. We need to let them know what sort of economy we want, but we also need to demonstrate that we are ready to contribute too.
So, we are not helpless observers. Each one of us can make a difference. Let’s try.
Here as promised are some links which show some of what is happening already:
http://www.ivr.org.uk/ivr-volunteering-stats
In Britain, philanthropy is more dependent than ever on the generosity of the wealthiest, with the richest 1,000 taking a growing, active and more public role in charitable giving. Even as the latest UK Giving report showed a 20% fall in real terms in the amount the public gave to charity last year, the new Sunday Times Giving List survey showed a more than 20% increase in giving by the wealthy elite. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/BusinessRichList/article1246509.ece
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/
https://www.cafonline.org/PDF/UKGiving2012Summary.pdf
And finally, for encouragement, some quotes from one who claimed to speak for God:
“If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”
“Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
“Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.”
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy …. for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”
“Do not worry about your life, what you will eat and drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?”
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?… You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and they you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”
Previous posts:
https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/austerity-is-working/
https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/austerity-is-working-ii/
https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/austerity-is-working-iii/
Austerity is working? III
The world economy is in difficulty and has been for many years now. Debt is embedded in the system: individuals owe money to banks (who live off lending them more), nations owe money to the financial markets. All measures of wealth show that the richest are getting richer and the poorest are getting poorer. (See Austerity is working II).
People agree that the ideal is not a flat distribution of wealth. They think that the distribution of wealth favours the rich too much, but in reality it favours the rich much more than we realise:
But is there a problem with this? It depends on your personal philosophy.
For instance, if I think it is right that one human being, through no effort of its own (e.g as a result of who its parents are and where they happen to live) should be 1 million times richer than another, then this data in itself will not worry me.
Similarly, if instead of comparing myself to those who have more income than me I compare myself to those with less then I will not enjoy any feelings of being ‘hard done by’.
Opinions vary, but it seems that around $50000 is an ideal income for happiness. http://www.learnvest.com/knowledge-center/the-price-of-happiness-50000-123/ and a 2012 UK headline stated that “Families need £36,800 to live acceptably, study says” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18770783 Anyone earning more than that is likely to feel very comfortable.
So, in the rich West, most people are basically happy most of the time, cocooned by an income where financial concern is limited to sustaining the present level of comfort rather than worrying where the next meal is coming from. Most of the time the inequality of wealth doesn’t really impact, apart from leading to a few grumbles and jealous thoughts about those who earn more than we do. Passivity rules until or unless a crisis occurs which affects us as individuals, and then we get to see how difficult the situation really is for those who the system exploits and tramples… the poorest.
As I said in my earlier post (Austerity is working?) the current crisis has not noticeably affected the rich. Maybe there has been some mild discomfort for the better off, but the brunt of the austerity is taken, as usual, by the poorest.
Most of us realise that this is profoundly unjust.
Most of us want something to be done about this, but we look at our politicians and realise that they simply don’t understand. They are not even in the ‘mild discomfort’ bracket, and simply cannot empathise with those who have NO money at all to feed their family; those who have to get the basics for survival from the multiplying food banks. The people want the politicians to understand, hence petitions challenging MPs to experience living on low income: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week
The gulf in understanding is emphasised when the rich Mayor of London advocates greed:
Johnson called for the rich to be hailed for their contribution to paying for public services as he said that the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of income tax. “That is an awful lot of schools and roads and hospitals that are being paid for by the super-rich. So why, I asked innocently, are they so despicable in the eyes of all decent British people? Surely they should be hailed like the Stakhanovites of Stalin’s Russia, who half-killed themselves, in the name of the people, by mining record tonnages of coal?”
The mayor added: “It seems to me that though it would be wrong to persecute the rich…. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/boris-johnson-thatcher-greed-good
What exacerbates the injustice is the despair that there is no hope of changing the system. Those who have the power are those who benefit from the present system, and they have no intention of changing it. The democratic process which in theory would allow the people to choose honourable and just leaders offers no serious alternative. The traditional parties are basically indistinguishable, and so people begin to jump at any possibly credible alternative, such as the right wing UKIP party – not realising that the basis of the policies of UKIP is as flawed as the traditional parties.
And here we approach the reason for our problem. Economics works by trying to predict the behaviour of the masses to different financial laws and environments. And behaviour of the masses responds to the moral climate generated by the media and politicians. Changing the moral climate is a necessary part of the solution, but at present there are few trying to instigate the essential global climate change.
Governments are afraid of doing anything to damage the economy. They will only introduce humane policies if the pressure against the injustices of the system becomes too strong: if there is sufficient discomfort that we ordinary people are jogged out of our passivity; and when the politicians are at risk of losing their power. Today, ordinary people are stirring, but as yet they don’t see any way of ousting the politicians. In the past, these sorts of frustration have led to revolution and bloodbath.
Is there any alternative?
For an answer I look at the most recent success of humanity over greed and selfishness. I look at the transition from an evil apartheid regime ruling South Africa to a Rainbow Nation. I look to what made the difference between a bloody revolution and a peaceful change.
Mandela realised that trying to force a powerful opponent who had suppressed and oppressed millions of fellow human beings to hand over power by violence would lead to immense human tragedy. The mind-set of all oppressors includes fear of retribution, indeed, doesn’t justice demand retribution on the oppressor? Doesn’t justice demand an angry and violent response to injustice? That is the response of human nature. And if you are like me, you will have an inner core of anger at the injustice in our country today. It would feel right to ‘persecute the rich’, and the frustration at not being able to do so makes the anger and bitterness deeper. We are justified in feeling that – justice demands a fairer system.
But that is not the way. “An eye for an eye makes everyone blind”.
Mandela changed the hearts and minds of those in power.
The first step was to jog the world out of passivity, to show the world the oppression and to campaign for justice. The South African government could no longer claim ignorance about their unjust position. They realised that apartheid was untenable and so the barrier to change moved to one of fear of retribution if they were to lose power. We see the beginnings of that same fear in Boris Johnson’s comment that “it would be wrong to persecute the rich” – but I think we are in the situation where world leaders are still convincing themselves that the present system is OK. “Economic Apartheid” is working just fine!
Mandela’s second step was to graciously talk with those in power. He was willing to forgive their past injustice, and to lead his followers to forgive. He was not prepared to accept future injustice, future oppression of either the blacks or whites by the other group. He presented the vision of a rainbow nation, and inspired both blacks and whites to embrace that vision. Mandela gave up justified bitterness for the sake of the people, and he taught his nation to do the same. We need to learn from his approach.
So where are we today? We know that Economic Apartheid is unjust, but too many people have adopted the Johnson mantra ‘greed is good’, or are not sufficiently discomfited to shift from passivity. There is not yet enough voice crying out against economic injustice, and there are too many who justify it or ignore it. That needs to change. You and I need to change. We need to speak out.
Then we need a vision for a “Rainbow Economy”, and a change in mind-set that underpins it. That will be the topic of a future post.
………………………………………………..
Related links:
https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/austerity-is-working/
https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/austerity-is-working-ii/
To ensure that you hear about the Rainbow Economy, click the ‘follow’ button.
Austerity is working? II
Some items that I heard on the radio driving home – excuse any imprecision, I had my hands on the wheel and did not take notes:
- In the past year, the top 1% incomes have risen by around 35%, everyone else has risen by around 0.5%. Economists are debating whether this signifies and economic recovery.
- Quantitative easing puts money into the hands of the already very rich, in the hope that it will trickle down to the rest of the population. So far we have seen an increase in the number of houses exchanged for over £1million, and the highest price ever paid for a work of art.
- No central bank is likely to be bold enough to stop quantitative easing in the future.
I struggle to understand how, in a supposed democracy, this fits with austerity working. The poorer are getting poorer and the richer are getting richer. How can a civilized world accept this?
See the following for more. This is a global problem.
https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/austerity-is-working/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU
And some alternatives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/basic-economics/
See also:
https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/austerity-is-working-iii/
Don’t forget to ‘follow’ to hear more…
Austerity is Working?
“Austerity is Working” proclaims the headline in The Sunday Times.
Why does this make me angry? Shouldn’t I be glad that this pain that we are ‘all’ going through is finally working? After all, ‘we are all in this together’ so isn’t this encouragement to keep taking the treatment?
But what does ‘working’ mean? Let’s look at some other headline news that I recall recently:
- More people in work than ever before rely on state support to feed their families
- Food banks opening and helping thousands (and bizarrely someone claimed that this was a sign of a civilized society, that a few good people try to make up for the ineptitude of the rich)
- The “lost generation”: young people struggle to find work and purpose.
Is that what we mean by ‘working’? Surely not. Let’s look further:
- 2500 bankers are going to get bonuses of over £1 million
- 11% pay rise for MPs to take their salaries over £70thousand
If I were cynical I might think that the writer must be referring to the latter two examples. But no, he is referring to the new god, “the economy”. This “thing” that we have raised above basic humanity, above compassion, above “loving our neighbour as ourself”.
And who are the priests of this new god? Not the small people. Not those who suffered from losing all their savings in the banking crisis, or those whose money bailed out the banks. Not those who have to pay the extra ‘bedroom tax’. Not those who are now going to have to work to 66 or older just to feed themselves. Not those who frequent the foodbanks and rely on state support.
The priesthood are the wealthy.
Compared to many, I am wealthy. I could pay more tax and it would be no more than a minor inconvenience. But it makes me ashamed that we have a government who would rather tax the poor than risk offending the rich. Why do we not have a government who would close the budget deficit through taxing the higher paid, or tackling obscene bonuses, and a rich class who would willingly support them?
I have not suffered at all in this economic crisis. I continue not to suffer. And neither do any of our MPs, or any of those who administer the economy. Neither does Mr Johnson, who openly advocates greed as good.
I am ashamed, but helpless. I cannot see any political party that would change things. They all worship at the same altar.
I do what I can for those around me, and I’m sure you do to – but it’s not enough. It’s time for a new politics. It’s time for another Mandela, or Gandhi; time for a statesman not a politician.
The nation waits, but where is such a leader to be found?
—————————————————————
https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/basic-economics/
https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/austerity-is-working-ii/
Thoughts from a Minimalist Christian 