tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72203416504392246002024-03-08T02:28:21.627-08:00Original works by Stuart MillsStuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-12383377603084811942019-03-17T13:22:00.002-07:002019-03-17T13:22:56.450-07:00Cryptocurrencies and Corpocracies<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Cryptocurrencies are not libertarian. To
be sure, aspects of cryptocurrencies, and the blockchain technology on which
they are built, resonate profoundly with the libertarian ideal, but the
resonance of one’s soul with an idea does not engender the resonance of theory
with reality.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">When I wrote my essay, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://medium.com/@stuartmmills/cryptocurrencies-are-not-libertarian-37001b076e28" target="_blank">Cryptocurrencies are not Libertarian</a></i>”
(I’m not very good with names), I made three arguments: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;"><i>While
the value of a cryptocurrency, and its issuance, are not controlled by the
state, this is not dissimilar to how ‘traditional,’ currencies already work.
The value of floating currencies is already determined by markets, while
issuance is partly the result of fiat money mechanisms. Furthermore, this
infrastructure minimises the role of any individual. </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;"><i>Cryptocurrencies
are not as anonymous as cash, for any transaction is recoded on a publicly
viewable ledger. Further, the benefit of anonymity in terms of data protection
and preserving freedom of choice are better achieved by the existence of a
legislative body that can exercise power over bad actors and protect
individuals. As such, anonymity is a false prophet telling a bad story. </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;"><i>Where
anonymity may be valuable is in protecting those who are performing illegal
acts, or acts deemed damaging to authority. Yet, in such scenarios,
cryptocurrencies serve only as tools to facilitate activities, and the real
libertarian debate is around the prohibiting of activities. We should not
conflate cryptocurrencies as tools with the political question of the legal
authority of states.</i></span></li>
</ol>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">I maintain cryptocurrencies are not
libertarian. But the belief, which I might call myth, that they are is not only
dangerous insofar as it captures the minds of those of a particular political
persuasion in the same way gold does doomsday preppers. More subtle dangers
exist; dangers which, to be sure, exist whenever new technology grabs hold of
enough people’s imaginations. The danger is appropriation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Appropriation</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Reading Evgeny Morozov’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Net Delusion</i>, one could be mistaken
for thinking the whole point of the book is to attack the foreign policies of
(Bill and Hillary) Clinton, Bush and Obama. At times a slog, the premise of the
book is rather simple: the power of the internet could be utilised by the bad
guys as much as it could by the good.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">For Morozov, the West’s reliance on the
idea that the internet would supercharge the voices of dissidents and freedom
fighters is folly, and almost predictably so. Dictators and totalitarian
governments possess the raw force and infrastructure to assert their authority
on the ground and invest in building up their authority online. While
journalists and activists are given a platform to share their ideas, and while
this surely annoys those they are attacking, the impact can be minimised – if
not eliminated – by an army of bots, entertainment content and surveillance
strategies. While the internet gives everyone a platform to speak, it is still
hard and soft power which determines who is heard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Might cryptocurrencies suffer the same,
appropriated fate? I think so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Now, the possibility of cryptocurrencies
becoming dominated by states, totalitarian or otherwise, is not enough to
support the claim cryptocurrencies are not libertarian. Equally, and by the
same logic, the possibility of cryptocurrencies, either presently or sometime
in the future, being libertarian is not enough to argue that they are. The
internet, on paper, is a wonderful tool for the liberation of oppressed
peoples, and for some it will be. But every opportunity to liberate is another
opportunity to oppress, and oftentimes this is the case.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Cryptocurrencies may be – relaxing some
arguments – a tool for liberation from various economic systems (if this is the
argument you want to make, I will not stop you. My comment here is still,
however, rather critical. Most people who make this argument seek only to
re-forge the present economic system, rather than engaging in the more
interesting question of how the technology can radically design the way we do
things), but they may <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">also</i> be tools
for the crystallisation of economic systems. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">We do not know what will happen, because
– as many in the cryptocurrency community are wont to tell disparagers – the
technology is so new and dynamic. But let’s take a lesson from the internet,
and indulge some fortune telling.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">In my essay, “<i><a href="https://medium.com/@stuartmmills/a-modest-proposal-for-a-new-social-media-b7d220438efb" target="_blank">A Modest Proposal for aNew Social Media</a></i>,” (again, I’m bad with names, and not being self-referential,
apparently) I argued the future of social media will be one that integrates
cryptocurrencies. This was to be a solution to an agency problem arising from
the semi-unilateral harvesting and profiting off of data (semi-unilateral
because a) it is necessary to provide data to use the site, and thus consent
becomes a dubious thing, and b) your individual data appears meaningless when
combined with millions of others’, but it is the uniqueness which gives the
data value).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The idea was as follows: the social
media site has a cryptocurrency, and each user receives a small payment in this
cryptocurrency for engaging in content with the platform, such as liking a
post, commenting, status updating, and providing basic personal information.
The site would have basic currency sinks to regulate the economy of the coin
(like selling personalised emojis, banners etc.), but would also have a shop
where users could buy discount codes used for real-world purchases. For the
provider of these codes, they would receive invaluable user data; the social
media site would receive a share of the transaction when the code is used; and
the user would receive payment for the ‘sale,’ of their data. (For the record,
I think this would be a cynical way of fixing social media and our relationship
with data, but I also believe this is a very doable and – somewhat lamentably –
appealing idea to both regulators and Silicon Valley bosses)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Is this a realistic prediction of the
future of cryptocurrencies? I am confident when I say this prediction will be
inaccurate in several areas; there will be a revenue stream missing from the
concept, or a transaction stage, or something inane like that. But is this
prediction wholly unlikely? I think not.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">We already know, for example, Facebook
is planning to launch a cryptocurrency, possibly as early as this year. Amazon
already has a token of sorts with Amazon Coins, and for sites like YouTube a
cryptocurrency payments system could be an effective way of encouraging content
creators without relying on advertisement revenue. Services such as Uber and
AirBnB could surely leverage the advantages of cryptocurrencies too, and for
many investors in the technology, this is very much something they hope will
happen. But for libertarians, is any of this good?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Metallurgy or Alchemy?</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">In Adam Smith’s the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wealth of Nations</i>, the process of coinage is discussed a lot. It’s
an important discussion, because for Smith – whose book concerns <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">wealth</i> – knowing what money is, where it
comes from and why it means anything are vital questions. Many libertarians
like cryptocurrencies because they don’t come from a central bank or government;
the price is determined by the market, of which they are a part; and the supply
is limited to the amount that has been ‘mined,’ at any one time. Ultimately,
when considering libertarian ideas as a nexus of power, no single authority has
absolute control over a cryptocurrency.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Of course, ‘traditional,’ money used to
have a similar <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">laisse faire</i> approach.
When coinage was as much about weight and purity of metal as it was about the
ability to transact with it, anyone with a sufficient quantity of silver or
gold could produce their own money, and this would be essentially as valuable
and useful as money produced by a central authority. And they did.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The economic problem – or benefit, if
you are of the libertarian persuasion – with this, of course, is power. The
person that owns a lot of gold has a tremendous amount of power over the state
apparatus, and if many gold-owners get together, they can completely diminish
the power of the state. For the state, it is better to use its authority to
outlaw the private manufacturing of money and purchase raw materials for
coinage. In effect, the state assumes the monopoly of coin minting, and all the
economic power that comes with it. (For the gold-owners, it should be said,
they benefit too, by – for example – having a state apparatus that guarantees
the value of the money in their pockets and saves them the effort of turning
all their gold into coins, before convincing others their coins are worth using
as currency. In effect, the state can make markets through its perceived
legitimacy which individuals cannot – again, this is a key reason why
cryptocurrencies aren’t all that libertarian)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Importantly, what’s being described
above is the process of monopoly formation that can arise in any unregulated
market. The emphasis on money, rather than any other, ‘good,’ is that money is
present in every market. The authority to issue money, therefore, extends to
the authority to enable the formation of markets in other areas.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The word corpocracy is often the reserve
of science-fiction writers. It refers to a system of government where a
person’s rights and liberties are a function of their wealth and ownership;
rather than one person, one vote, it’s one share, one vote. The natural rise of
companies to supranational size invokes, at least for me, imbues thoughts of
corpocracy. Likewise, Leigh Phillips and Michael Rozworski’s book the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">People’s Republic of Walmart</i> emphasises
how modern corporations now rival states in terms of power and resources (and,
they argue, this undermines the free market idea that centrally planned
economies cannot work).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Quite what the libertarian view on
corpocracy is unknown to me – modern libertarianism often seems more about
doing what one likes but presently cannot do than it is about critiquing whole
systems of power which its anarchist cousin does excellently. My gut instinct,
though, would be opposition; the rule one share, one vote, necessarily deprives
those with no shares of any right to vote, which is wholly non-libertarian.
Maybe we mandate everyone has a single, unsaleable share, but isn’t the mandate
of unsalability itself non-libertarian? Quickly, one ends up walking around in
circles, so let’s return to cryptocurrencies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The hypothetical social media site has a
monopoly on their cryptocurrency, and by extension determines the value of all
data, and all things in their marketplace. Imagine if we decide 1 like is worth
1 unit of our cryptocurrency. Why? Who says our likes are worth that much? And
if so, why is sharing something worth, say, 2 units, or a comment worth 3? And
why is the discount code I so desperately want worth 1,000?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Facebook will never pay users in pounds
or dollars for their likes and shares, because that places the value of the
data they want into a medium they do not control, and it is control that is the
true value of the cryptocurrency, and indeed, of money generally. Similarly,
Facebook will never allow you to sell your tokens for real-world money, for that
would imply an exchange value and produce the same problem. They may, however,
allow you to buy their token for real-world money (this may also imply an
exchange price, but here Facebook controls the supply of the token; previously
they do not) or trade your token for other tokens, say Amazon’s token. Such
partnerships seem likely, firstly as a way of avoiding anti-trust laws, and
secondly as a way of leveraging advantage: Facebook doesn’t know anything about
the logistics which would be involved in a storefront, just as Amazon doesn’t
know anything about social media; together they would be an extremely powerful
online entity. (For the record, in my original essay, I specify some
user-specific algorithm would be used to determine the value of a given person’s
like, so that they could only ‘game,’ the system in a way that is beneficial to
the site. For example, if I like 100 things, the value of my like falls, but it
falls less if I have 1,000 friends rather than 10, and so on)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Do cryptocurrencies lead corpocracy?
That question has two answers. As above, the future of cryptocurrencies is
undetermined, but the myth of cryptocurrencies being libertarian and
transformative may lead to us blindly allowing the appropriation of
cryptocurrencies in ways that are wholly non-libertarian. This doesn’t have to
happen, but early signs suggest it is.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The second answer is no, but corpocracy
does necessarily require control of the means of exchange. The one share, one
vote definitional slogan can be extended to a great many other things,
including rights, and when the power of a share is elevated so much, it seems
natural that shares become the means of exchange. In the sci-fi corpocracy,
shares are essentially cryptocurrencies, but cryptocurrencies go one step
beyond shares. Shares represent ownership, and so for shares to be used as a
means of exchange, owners must necessarily reduce their ownership to supply
liquidity. Cryptocurrencies, with no ties to ownership, demand no such thing
from shareholders.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">My
fear of writing a dystopian nightmare</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">For a corpocracy to genuinely form,
monopolies must be allowed to form, and a means of co-opting the means of
exchange must exist. I do not believe corpocracy is our future, but just as
democracy moves through shades of freedom, so too will corpocracy move through
shades of reality (if not capitalism).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">A problem with economic ideas is they
often become characters in stories; capitalism is the tentacular plague that
seeks to dominate people’s lives; OR communism is the tentacular plague that
also seeks to dominate people’s lives. Neither capitalism nor communism are
conspiratorial characters, and likewise, the motives of the powerful in any
society are not quite so explicit as we might imagine them to be from a
distance. The rise of corpocracy will not be a conspiracy to undermine
democratic liberty and entrench the abstract concept of power in fewer and
fewer hands; but corpocracy does highlight the ever-present tension between
capitalism (or perhaps scarcity) and democracy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">For those invested in cryptocurrency
(literally and ideologically), there is not enough criticality of what the
technology will evolve into. Instead, there is simply the belief that evolution
is always good. Equally, I think, for those who disparage cryptocurrencies, too
often too few people ask the question, “but what if what I think doesn’t
matter?” Cryptocurrencies, like the internet, and like many transformative
technologies, will reveal societal tension which will demand a deft hand to
navigate. The myth of libertarianism will leave this role vacated and old
authorities will appropriate the benefits of the technology for their own
means, just as the myth of liberation left many dissidents out in the cold
while totalitarians appropriated the internet for their own advantage.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The point of this piece isn’t to attack
cryptocurrencies, or the people involved with them, nor is it – as the subtitle
suggests – to write a dystopian nightmare. Really, it’s to ask a question: if
cryptocurrencies aren’t libertarian, what are they?</span></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-77836861901887589202019-02-24T10:01:00.000-08:002019-02-24T10:05:16.335-08:00Going to Zero: Economics and Climate Change<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Our
response to climate change can no longer be about the lack of urgency, or
scientific limitations. Certainly, while some people remain to be convinced of
the anthropogenic nature of climate change, on the substance of its existence,
the majority are convinced. The only challenges preventing us doing something
radical and transformative in the face of climate change, then, seem to be
political and economic will.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">We
should ignore the question of political will for now. This reasoning will be
elaborated on in due course, but put simply, politics often walks hand in hand
with economics, and so by understanding the economic picture, we can consider
the political picture in much more nuanced term. From the perspective of economics,
there are roadmaps towards tomorrow, and compelling reasons to travel. It is
here we should begin.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Let’s
be clear, the scale of economic transformation to prevent the worse effects of
man-made climate change will be huge. The governor of the Bank of England Mark
Carney, for example, highlights some 30% of FTSE 100 companies will be directly
impacted by climate change due to their close association with our present
carbon energy system. As Durand (2018) notes, in order to keep emissions within
the IPCC temperature target of a 2<sup>o</sup>C increase, fossil fuel companies
will have to leave unused between two-thirds and four-fifths of their
carbon-based energy reserves. In short, massive parts of these companies’
values will become, for the stake of our survival as a species, worthless.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Of
course, sometimes it is hard to have sympathy for large organisations,
especially those that contribute so greatly to environmental degradation. But
it is important to remember that the impact of these companies is not simply
environmental. Many millions of ordinary and hard-working people are employed
in fossil-fuel related industries, and part of our climate strategy must tackle
the question of how do we safeguard these people? Speaking of climate strategy,
obviously reducing the amount of carbon we put into the environment can’t just
be solved by restricting supply of carbon-based energy; we must also tackle
demand.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">It
is from these two perspectives that much of this piece will revolve. The
question of jobs, both now and in the future, will be tackled, prior to and
following a discussion of energy demand. As one might expect, such ideas are
open to criticism, and criticism should be welcomed. As such, following these
ideas, a discussion of present and future difficulties is offered. Finally, we
return to the question of political will, illuminated to the economic
circumstances of which the question resides, and a tentative answer is offered.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">It
is important also to recognise what this piece is not. This piece does not
consider, for example, the environmental consequences of industries such as
food production or rare-mineral extraction, both of which are closely linked to
greenhouse gas pollution, environmental degradation and resource scarcity. The
omission of these topics is not due to minimise their importance; rather, they
simply fall outside the general remit of topics discussed in this piece.
Furthermore, while many of those topics may fall into the catch all term of
something like a Green New Deal, and while the focus of this piece will largely
be focused labour and infrastructure, of which various GNDs concern themselves,
this piece is not a critique or analysis of any GND, though ideas have been
drawn from and adapted from, for example, Ann Pettifor’s work of a UK Green New
Deal. If this piece must serve any relation to such legislative proposals, let
this be as a broad and most certainly flawed introduction, rather than a
reflection. Finally, it seems important to reference here, due to the lack of
reference elsewhere within the text, climate refugees. Climate refugees do not
fall in any distinct capacity into the broad categories of labour or
infrastructure, and the issue is not discussed here as a result; yet, the
consequences of climate change, above all else, will manifest in human form,
and it would be questionable to emphasise the urgency of our climate response
without any acknowledgement of the human cost of complacency. Similarly, and in
what serves as the only major critique of present GNDs offered here, climate refugees
should be at the heart of a foreign policy chapter within all future GNDs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Jobs, part 1</span></i></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Immediately,
we should note, there are effective, radical, rapid and – given enough politicking
– political solutions to the question of jobs lost due to the decarbonising of
the economy. The old mantra of largely centrist/centre-left politics has been a
promise to, say, coal-fire workers redundancy followed by retraining. In
practice this is a solution, but it ignores so many real issues, hence why such
strategies retain the veneer of condescension.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Many
of these workers have been employed in these industries, perhaps doing the
exact same job, for several decades. It’s just unrealistic to expect these
workers will either a) want to retrain or b) have the necessary skills to learn
and transition to a new industry. To some veterans of these industries, such an
offer may even be humiliating, as society not only diminishes the value of
their work in the present but also seems to blame them for the problems of
today and tomorrow. Regardless of all these issues, these people must continue
to work for a time, as will many of those employed for shorter periods in these
industries. This highlights another problem, which is wage security. What good
is retraining if while retraining one can’t earn any money, or available
compensation is necessarily low, and the wages associated with alternative
roles (potentially skilled work earning a higher level of pay, but, given the
challenges outlined previously, likely non-skilled, low-paid work) is also
precarious?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">We
have seen with the legacy of the mining towns what happens when industries are
allowed to fade away and inadequate support is provided. If, as will be
necessary, we need to end the use of coal in our energy network as fast as
possible, we will need a radical solution. It is here a simple idea is offered:
we guarantee to pay those employed in these industries their annual salary
every year until they retire, regardless of whether retrain and get a job,
simply get another job, or decide to give up work. The only requirement for
such a package would be to accept redundancy at point of request. This would,
essentially, be an industry-specific basic income, and it would have several advantages.
Firstly, it would allow those who do not want to retrain to simply not have to,
without the wage insecurity that would come with such a decision. Secondly, it
would support those who would like to retrain to do so and would open
retraining opportunities beyond those which the government could provide. For
example, a worker to go back to school, or start their own business. Thirdly,
it would ensure economic activity in the communities effected by the industry
closures. Finally, it would be an economically sensible investment, achieving
our aims rapidly in the short-term, while being a relatively small investment
in the long-term. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Thinking
of this proposal as an investment – which we should acknowledge is, given the
urgency of this matter, a rather dubious, cynical and unhelpful exercise – we
should be happy to pay individuals several thousands of pounds for the best
part of 40 years if that safeguarded the survival of the planet for the next
hundred or the next thousand. Compared to the upside, the cost of this scheme is
exceptionally good value. Of course, it would need to be funded. A 2015 IMF
report into government subsidies of fossil fuel companies found global
subsidies totalled around $5.4trn. Even a small portion of these subsidies could
be put into a wealth fund, managed to ensure its longevity, and paid out
regularly to those covered by the basic income scheme.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">New Energy</span></i></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">The
economic problem of climate change cannot simply be tackled by ending the supply
of fossil fuel energy. While it is so obvious it seems silly to state it, state
it we must: our energy systems exist in their current form because they
facilitate our present energy demands. Furthermore, the dynamics of energy
demand, has two parts, namely how much energy we use, and how we use that
energy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">On
this latter point we should not linger, partly, and frankly, because this remains
our biggest hurdle in tackling climate change, and so there is little that can
be said beyond acknowledging this continuous challenge. Yet, it seems appropriate
to say something. Solar power, for example, is excellent during the day, but
during the night our energy needs must be met by energy stored in batteries,
provided, say, we are reliant on solar energy sources. Our energy storage
capacities are still insufficient to meet our round-the-clock energy needs
quite in the way conventional energy sources do, but as the World Bank (2017)
reports, we are getting ever closer to solving this problem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">A
more interesting point of consideration is how much energy we use. The
narrative of economic growth suggests that human energy consumption will
increase ad infinitum as our capacity to consume individually, and the number
of us consuming generally, increases. On the topic of population, there is
always a risk of facilitating ever more disagreeable discussions, and so it is
sufficient to acknowledge that as economies develop, their population expansion
seems to decrease, and globally, the rate of population increase appears to be
slowing. In terms of mouths to feed, both literally and as a metaphor for
energy consumption, there appears to be a maximum number we need to provide
for. Thus, then, we should concern ourselves with how much energy we can use. If
we each continue to use an ever-increasing amount of energy, it matters little
how many of us are alive to do so; energy consumption will still increase. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Or
will it? An important observation offered in Thorstein Veblen’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Theory of the Leisure Class</i> (1899) is
that consumption takes two forms, namely consumption over time and
materialistic consumption. Consumption over time is a rather simple concept. A
person who does not need to work because of their wealth can choose not to
work, and thus can spend that time doing something else. For Veblen, this may
have been hunting on an estate; in the modern era, this may be holidaying in a
foreign country. Again, in the language of Veblen, all consumption that is not
necessary to survival compromises of a greater or lesser element of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">conspicuous consumption</i>; consumption
used to demonstrate one’s position or class within society. We all consume
conspicuously, but as Veblen noted, there is an absolute limit – and one that
is quickly reached – on the amount of time-based conspicuous consumption any
one person is capable of. We all experience the passage of time equally, and on
average we all have access to a broadly similar amount of time, in which part
is spent working, part necessarily consuming and part conspicuously consuming.
Ergo, for some, the capacity to ‘spend,’ their time (interestingly, perhaps
where the turn of phrase, “spend time,” is derived) is insufficient to
demonstrate their wealth, power and thus status within society.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">For
these individuals, and for those for whom price mechanisms prevent time-based
consumption, the alternative, material form of consumption, becomes the means
of expression of one’s access to resource. But here, too, there is a limit. We
see it circumstantially during financial crises, where concerns over financial
stability cause many to become unnecessarily frugal. But we also see it in
accumulation, and in turn indebtedness. For those tremendously wealthy
individuals who, by virtue of their wealth, dominate corporate and political
narratives, there is literally nothing which they could purchase to adequately
demonstrate their wealth. Indeed, the frequent beguilement of many to the
desperation of the few to make just a little more money demonstrates both ours
and their inability to grasp the sheer level of wealth controlled by these
people, and the relative insignificance of any subsequent gain (or loss).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">We
need not linger on wealth either; again, while an obvious statement, a person’s
ability to consume is limited by their ability to afford to consume. This, more
than above, is key when thinking about climate change, and humanity’s capacity
to use energy. For many, the limit of what a human could theoretically consume,
either in time or material, is less than they could afford to consume. Even
then, wealth, while crucial, is not the only factor impacting consumption;
there is also desire. We should, therefore, also appreciate the role of
diminishing marginal utility. As such, there may be a natural, if economically
determined, limit to the amount of energy any individual could utilise.
Considerations of the wealthy only further contribute to this idea; if
billionaires are to serve as natural experiments in the essential de-limiting
of one’s capacity to consume, we can see such an experiment would fail. Rich
people cannot consume all the wealth they accumulate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Returning
to our demand for energy, it may be the case that in the long-term as economic
growth enables more avenues for consumption, the individual’s demand for energy
will increase, but in the short-term we might assume a plateau. And, in a rare
example of where the urgency of climate change is a good thing, we are only
interested in the short-term. Furthermore, an assumption of long-term increase
need not be the case if a revolution in the mindset of human consumption is
successful. For example, the society demands from those who contribute to
growth that said growth be carbon neutral or even carbon-reducing. In other
words, if the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in-vogue</i> thing is to
produce products that are environmentally friendly – which some companies have
endeavoured for many years to do – we may see a shift in mindset to one that
places production method and origin at the forefront of consumer decision
making. Finally, as organisations such as Degrowth and other elements of the
economic pluralist movement advocate, we might even abandon economic systems
built on perpetual growth and replace (or incorporate) such standards with
alternative, ecologically minded metrics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Thus,
then, the question of dealing with energy demand need not necessarily demand
reduced energy consumption per se, and to do so would be dangerous, not only
from the perspective of restricting people’s liberty, but because it would
associate climate change action with economic stagnation or decline. The
transition away from fossil fuels will be accelerated, not hindered, by a
strategy that promotes it as a driver of economic prosperity, whether
prosperity is classical economic growth, some more nuanced re-alignment of
economic language, or simply the promise and prospect of higher wages and
better employment opportunities. So let us set the question of curbing energy
consumption to one side, assume that we simply need to reach a short-term
energy demand, and think about how we can champion such economic prosperity as
part of a green agenda.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Jobs, part 2</span></i></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">As
Ann Pettifor (2018) reports, the consistently low investment in UK housing
stock has left many properties woefully energy inefficient: “the UK ranked
eleventh out of fifteen European countries in terms of housing energy
performance” (Pettifor in McDonnell, 2018: 49). Similarly, in the US, figures
from the Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2013) for 2009 show that 47.7%
of household energy use was from space heating and cooling. Better household
insulation, the encouragement of the development of temperature regulation
technologies and legislating for proper insulation to be fitted to new homes,
or when homes are bought, would reduce household energy use massively, with
savings being passed to occupants. In fact, the EIA reports that household
energy use for heating and cooling is down 9.9% from 1993, in part due to
better insulation and more efficient home technologies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Again,
this is something we can do, and something which national executives can do
with greater efficiency and long-term benefits than individuals may be able to.
Workers will be needed to retrofit buildings or build new properties where
those deemed financially unsustainable are demolished. These jobs should form
part of a work package that is offered to those made unemployed by the loss of
jobs in this decarbonisation program. Importantly having guaranteed income for
these workers, such jobs do not become stigmatised as degrading and charitable
work, but as a genuinely, socially valuable role. But we need not rely solely
on those left out-of-work. The nature of work is transforming across the
Western world, and many people are stuck in low-paid, insecure service jobs. An
ambitious infrastructure plan to retrofit homes and install green energy
technology should also include well-paid apprenticeships and training
opportunities which allow workers to remain important and skilful members of
the workforce long after the initial infrastructure spur has been completed.
This returns to the core of what must be our green economic message: no one can
be left behind.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">But
the reform to the labour market cannot stop here. It is hard to imagine, given
any technological or social upheaval, what the future of work will look like.
However, we would be foolish to not recognise the rise of automation on the one
hand, and the consequences of decarbonising our economy on the other, will lead
to less or greater demand for existing roles and the demand for new jobs (the
question of whether these new jobs will be numerous enough to continue to
provide employment to many is beyond the scope of this piece. Equally, it would
be an oversight not to acknowledge this concern, and if one is interested,
elements of this piece already discussed such as basic income may become a
necessary part of our labour force strategy. Similarly, there may be
environmental benefits to facilitated unemployment, for example by enabling
time-based consumption rather than material consumption to flourish.
Additionally, embracing digital consumption practices, which go together with
the automation revolution, seems like a potentially environmentally beneficial
strategy). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">These
jobs, from an environmental perspective, may include ecological and
conservation experts. The West runs the risk of the failures of past
interventions if, via military and economic means, we attempt to co-opt smaller
and emerging economies and those of the Global South to embrace environmentally
friendly development strategies. Part of an acceptance of the global challenge
of climate change must be an acceptance of ourselves as global citizens and our
nations as one within a group, rather than dictator and sub-ordinate. Faced
with the alarming prospect of climate change, it may appear justified to some
to intervene in the development and economic decisions of countries such as
Brazil to protect environmental entities (such as the Amazon rainforest) which
are not under our control but crucial to our own survival. This will not be
justified, however, and will serve only to accelerate us towards one possible
future, to borrow a phrase from Peter Frase (2016), that of barbarism. Better
it seems to advance solutions to this environmental agency problem which are of
mutual benefit to both those with sovereignty over resources, and those with
interests in the preservation of those resources.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">An
educational emphasis on environmental protection, and a technical emphasis on
green technology and innovation, would position the West to be fantastically
placed to offer, on fair terms, consultation and assistance to emerging and
ecologically significant countries, enabling them to leap-frog, as they must,
the age of carbon-based industrialisation into a comparable age of green
industry. These ideas must surely form part of future international trade
institutions, which by their very nature already have an invaluable place in
any future green economic agenda, and must – if necessary – be supported via
comprehensive foreign aid provisions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Scepticism and concern</span></i></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">One
might at this point, especially given what has just been said, hold a degree of
scepticism about the view taken in this piece. Beginning with the most recent
suggestion, for it seems the least divisive from a political perspective, one
might wonder whether what has been said is not terribly vague and superfluous?
To this, we should not deny this charge. It is important that much of the economic
response to climate change must be grounded both in the scientific evidence of
what is and will mostly likely happen and the technical knowledge of what can
be done within the necessary timeframe to achieve our desired outcomes. In
short, we should always place an emphasis on utilising tools available in the
here and now, on what technology exists <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">today</i>,
and on what data exists <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">today</i>, and
not on the maybe of tomorrow. In highlighting but not lingering on the problem
of battery storage, for example, or recognising it is only short-term
consumption which must now be of any analytical concern, this piece has
attempted to do so. Alas, then, the question of tomorrow’s jobs and the
future’s international relations belongs more so in the realms of futurology than
they do in the minds of today’s policy makers. The very nature of their answers
existing in the future is the primary contributor to the vague and superfluous
nature of the proposal, and this is unavoidable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Yet,
as a wider consideration which, had we adopted this mindsight several decades
or several centuries prior (hindsight continues to prove itself wonderful),
would have mitigated the environmental situation we find ourselves in, we
should always endeavour to move forward not just with an eye to policy, but
with an eye to policy implications. Man-made climate change is the most
important issue of our time, but it is not the only issue, and while one might
be reluctant to admit as much for fear of diminishing the issue at hand, it
would be foolish to not recognise our environmental strategy will inevitably
become entangled in, say, the problems of automation or the problems of rising
inequality. An eye to the future, even if it is obscured by the distance we
still have to travel, is better than no eye at all, and a procession towards an
unknown destination.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">We
should also recognise that the state, as puppet master or financier, plays a crucial
role in the ideas outlined here. There is a certain degree of inevitability in
the role of the state, being that climate change is a global problem and states
are our best example of accountable global actors. As part of a global
dialogue, states must and indeed have been the voice of their respective
citizens. The role of the state, at least diplomatically, however, does not
diminish a question of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">function</i>
of the state as part of a package to tackle climate change. The promise of
basic income, for example, may be best attacked not because of its practical
purpose within a wider decarbonising programme but because of the precedent it
sets. On this particular issue, however, we should have little concern, and
where concern is found, it should be in the branding (basic income) and not in
the substance of the policy. For example, such a policy should be funded from
subsidies world governments already give to the fossil fuel industries. In
terms of the political economy, then, the role of the state changes little;
instead of subsidising corporations that are soon to be defunct in a
decarbonised world, the state subsidises workers, who will still be capable of
making a contribution to society and who will still deserve as much access to
our collective future as anyone else.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">The
defunct nature of fossil fuel corporations is, however, one of contention, and
indeed, within this piece, much has been said for the protection of citizens
and infrastructure, but not of the protection of corporations which, as stated
previously, contribute a significant amount of value to national economies and
the global economy. The question, really, is is it right for society to let
these companies fail? And, as some will believe, if these companies are not
destined to fail due to the power of the free market, is it not the case that
the free market, rather than the state apparatus, is sufficient and perhaps
preferable?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">From
a very pure capitalist perspective, one should not shed a tear for the failure
of a company if it is unable to compete within an ever-changing marketplace.
If, as will soon be the case, large fossil fuel companies find themselves with
fossil fuel reserves which are now necessarily worthless, then that is the
natural pull of the market, and any exposure is the fault of those within these
companies who did not foresee this inevitability. If, on the other hand, they
did foresee this inevitability, and these fossil fuel companies endeavoured to
transition their business into one of Greentech and renewables research, that
would be a market-based adaption, free from the hand of the state, which should
be applauded. But not all innovation is fair innovation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">For
example, fossil fuel reserves which cannot be extracted for the sake of the
environment have a value in what devolves into a hostage like situation. It
would be irresponsible, though certainly praised by some, to simply adjust the
present subsidies such that fossil fuel companies are paid to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> extract the assets they own. Such a
strategy may prevent further environmental degradation, but this strategy would
also protect the interests of shareholders and capital at the expense of
workers, who would no longer be required, and as a result worker communities.
Likewise, subsidising fossil fuel investment in Greentech has a certain
rationale to it, but it also feels tremendously immoral, an approach that would
be tantamount to a protection racket, like paying the arsonist to put out their
own fire. This is besides recognising that any such innovation shift,
subsidised or otherwise, would likely displace a great many workers presently
employed by the fossil fuel companies, and the state would still need to
intervene.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">On
this question in particular, opportunities for the free market do exist, but
the result of any route leaves workers exposed. If such an innovation shift
occurs naturally within the market, we should offer no objections, but we must
focus our efforts on protecting workers, not capital, from the necessary
disruptive forces of decarbonisation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">On
the question of the free market generally, as with comments made previously, we
should not ignore the unknowns of the future. The innovation of the free
market, if one believes it more innovative than the state apparatus, may
produce in the future some technology which revolutionises our economy, society
and relation to energy. This may happen, and as the need for Greentech
skyrockets, indeed such advances probably will happen. But, again remembering previous
comments, the time horizons to prevent the worse effects of climate change have
shortened to the point of requiring action in the short-term. We can remain
optimistic about any innovative potential, and probably should, but we must
emphasis strategies that can be implemented here and now. As such, it would be
foolish to discount the free market as a potential actor in the decarbonisation
revolution, but equally, there is too little time for us to rely on it either.
Thinking of this another way, Friedrich von Hayek (1960) argued that the free
market maximises the number of experiments society can perform in order to find
solutions to problems, and as such always produces better solutions faster
than, say, the state, which can only attempt one strategy at a time. There are
be many rebuttals to this logic, but on the question of climate change, only
one rebuttal seems necessary; it is no longer necessary to find the most
efficient solution to preventing climate disaster, we simply need to find a
solution that works. Only then should we worry about optimisation. This is part
of the price we must pay for our prolonged deference on this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">This
lack of optimisation will take many forms and will undoubtedly cause setbacks
and the loss of reputational and political capital. One area where we should
proceed with caution, for example, is that of inequality. In retrofitting
millions of homes to better regulate temperature and with solar panels, we will
inevitably encounter the politics of the housing market and accessibility to
housing more generally. Resolving this issue is a creature und to itself, but
nevertheless, a blinkered approach will not be helpful. Again, the temptation
is to emphasise panic and the apocalypse for fear that legitimate emphasis on other
concerns would distract from the very real issue of climate change. But part of
the real issue must involve answering legitimate questions about housing
availability, housing quality and gentrification. Yet, even resolving these
problems, the process of retrofitting may still be plagued with the challenge
of inequality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Time
is not on our side, and so it pragmatically makes sense to retrofit homes that
are the easiest to retrofit first, alongside legislating for high standards of
energy performance in all new build properties. Yet the properties that will be
easiest to retrofit will be newer properties, and those where the owners have
already invested in modernisation and efficiency improvements. This will likely
capture more wealthy individuals than those poorer individuals, who frequently
occupy lower-standard housing stock, or rent and thus do not have the authority
to invest in their accommodation. On this latter point, then, legislation
demanding landowners retrofit their accommodation may be a useful tool. But
beyond this, the point still remains; the pragmatic approach may lead to
investment in wealthy communities before poorer communities, with the benefits
of this investment being felt first by those who will benefit less from them.
Again, it should be emphasised that such a scenario is the product of our
present circumstances, and may be mitigated with intelligent accompanying
legislation, or may not even manifest. The advantage of raising such an example
now is two-fold: firstly, to acknowledge that the present solutions to climate
change are not perfect, but they remain necessary, and thus a lack of
perfection while necessary to acknowledge is not a sufficient excuse for
inaction; secondly, that we should be honest about the scale of disruption a
decarbonisation programme will bring about, and that there will be spill-over
effects into different areas of the economy and society we must also be ready
to tackle.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">These
spill-over effects should not, however, be a rallying cry against the political
advantage of framing the decarbonisation agenda as one of grand narrative and
(inter)national mission, in favour of the technocratic incrementalism which we
have had for several decades. As the economist Mark Blyth recently stated, “no
one gets excited over a carbon tax.” Equally, as Srnicek and Williams (2015)
argue, disaster is not the impetus for enthusiasm. An unspoken essential of the
ideas discussed thus far has been one that does not threaten destruction and
degradation: redundancy for fossil fuel workers must be transformed into
opportunities which return agency to workers and does not infantilise them;
infrastructure transformation must be promoted as a great, society-wide
investment in our collective future; and international relationships must be approached
as a truly global affair that will continue well beyond our present
predicament, and will allow all nations to move forward together.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">The Next Revolution</span></i></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">This
strategy of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">building</i> the future,
rather than simply saving it, is a deeply political one. And it is the reason
why we must reject any intransigence for political reasons, and be bold in
proposing new economic solutions, even if – as is shown here – those solutions
require development. Political intransigence is often excused in the face of
seemingly unrealistic economic ideas. Yet there is merit in an economic
approach burgeoning on fantasy; indeed, it is often those fantastical ideas
that inspire the practical ideas of today and become the practical ideas of
tomorrow. But the ideas proposed here are not fanciful, far from it in fact. At
the core of any proposals given here is a recognition of the constraints placed
on our actions due to climate change, and a rejection of blind faith in the
solutions of tomorrow saving us. If the solutions exist today, we should move
forward with them, and if better, more practical solutions to climate change
emerge during the process of decarbonisation, that is a windfall we should
embrace. But we must abandon the idea of paying for inaction today with
tomorrow’s windfall; that policy is why we are in this situation to begin with.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Yet,
the promotion of political intransigence as a hurdle which must be tackled
before anything else has a modicum of truth. While it is true that grand
economic change cannot occur without first having the political will to enact
such a programme, it is also true that offering people hope, and selling
policies which directly suggest to the electorate not simply a solution to
disaster but an opportunity to thrive, is core to any politician aspiring for
power. The submission to the failings of political will is a self-fulfilling
prophecy; it is Mark Fisher’s (2009) There is No Alternative (TINA) argument
manifest in its most unhelpful and destructive guise. Necessarily, economic
vision must precede political action, facilitated by a whole suite of PR
strategies to sell that economic vision, and thus enable an effective polity.
If those economic policies naturally complement the PR message of hope and opportunity,
then we are embracing an effective <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">political</i>
policy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">It
is worth considering, however, what the alternative political narratives are.
As above, there are strategies to decarbonising the economy which should secure
favour from right-wing politicians: tax subsidies for Greentech investment,
government purchasing of fossil fuel reserves to ensure the asset base of
exposed companies, and – in extreme circumstances – the mass closure of
damaging (easily rephrased as loss-making following enough carbon taxation)
fossil fuel sectors such as coal-fire power plants. As explained above, these
policies, respectively, promote turning the arsonists into firefighters, turn
fossil fuel reserves into a hostage situation only fixed via socialisation, and
risk the devastation and abandonment of workers and their industry-dependent
communities. Indeed, the West’s response to the financial crisis of 2008 serves
as an excellent example of future potential strategies. And what must also be
said, despite the clear criticisms of such policies outlined here, is that
these policies are not beyond saleability, but such strategies would involve
the demonization of climate refugees and fervent appeals to national security. None
of these policies, nor the justifications of them, inspire hope and optimism,
but as time runs out, and thus urgency increases, it may be these unequal and
socially fragmenting policies which become our adopted solutions. Of course,
these not be.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">We
need not reject these ideas simply on the basis of our dissatisfaction with the
world such policies would ultimately create, but because they would be
economically unhelpful to the vast majority of people. As above, income
inequality, corporatism and access to basic amenities for the poor are
important and vocal challenges facing our societies today. This is without the
pressing challenge of climate change. Promoting policies that tackle two birds
with a single stone – that marry investment with redistribution, that marry
retraining with genuine opportunity, that encourage mutual global relations
rather than technocratic, corpocratic and class-divisive relations – will
deliver prosperity to societies that adopt these policies. And, it must be
said, there is no tool better disposed to us for the propagation of an economic
and environmental revolution than by demonstrating to both policy makers and
peoples the success which might be achieved. Ultimately, this is why at the
start of this piece the politics was separated from the economics. We could
call on Bill Clinton’s famous political slogan, “it’s the economy, stupid;”
though, as we might expect, Keynes put it more elegantly, “look after the
unemployment, and the budget looks after itself.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">While
both these statements were made in rather different circumstances to our
present, the core message rings true: good economic policy will supersede
political intransigence. It is for this reason we should, baring a fair
appreciation of the challenges which face us, cast aside those who seek to do
nothing because they believe nothing can be done, and accept that we can solve
the challenge of climate change. Today. Now.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">References</span></i></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Durand, C
(2018) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fictitious Capital’</i> Verso
Books: London<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Energy
Information Administration (2013) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Heating
and Cooling No Longer Majority of US Home Use</i>’ [Online] [Date Accessed:
24/02/2019]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10271<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Fisher, M
(2009) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Capitalist Realism</i>’ Zero
Books: London<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Frase, P (2016)
‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Four Futures’</i> Verso Books: London<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Hayek, F (1960)
‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Constitution of Liberty’</i> Routledge
Classics: London<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">International
Monetary Fund (2015) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">How Large Are
Global Energy Subsidies</i>’ [Online] [Date Accessed: 24/02/2019]: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/How-Large-Are-Global-Energy-Subsidies-42940<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Pettifor, A
(2018) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">To Secure a Future, Britain Needs
a Green New Deal</i>’ in McDonnell, J (2018) (eds.) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Economics for the Many</i>’ Verso Books: London<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Srnicek, N,
Williams, A (2015) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Inventing the Future’</i>
Verso Books: London<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Veblen, T
(1899) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Theory of the Leisure Class</i>’
Renaissance Classics: USA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">World Bank
(2017) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Energy storage can open doors to
clean energy solutions in emerging markets</i>’ [Online] [Date Accessed:
24/02/2019]: http://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/energy-storage-can-open-doors-clean-energy-solutions-emerging-markets<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-12075687000571467322019-01-31T13:03:00.000-08:002019-01-31T13:03:29.594-08:00We’re All Pluralists Now: Challenges and Victories of the Pluralist Movement<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In a behavioural economics class
recently, I was discussing the concept of pluralism. The exact question up for
discussion was, “is economics right?” which – before any answer can be given –
demands we understand what economics actually is. From these postgraduate
students with whom I was speaking, ideas were provided hesitantly. Economics
involved supply and demand and had something to do with utility maximisation.
Keynes had been an economist, one student has said.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Answering the question of what economics
is is an essay for another time. My response to these students, then, given the
daunting task that might have faced me, was that economics was the study of
value systems. It questions what society values, how it values things and – on
the question of utility – what does value actually mean?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Again, these are big questions, and
often superfluous ones. I argued as much; economics as a discipline is innately
tied to political forces, with political economy, for example, often being the
study of what to do with surplus production. Beyond anything, this is a
political question. At this point, I believe there was a realisation. If
politics can change, so too can economics. If attitudes can change, so too can
what we value.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">This is a useful, but dangerous way to
think about economics. It allows economics a freedom not available to its
counterparts in the natural sciences – the ability to change and adapt as
necessary. But it is dangerous because, particularly when taught, it suggests
that for every political/social/economic problem, there is an economic school
which can solve it. This is a bastard form of pluralism, and it is what I
desire to discuss.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">First, however, here is a problem. In
less pompous language than my own, a student asked me how we can know which
economic key fits a given policy lock? In other words, what is correct
economics today, and how will we know if it’s still correct tomorrow?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">This desire for absolutes amongst an
academic trail of ‘isms,’ is understandable, if regrettable. This is not what I
wish to linger on. Rather, I will conclude my story. My view of pluralism is
what one student called nihilistic economics: nothing is right, nothing is
wrong, nothing is known, and everything is possible. In the face of such an
open-ended philosophy, an important question was asked. What is the point?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">This is a question I have thought about,
so much so I have been inclined to write about it. It is a question that
resonates because, in one form or another, I have seen this sentiment before.
This will not be an attack on the present pluralist movement, or the
institution of which the movement consists. I am, in broad strokes, an ally of
that campaign, and celebrate their victories. But, in a way I fear is
characteristic of a pluralist, I believe some worthwhile words may be said.
After all, nothing is right, nothing is wrong.</span></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Remembering Realism</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">My definition of pluralism is a personal
one. A more common definition may be, “the study of various, sometimes
contradictory, schools of economic theory and analysis.” By this definition,
the mission of organisations such as Rethinking Economics, or the activism of
groups such as the Post-Crash Economics Society cannot be criticised. Neither
can the wider goals of groups such as Joe Earle’s Economy charity, who aim to
reform the image of economics as a closed off subject and the economy as an
amorphous creature into an image that is more representative of reality; one of
real people, decision making and the values which underpin those actions. I
wholeheartedly applaud this effort and will return to this in due course.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">I want to first consider another
anecdotal experience. Several years ago, I attended a roundtable discussion on
universal basic income held by the Post-Crash Economics Society. At the time I
was sceptical of UBI, and remain somewhat still, yet objectively I would not
deny UBI’s place as a heterodox economic position. I voiced my scepticisms, and
everyone politely listened, before others voiced their opinions (some more
developed and significantly better researched than mine). This was pluralist
economics in action, but I too found myself wondering what was the point? After
some consideration, I think I know the cause of my dissatisfaction; it was
academic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Let us think about UBI. In terms of
tackling rising inequality and automation, UBI may be a solution. It may be a
necessity in a market rationing form of socialism as suggested by Peter Frase,
or as a market perpetuating tool in a Keynesian economy where profit tends too
zero. Friedman even proposed UBI in the form of negative income tax, and indeed
a dubious argument could be made that the tax-free income allowance is a form
of UBI.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">These are very pluralistic takes on
universal basic income. They are not particularly practical. While I accept the
argument that discussing these ideas with students makes them familiar and
facilitates policy formation in the future, I feel this is insufficient, and an
absence of emphasis on practicality is a present weakness of a supposed
pluralistic curriculum. After all, when that postgraduate student asked what
the point of pluralism was, it was not out of blind faith to the neoclassical
paradigm. It was because, for all the talk of Marx, Keynes and Hayek, they
needed to see the big picture – to see the policy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">This is not a universal criticism. In my
own field of behavioural economics, great strides have been made to bring it
into the mainstream, alongside practical developments such as the creation of
the UK Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) and the advent of behavioural public
policy. Unfortunately, for much of the pluralist movement, pluralism consists
of taking books usually reserved for the niche work of postgraduates and giving
them to undergraduates without much context.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Maybe, however, this is something which
must be allowed to develop as the movement does. As pluralism re-enters
economics education, educators will surely have to adapt the literature to
identify the point of it all. It is also, perhaps, a consequence of our higher
education system, with knowledge regularly treated as a commodity, rather than
an end in itself. On this latter point, the power of the pluralist movement is
limited; on the former, we can do more. The consequences of not doing so are,
in the short-term, defeatist: replacing consumption functions with a copy of
Capital will do little other than increase library withdrawals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">We must teach pluralism not simply as an
ideology in itself, but as a practical reimagining of economic progress, one
that recognises as part of its programme where we are, where we have been and
where we might be heading. Central to this, I believe, will be an expansion of
scope, one that includes political science, philosophy and anything else which
one determines to be relevant to our contemporary world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">While Keynes remarked in the long-run we
are all dead, pluralism must not fear this horizon either. Part of the logic of
disseminating more, ‘niche,’ economic literature not just to undergraduate
students but to non-economists (by which I mean ordinary people) is because
most people do not go on to discover these ideas for themselves, as few
continue to postgraduate or doctoral study. I recognise this, and so I encourage
the pluralist movement to continue in this endeavour.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">However, it is an insufficient argument
that these graduates, now knowledgeable of heterodox thought, will necessarily
go onto shape policy with those ideas. Indeed, it may be this reasoning which is
why an emphasis on policy in tandem with pluralism has not, in my opinion, been
a priority. This argument is insufficient because of what Veblen might call a
hurricane: institutional culture.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Another way of thinking about this might
be to adjust what Mark Fisher called capitalist realism; while Fisher employed
the term to criticise the belief in the inevitability of capitalism, we might
call neoclassical realism the belief in the inevitability of the eponymous
economic school. All professional economics graduate employers follow some
degree of neoclassical realism, and demand an adherence to a particular
economic method, rationale and standard – not a school of thought. And, for
that matter, no aspiring economist would get very far if they wore their ‘allegiance,’
on their sleeve.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Again, with the exception of perhaps
behavioural economics, few heterodox ideas have made a place for themselves in
the mainstream. Some ideas, such as the push to get unpaid household work
recognised in official statistics, or to get recognition of climate,
‘externalities,’ in growth and risk assessments, have made traction too. These
are real achievements of which the pluralism movement deserves some credit. But
Goldman Sachs do not want a Marxist economist, just as the civil service do not
want an Austrian; both simply want good economists that can evaluate
policy/strategy effectively.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The role of the pluralist movement in
this reality may be, as I suggest, to engage in the policy realm as much as the
academic. Equally, it may be to lobby business and government to recognise the
issues the incurious analysis such as theirs produce. Ideally, the movement
will do both.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">This, of course, will be a long-term
project, and one which may risk debasing the movement if the movement takes a stance
beyond advocation of pluralism. But I believe recognising the practical
employment needs of economics graduates would serve the movement well. Again, I
return to the question: what is the point? For a student of economics, what is
the point of pluralism if it is not going to be used in job procurement? And
for pluralism, surely this is partly the goal: to get real economists thinking
differently.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">By my definition of pluralism, I of
course disagree with this utility maximising sentiment. Pluralism should be
about adaption, enabling our economists to understand trends and build models
in a way that better reflects the real world. Was this not the original failing
of neoclassicalism? But as long as pluralism is taught as a lock-and-key
approach; as long as something like UBI is explored an academic curiosity
rather than a real world policy decision with all the problems that go along
with it; as long as pluralism is a call to eat forbidden fruit, rather than to
grow some of our own, the same question we ask of neoclassicalism can be asked
of us: what is the point?</span></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Today’s and Tomorrow’s Work</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Reading the Econocracy, it is clearly a
rallying cry by enthusiastic and academic minds calling for movement in the
face of intransigence. This is a cry worthy of praise, and praise too should be
given to those that continue to advance the movement today. Particularly, I
might add, in its efforts to democratise economics. In these times of
tremendous global uncertainty, direction should not be left to a select few. Furthermore,
in advancing this agenda, problems of institutional dogma may subside as the
wider population questions and re-evaluates, say, the role of the state, of
finance, or of higher education. These goals, primarily to expand the economics
discipline inside and out, should remain the core aims of the movement, and in
far too many areas, from feminism to environmentalism, the subject remains
unchanged. In other words, we still have work to do.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">But hand-in-hand with knowledge must
come purpose. Marx’s writing is as much a history of the Victorian worker as it
is political economy; Hayek’s as much a love letter to classical liberalism as
it is economic theory. Context matters, and pluralism should embrace a campaign
of why economics is taught as much as what economics is taught and how. These
things are surely not the same. Without the why – without the point – many
efforts may be wasted.</span></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-22630562754911387922019-01-29T14:36:00.001-08:002019-01-29T14:36:42.820-08:00The Agnostic Brexiteer<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Nothing has changed.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Brexit is one of my least favourite
things to talk about, but like that cousin who is constantly planning some
hair-brained scheme, it always finds its way back into the conversation. One
thing I have found very positive about Brexit, I will admit, is how healthy it
has been for our political discourse. I’m sure a great many people will
disagree with that diagnosis, but I can only speak from my experience: when one
is willing to listen, to politely challenge, and to accept that in times of
great uncertainty – political or otherwise – all ideas may hold some water, the
true colours of this country emerge.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Some of these ideas I vehemently
disagree with. But, and this is hardly an original critique, there is little to
be gained from embracing one’s tendency towards the ideas of those whom you
agree with. I have spoken to a journalist from a true blue constituency who
sees common incompetence amongst all politicians; I have spoken to a die-hard
Labour supporter who felt Hilary Benn was the solution to all our problems; in
a Wetherspoons I engaged in a fascinating discussion with a retired lawyer who,
several decades prior, claimed to have predicted the raise of the European
project, and saw Brexit as the solution. That last person was, if you’re
curious, self-described as, “not a liberal.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">I have heard the arguments for Lexit,
discussing, and often agreeing with, the arguments that the European Union is a
deeply undemocratic, protectionist set of institutions, and I have preached my
own diagnosis of this situation. Namely, we as a nation are trapped in a
Churchillian national mythos which has left us unable to accurately understand
the United Kingdom’s place in the world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">These discussions I consider invaluable.
Indeed, I urge everyone to engage with others, be it about Brexit or other
ideas. Nothing aids us in understanding our perspective on the world better
than by understanding someone else’s. My issue, returning to Brexit, is this:
despite all this discourse, positive or otherwise; despite all the rhetoric,
the commentary and the sassy comments; despite all the debate, argument and
legislating here and in Europe; despite all these things, nothing has changed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Perhaps that’s because, in the most
perverse way possible, Theresa May is genuine in her convictions (nothing has
changed is personally my favourite of Mrs. May’s quotes), but we will return to
her in due course. Let’s begin with the recent votes in parliament.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The government’s withdrawal agreement
has been rejected. Everyone considered this outcome obvious – even the
government back in December. This evening, the deal has passed… with an
amendment that demands the now infamous backstop be removed and the withdrawal
agreement altered to facilitate this change. Of course, Ireland specifically
and the EU more broadly are refusing to reopen the question of the backstop or
renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. So, once again, nothing has changed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Let’s think about this. Brexit was, by
definition, a vote for change. Whether one agrees with that change or not, the
apparently inevitable goal of the vote was to catalyse a systematic change in
British politics, if not the British state. Of course, I say apparently
inevitable. The reality has been a combination of encouraging bluster while
establishment forces which produced the referendum have crystallised. The
bluster was necessary, if really a con – as long as the discourse continued,
and twitter accounts and news commentators were occupied with what often
amounted to little more than gossip, the technocratic business of fixing what
should have never been broken could be carried out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">That is a tremendous shame. We can all
criticise the process of the 2016 referendum, and in hindsight a series of referenda
were probably the best way to tackle this question. But hindsight is irrelevant
when one faces chaos and carnage. In time, I have come to understand why some
people voted in contrary to myself, to the extent that I dub myself (and I
would dub many others) an agnostic Brexiteer. To be sure, anyone that has
bought into this country is now a Brexiteer, for we all have an opinion on how
we leave (even if that opinion is we don’t).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The agnostic part is that which I wish
to linger on. In recent days I have stopped trying to predict what will happen
with Brexit, and with this country. Not necessarily because I was frequently
incorrect; but because, in the sheer honest light of day, no one knows how to
Brexit. While a sad indictment of our current state of affairs, I believe an
appeal to theological parallels is the most appropriate course of action.
Democracy is, like almost everything else which commands the souls of people,
the result of belief.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Nothing has changed because nothing can
change. To pull one way rather than another does not simply risk tearing the
Tory party apart or tearing Remain from Leave. The intricate web of social
groups and ideas which make up contemporary Britain face decimation. It seems
rational then, in such an environment, to display the level of intransigence the
Prime Minister has. If fundamentally the role one occupies is predicated on the
existence of a state, one would be unwise to risk the state’s destruction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">I may be accused of hyperbole, but I
think such an accusation would be short-sighted. It has long been my belief
Brexit has little to do with Europe, and more to do with economic
disfranchisement, technological rapidity and societal changes. In other words,
bog standard populism. As above, Brexit was a call for change, for upheaval.
For control, of which the previously listed populist symptoms too frequently
render in short supply.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">When nothing has changed, that means
nothing has changed. The forces and fears of economics and politics have not
changed, nor having living standards, or job security, or wages, or – to put it
simply – basic prospects for opportunity. This, more than anything, is why
there is no solution to Brexit. The social turmoil and strife which plagues
communities, both here and abroad, must first be tackled before the diplomatic
behemoths of Brexit, of trade, of climate change and globalisation can be
tackled.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Doing so will not be easy, hence why I
believe the term agnostic Brexiteer is a useful one. How do we Brexit? How do
we rebuild trust, cohesion and opportunity in our communities? How do we
restore a sense of democracy and equality into that thing we call <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">our</i> democracy? How, on the most basic
level, do we move forward together in any direction? This has always been a
challenge of statecraft, but the arrogance of the end of history has left these
questions to linger, and now voices, via radically different effigies, demand
answers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">In the face of these challenges, which I
believe leave many of us unsure how to proceed, the theory of nothing has
changed will surely not suffice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-55683208855430513482018-12-29T11:20:00.000-08:002018-12-29T11:20:15.748-08:00My 2018 reading list<br />
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">January</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Empire</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Niall Ferguson – I am aware of the
criticism surrounding Ferguson and his interpretation of British imperial
history. Empire may be subject to similar criticism. The general conclusion,
that being that the British Empire has helped sow the seed of liberal democracy
around the globe, is not without some worthy discussion. But the book seems to
hide from other, harsher criticisms of empire by accepting the history of the
British Empire is murky and grey. This leaves something missing from the
critical narrative.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">What
if Latin America Ruled the World?</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">
by Oscar Guardiola-Rivera – This is a hard book to read. At times it is hard
because it is abstract, almost philosophical. At times (from my perspective),
it is hard because it is about a distinctly different culture and history. But
there are valuable insights to be gleamed from this book. The arguments that
South American culture is unjustly viewed in comparison to Western culture,
creating ignorant ideas of sophistication or enlightenment are very
interesting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Streaming,
Sharing, Stealing</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by
Michael D. Smith and Rahul Telang – This is not a bad book, but it is one I
found disappointing. To be sure, the subject matter – the changing nature of
consumer entertainment and technology – is interesting and important, but I
feel like this book brings nothing new to the table. This is especially
egregious given this book was published in 2016. As supplementary literature,
this book is fine.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
Theory of the Leisure Class</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">
by Thorstein Veblen – Veblen’s classic book feels at time like an odd addition
to the economics discipline, and by present standards would certainly be
considered heterodox. At times, the greater point of this book feels lost
somewhere between obvious and uninteresting observations of human behaviour;
but this would be too harsh a conclusion, and indeed an underdeveloped one.
Veblen’s theory of power, the construction of hierarchy (patriarchal, feudal,
class-based etc.) and the role of consumerism within those systems is one I
keep coming back to. Everyone should read some Veblen.</span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">February</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Former
People</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Douglas Smith
– It is easy to lose sympathy with the Tsarist nobility when one hears of the
Russian system of serfdom that was once practiced. Likewise, I don’t suppose
the Soviet propaganda machine following the revolution has helped to cast the
nobility in a great light. Smith’s book on the lives of Russian nobles
following the Russian revolution is, on the one hand, a fascinating perspective
to explore. On the other, it is a beautiful and tragic character study of how
people – in body and in spirit – can be made to disappear. Certainly, an
interesting read.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Capital</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Thomas Picketty – I have counted at
least five copies of this book in my economics department. For specialists, or
those with specialist knowledge, I feel Picketty’s magnum opus has a lot to
offer. For those with a more casual interest, this book will probably be too
heavy, and provide too much detail to the narrative of growing inequality
throughout the world.</span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">March</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Why
Economists Disagree</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by David
Prychitko – Anyone interested in economics should read this book. From Austrian
economics to radical political economy, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Why
Economists Disagree</i> is expansive in its scope without showing favouritism
to one particular school of thought. For those interesting in pluralist
thinking, this book is thus a great guide.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">April</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Western
Europe Since 1945: A Short Political History</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Derek Urwin – I read this book because I like history
generally, but as an overview to the foundation of the European Union I think
this book is very useful. The dynamics of de Gaulle, Adenauer and successive
British prime ministers confuses my, and I think many others’, notions of the
European Union as a project. Whilst I suspect there are better books, both on
the EU and on modern Europe, as a quick and concise read I think this is a
worthwhile book.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Nudge</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein – <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nudge</i> is a book I had to read for my
Masters dissertation, and the central concept behind this book features
prominently in my PhD. Compared to the academic literature which the book draws
on, I found its content simplified and lacking. This is certainly unjustified,
as it is written for the general reader. That does not mean I cannot also voice
my disdain for the chatty, matey narrative the authors have adopted.
Nevertheless, this is not a bad book, and it contains some interesting
insights. The problem with much of the book, I believe, is it does little that
other books on behavioural economics – for example Dan Ariely’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Predictably Irrational</i> – have not
already done.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Identity
Economics</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by George
Akerlof and Rachel Kranton – Much like above, the quality of these authors
should not be in doubt. This, however, does not exempt this book from
criticism. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Identity Economics</i>
attempts to carve out a new niche in the economics discipline, much like behavioural
economics has done. However, upon reading, I remain to be convinced of this new
sub-discipline. The underlying principle of social strata influencing economics
decisions should be applauded as a subject of enquiry for it is undeniably
important, but it is not yet clear to me how identity economics distinguishes itself
from being a specialised subset of behavioural economics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">May</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Seduction
by Contract</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Oren
Bar-Gill – Another book I read for my academic work, this book is particularly
specialised and is not one I would recommend to people outside of my immediate
field. For my purposes, however, I think this is a great contribution to the
political economy of behavioural economics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Popular
Political Economy</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by
Thomas Hodgskin – I feel many of the insights of this book were lost on me. To
be sure, it was an interesting read, and having read some of Hodgskin’s
previous work there is no doubting the intellectual value of his ideas. This is
a book I may return to one day.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Nudge
Theory in Action </span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">by
Sherzod Abdukadirov – Again, I read this book for my academic work. An
interesting read if you’re into that sort of thing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">June</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Homo
Deus</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Yuval Noah
Harari – For a while, this book was the darling child of those people that like
to post pictures of books they have/are/are-planning-to read on their Instagram
feed. That’s just an observation, not a criticism. Having not read Harari’s
previous book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sapiens</i>, I went into
this book intrigued by the premise. My thoughts at the end were mixed. On the
one hand, this is a good book with a compelling narrative and some interesting
discussions. On the other, I am left with a feeling of false grandiosity. For
example, one of Harari’s core ideas is that humanism and liberalism are dying
ideas, and we are entering into a new age of dataism. Algorithms control
everything, including us, and free choice is illusory and mythical. Maybe all
these things are true, but if false, how might we ever argue so? The person who
does rile against this narrative may easily be branded as naïve, and I am left
with this feeling when reading Harari. A compelling book, and a challenging
book, I would recommend this book as an intellectual exercise is nothing else.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">July</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">On
Liberty</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by John Stuart
Mill – Mill is one of those authors whom I feel was a creature of his time but,
if you are willing to give him the time, may be the source of value ideas. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On Liberty</i> is not the libertarian
manifesto I expected before reading it; the author spends a great deal of time
considering the value of opinion and the use of opinionated debate, a
discussion I feel has a lot of worthwhile applications to today’s world. The
harm principle emergences as obvious, and is notably flawed, but should be
recognised as an important benchmark from which to proceed. Personally, I find
Mill’s observation that human liberty is often at the expense of others’
liberty a most compelling observation: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">All
that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of
restraints on the actions of others</i>.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Where
I was From</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Joan
Didion – After hearing the film <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ladybird</i>
was based upon (or perhaps it is better to say inspired by) Didion’s memoir <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Where I was From</i>, I decided to pick up a
copy. Initially, I found this book lacking something. With Didion being a much-acclaimed
writer, I expected to find the narrative more compelling and a sense of
structure – I expected a typical memoir. It was only towards the end of the
book I realised what <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Where I was From</i>
is, and what Didion’s goal is with this book. If the book has a central idea,
it is that California is a land of false tradition, where the way things are
now is the way things have always been, even though that is clearly not the
case as landscapes, workplaces and politics change. In tying this idea loosely
to that of her family, Didion draws a subtle parallel. This book, from my
perspective, is hard to describe, but is more complex than an initial read
would suggest.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">August</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
Economic Consequences of Peace</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">
by John Maynard Keynes – This is a brilliant if niche book. Keynes’ description
of the 1919 treaty of Versailles negotiations is insightful and at times rather
humorous. The tragedy of his prescience and the Allies’ failure to listen,
however, returns today’s reader to the importance of this book. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Economic Consequences of Peace</i> is,
in my opinion, not a book that should be read as a novelty or even as an
economic case study, but as a rare learning aid in this field. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Notes
on Nationalism</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by
George Orwell – This book is really an essay, and one with a rather simply
theme of moderation. Much can be learnt from reading <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Notes on Nationalism</i>, and in doing so I feel all readers should be
self-reflective. Today, nationalism seems to be a collage of swastikas, football
hooliganism and Donald Trump; to be sure, these things are nationalistic, but
Orwell restates the importance of thinking not about what nationalism looks
like, but rather what it is, that being aggressive, uncompromising commitment
to an idea.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Socrates’
Defence</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Plato – Whilst
I enjoyed this book, and I enjoyed the way it was written, I wasn’t blown away
by its content. To be sure, as a ‘story,’ the persecution of Socrates offers a
lot of interesting things to think about, though I would be lying if I said I
found it anything more than a quick read. Again, this is a book I may revisit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
Communist Manifesto</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – Marx is sometimes described as the most
influential person never read. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Communist Manifesto</i> is for many people their introduction to Marxism, but
it’s certainly not the full picture, and to that end I found this book lacking
a level of detail I desired. That, to an extent, is by design. On the one hand,
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Communist Manifesto</i> was
originally a pamphlet and a manifesto; on the other, Marx would subsequently
write 5 volumes of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Capital</i>. My
introduction to radical political economy came in reading Hodgskin’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Labour Defended Against the Claims of
Capital</i>, which offered a more succinct and conceptually interesting
discussion of the problem of surplus value, but I feel that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Communist Manifesto</i> is a text which
would, on multiple re-readings, reveal something new each time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by John Maynard Keynes – There’s a
reason why this book is regarded as a classic by economists, and it is a
brilliant, if often difficult book. There is little I feel I can say about this
book which would add value; I will say, however, that amongst Keynes’ writing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the Economic Consequences of Peace</i> is my
favourite.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Great
Transformations</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Mark
Blyth – This is a book I have had for a while but each time I tried to read it
I felt I was not giving it enough time to truly understand the central thesis.
Blyth is an endlessly digestible economist, and his written work is always
insightful, if at times specific to the point of quandary. This is not a book I
would read again without a specific academic reason to do so; likewise, I would
not recommend it unless it served an academic purpose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
Net Delusion</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Evgeny
Morozov – I picked up this book after reading a Morozov article in the Guardian
about data security. I was impressed by the quality of research in the article
and hoped for more of the same in the book. I will not criticise the research, but
I found this book difficult and at times rather boring. Whilst Morozov is
clearly correct in his assessment that the internet may as much be a tool for
oppression and manipulation as it could be for liberation, in my opinion this
book frequently reverts to a told-you-so narrative where the author picks a
famous (often American) politician, cites a speech and presents contrary
real-world results. This is fine to do, but the frequency this is done
throughout the book drained on me as a reader, to the point where I wonder if
this book is less about data and the internet and more about international
relations. There is clearly value in this book, but I would not recommend it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">September</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
Strangest Man </span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">by Graham
Farmelo – I have never read a biography before, but Farmelo’s biography of Paul
Dirac was thoroughly entertaining. It is at times funny, at times very sad and
sometimes rather educational. More than anything, this book is a very accomplished
attempt to explore the life of a man who, on reflection, clearly was a rather
peculiar person. Such peculiarities, however, are often side-lined for a
discussion of Dirac’s many achievements. It does not diminish his character one
way or another, and the whole book benefits from this approach.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
World Economy Since the Wars</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">
by John Kenneth Galbraith – I had not read any Galbraith until reading this
book, and to be honest I’m not quite sure what this book was designed to
achieve. Perversely, however, I very much enjoyed this book. Rather than
starting with a central premise, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">World
Economy Since the Wars</i> feels more like an in-conversation-with book where
Galbraith recounts several decades of wisdom. The book, therefore, languishes
in an odd place of not being a book to read for pleasure, nor for academic
merit, but yet still one worth reading.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
End of Utopia</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by
Russell Jacoby – Jacoby is clearly a very intelligent writer, and his argument
that the abandonment of utopian ideas in favour of practical political
positioning is detrimental seems compelling, particularly in our present
political climate. What this book does badly, in my opinion, is it discusses
this idea with all the intellectual meandering of someone in Jacoby’s position.
I liked this book, and many people that will want to read this book will like
it; that doesn’t mean it’s a book with universal appeal. Nor, I suspect, does
it want to be.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">October</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Behavioural
Finance and Wealth Management</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">
by Michael Pompian – This is essentially a textbook, or, I suppose, a handy
reference guide for applied behavioural economics. Pompian makes a good effort
to write an accessible and interesting book, which is why I believe as assigned
reading for an introductory behavioural finance class this book would be
fantastic. For more serious research however, this book is insufficient.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Capitalist
Realism</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Mark Fisher –
Fisher is a writer whom I want to read more of in 2019, partly because I am a
sucker for (somewhat meaningless) cultural criticism, and partly because Fisher
is a good writer. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Capitalist Realism</i> provides
very little in terms of economic debate, but it acknowledges a phenomenon that
is increasingly being cited in the capitalism/anti-capitalism debate, that
there is no alternative (TINA). Intellectually, this is an empty idea, and
Fisher recognises this; more than that, he explains how capitalism in its ethos
erodes other alternatives, permeating into the arts and ethics. Whether or not
capitalism should be ended or simply reformed, Fisher makes a compelling argument
for the existence of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Capitalist
Realism</i> phenomenon.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">A
History of the World in Seven Cheap Things</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Raj Patel and Jason Moore – Something I have tried to
do this year is engage more in ecological economics literature, and Patel and
Moore’s book is a very good contribution to this literature. Whilst not
proposing any particularly revolutionary ideas, the book is a good holistic look
at the global environmental challenges and the productive (lamentably
capitalist) systems behind them. A good read.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
Long Twentieth Century</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">
by Giovanni Arrighi – This was a tough book for me. The book is intellectually
sound with some compelling ideas, but I feel this book is outside of my field
of interest to really resonate with me. I suspect one day I will return to it,
but right now I find myself with little to say about <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the Long Twentieth Century</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">November</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
Next Revolution</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by
Murray Bookchin – Being a collection of separate essays, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Next Revolution </i>can sometimes feel disjointed
and repetitive. That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. The
author writes with the knowledge and consideration of a man who has spent
several decades pondering the future of the anarchist movement, and whilst at
times there is a sense that Bookchin presumes his readers have knowledge of his
previous work, many of the ideas around community organisation, notions of the
state and the role of workers are intriguing and optimistic ideas.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h4 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">December</span></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
Atlantic Ocean</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by
Andrew O’Hagan – One of my favourite books in recent years has been David
Foster Wallace’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll
Never Do Again</i>. O’Hagan’s own collection of essays do not disappoint,
though I would not say they compare to the standard of DFW. The premise of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Atlantic Ocean</i> is a study of Britain and
America and the relationship between them; whilst an interesting concept, in my
opinion, the collection doesn’t seem to fulfil this goal. America, for the most
part, feels absent, and when included the author comes across as clearly not
being from the States. Britain, on the other hand, dominates this book and is clearly
where O’Hagan feels more comfortable, and writes with much more authority. Of
course, not everyone will like this book, be it the style of writing or the
subject matter, but I was not disappointed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Turkish
Awakening</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> by Alev Scott
– I have never quite understood what to make of Turkey, with histories such as
the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian genocide and the occupation of Cyprus being
the subject areas in which I have most often heard Turkey discussed. Scott’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Turkish Awakening</i> does little to clarify
the notion of Turkey in the mind of a non-Turk, but, on the one hand, she acknowledges
this eclectic picture of the country and, on the other, challenges the idea
that any tangible notion exists at all. I enjoyed this book, and will try to
read more about Turkey in the future.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-16639673117078773002018-09-24T11:34:00.001-07:002018-10-01T08:10:36.118-07:00A Positive Policy for Economic Empowerment<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
The CBI’s reaction to John
McDonnell’s employee share ownership plan was to be expected. Not only might
such a plan place an initial administrative hinderance on many firms throughout
the country, but in the longer term the ability for workers to lever
shareholder power over executives shifts the dynamics of executive/employee
power.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These are the arguments the CBI could
be making – namely, that the plan is disruptive to business. Instead, across
the media an almost myopic rebuttal to McDonnell’s plan can be heard. There are
claims the plan will reduce productivity, reduce business investment, and drive
businesses aboard, ultimately harming jobs. Above all, the CBI claims that such
legislation is unnecessary as businesses already give employees the chance to
become shareholders.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Partly due to disdain, partly due
to inaccuracy, and partly due to the political and economic climate we find
ourselves in, these arguments may be dismissed.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Consider productivity. As the
Office for National Statistics (ONS) reports, <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/timeseries/a4ym/prdy" target="_blank">UK productivity</a> since the
financial crisis has increased from an indexed value of 95.7 to 100.7. Over the
10 years prior to 2008, productivity increased from 84.9 to the cited 95.7. Of
course, these are simply the figures for a problem that has not gone unnoticed:
in <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/d778c752-2d33-11e8-97ec-4bd3494d5f14" target="_blank">March</a>, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/b96ce8f2-5dd9-11e8-ad91-e01af256df68" target="_blank">July </a>and <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/32ba93b0-8dcf-11e8-bb8f-a6a2f7bca546" target="_blank">August </a>of this year the <i>Financial
Times</i> (<a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-productivity/uks-productivity-problem-rears-its-head-in-early-2018-idUKKBN1JW14Z" target="_blank">amongst others</a>) highlighted the UK productivity issue, with a speech
by the Bank of England’s chief economist Andrew Haldane on the issue being
published in <a href="https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2018/the-uks-productivity-problem-hub-no-spokes-speech-by-andy-haldane.pdf" target="_blank">June</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
The CBI’s claims that McDonnell’s
proposal will harm productivity seems to ignore the elephant in the room,
therefore: there is already a productivity problem in the UK. What is
interesting, and in many ways encouraging, is that this plan may actually
increase productivity, with even the CBI acknowledging that employee ownership
often has a positive effect on employee motivation and thus productivity.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, a productivity argument
might be made when considering reduced business investment. The argument might
go that the burden of this plan will disincentivise businesses to invest, causing
productivity gains from new technology will be lost. Unfortunately, business
investment since the financial crisis hasn’t changed much either, going from an
indexed value of -0.3 in 2008 to 0.2 in 2017 (figures from the <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/zz6r/pn2" target="_blank">ONS</a>). In other
words, whilst business investment, or lack thereof, may drive productivity
growth, given there has been very little business investment over the past
decade it is a dubious argument to attack Labour’s proposal with the threat of
further disinvestment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Though this ignores a wider
point. If employees have an ownership stake in businesses, they can encourage
and thus counter any disinvestment that it is claimed might occur. Why? Well,
following the prevailing theories of investor motivations, those
employees/shareholders will want to maximise their return just as all other
investors would. This, ultimately, is a more compelling argument than I think
is immediately obvious: just because 10% of the company is owned by the
employees, it does not mean the remaining 90% of shareholders are going to
tolerate disinvestment and the forgoing of profitable endeavours. Presently,
executives attempt to maximise shareholder value; they do not care who the
shareholders are.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps, however, the best way to
maximise such value is to move abroad and avoid Labour’s proposal. Ignoring the
administrative costs of doing such a thing, let us take note of two things.
Firstly, as a consequence of Brexit, firms are already leaving this country.
For many, the question will be asked what difference will this policy really
make? Secondly, this supposed threat of emigration has been raised countless
times, be it in opposition to higher corporate taxes, greater sector
regulation, increases in wages or trade union bargaining power and so on. Many
times, politicians have bought into this threat – implicitly underestimating
the value of the UK to these businesses – and have not acted. Now many look
around and see the barren, economic desolation that such concessions have
brought them. For a great many workers, if the price of keeping these
businesses is low corporate taxes, low regulation and weak workers’ rights, low
wages and little bargaining power, their desire to appeal to business to stay
will be found to be lacking.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For a great many, now is the time
to call business’s bluff.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, we must address the
claim by the CBI that many firms already allow employees to become
shareholders, often by allowing said employees the opportunity to purchase
shares at a discounted price. This statement is true, and to be sure it’s
generally a positive idea. But it is not fair to bring up such a statement in
the context of McDonnell’s proposal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Whilst those working on the shop
floor or the assembly line will be given these share purchase opportunities in
their lifetimes, for those who are struggling to pay their rent or struggling
to put food on the table because their pay is so low; for those who cannot
afford to pay into their pension pot, or perhaps must leave the heating off in
the winter; for those people, no matter how good the share offer is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">objectively</i>, they will never be able to
part-take. And even if they did, what power would their voice have versus the
vast ownership shares of angel and institutional investors?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For the CBI to dismiss John
McDonnell’s plan because similar means of empowering workers already exist,
they are either blind to the realities of the everyday worker, or they are
intentionally selling a false equivalency.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
To be sure, the details of this
proposal need to be checked, and checked again. It is foolish to assume all the
nuances are known, all the problems are ironed out. But given the arguments
offered thus far, primarily by the CBI, this plan remains – in my opinion – a
positive policy for economic empowerment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br /></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-4202226266496521382018-08-26T05:10:00.000-07:002018-08-26T05:10:23.964-07:00The Force that Pulls the Lever: Behavioural Economics and Big Data<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Western
democracies are desperately searching for Martin Luther. Following the Facebook
and Cambridge Analytica data scandal, the social media platform in particular
and tech giants generally have found themselves increasingly under scrutiny for
their data practices. Such scrutiny takes many forms: is Facebook a threat to
democracy?; are tech giants too big?; who has agency over our data?; and so on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
These are
questions that have always existed, not just for social media, but for all
private interests and indeed all states. There is little objective nuance in
these questions. New technologies have always altered the power of the masses,
and thus potentially threatened democracy; monopolies have always existed in
one form or another; agency has always been a very transient thing. Even when
existential questions about social media have been asked, most obviously in the
campaign to delete one’s Facebook, the irony has been missed on those who
distributed their rallying cries via hashtags, blogs and twitter feeds. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Luther, rather
than David, is the character whom many seek as we consider data in a more
critical light. We do not wish to slay social media; we want to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reform</i> it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Social media reactionaries,
irony aside, do not actually want to delete Facebook. We enjoy the curated
information steams decorated in gradients of blue, the egalitarian means by
which we might show approval, and the undeniable efficiency of social media as
a means of consuming said information and showing said approval. Even the toxic
areas of social media – and the Internet as a whole – act as reflections of
social problems that exist without social media. At best, social media allows
us to peer into fringe groups with relative safety. At worst social media
allows these fringe groups to project their ideas outwards, protected by
anonymity, which whilst often detestable or uncomfortable, we should recognise
is a truth that might not have formally been identified.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Those that
believe retreating from social media is the preferable reaction may be accused
of suffering a similar belief that the power of invisibility may be gained by
shutting one’s eyes. Just because they no longer see the world change around
them does not mean change has stopped.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The question,
then, is what is being reformed? To take the above scrutiny, the rhetorical
questions that precede such outrage may be translated into two statements:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Why did Facebook collect THAT piece of data
about me!?”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Facebook did WHAT with my data!?”</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
These statements
represent either a shallower, or a deeper – respectively – understanding of the
age of data. It is for those who reject the quantification of the world that
exclaim the former, and not without good reason. There are legitimate causes
for consternation. Privacy is that of most notable concern, and just as we
teach young children not to talk to strangers, it seems good practice to not
wantonly share data with faceless companies which unravel one’s privacy and leave
oneself exposed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
When we realise
that we have been doing such a thing by participating in social media – as many
surely have since the Cambridge Analytica scandal – it is a natural reaction to
withdraw. It is not necessarily the correct reaction.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
By deleting one’s
Facebook or Twitter, each of us might claim to be reclaiming some privacy and
authority over our data. But we forget that companies which collect our data
are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">companies</i>, and insofar as they
offer a service we would like to acquire we must pay a price. If the
alternative is to pay a membership to these platforms, we would simply find
ourselves out of pocket, as well as digitally exposed. If it is to legislate
what data may and may not be acquired by these companies, that imbues a whole
miasma of regulatory back and forth, arbitration and conflict – issues which,
let’s be honest, the vast majority of social media users simply don’t care
about.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Concern for
one’s personal data security on something as individually innocuous as Twitter
or Facebook is simply arrogance – as a data point, we are all very much
unimportant. I will, however, return to this conjecture. The point is, for the
vast majority, the price of their personal data is a fair cost for the services
that the likes of Facebook and Twitter provide. When our data is used to
suggest interesting people to follow on Twitter, to organise social gatherings
on Facebook, or to recommend delectable entertainment on Amazon or Netflix, we
see the great benefit that the tech giants generally provide.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
This brings us
onto the second statement. It follows quite logically that if the ‘THAT,’ piece
of data is willingly given to produce a better service, when that same piece of
data is used for an enterprise that is not a better service – the ‘WHAT,’
function – we will criticise the platform specifically, not the process
generally.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
This is perhaps
the cure for the irony identified above: those that were calling for the
deletion of Facebook were calling for the culling of a bad actor, whilst
Twitter, Blogspot and others had done nothing wrong, and would have been
unfairly targeted if this irony were true and discrediting. But this is not the
point.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The point is
this reaction to the ‘WHAT,’ function is a more rational response as it accepts
the transactional nature of data and social media – that data is given only
insofar as it creates and improves desired services. When Facebook as the
trusted keeper of this data oversteps their mandate, or is lax in their
protective duties, or both, situations like the Cambridge Analytica scandal
arise. For policy makers, at least initially, this should be the area of
legislative interest.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
However, this
simple model of social media and agency is incomplete, and not wholly due to
simplicity. Whilst for some the collection of data (THAT) is the point of
incredulity, for many it is the outcome of having given that data (WHAT). But
how does THAT become WHAT?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
As stated above,
individually our data is not substantial. Most people understand this, hence
the emergence of Big Data. But Big Data is often an overvalued asset; social
media sites will gleam any and all data they can from us, and they will surely
have fantastical ideas of the services they might provide in the future (the
THAT and the WHAT, respectively). A specific example is Cambridge Analytica,
who siphoned the data of Facebook users with the intention of supporting a
particular election outcome.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Perhaps it is
unique to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, with its politicisation, or perhaps
it’s a condition of our data obsessed lives, but the scandal was not about the
THAT and the WHAT. Users had already given Facebook that data, and citizens
were already exposed to campaign advertising via the Internet and traditional
platforms. The scandal, I believe, revolves around the HOW.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
It would be abjectly
unfair to place the blame for the scandal at the door of behavioural economics.
For the most part, Big Data analysis doesn’t really care why a person with a
particular set of data points is more likely to support one
candidate/product/idea as opposed to another. Big Data simply identifies the
pattern and targets the resources associated so as to match the pattern. Here,
behavioural economics becomes the far too fastidious an advisor, the consultant
who didn’t get the memo about going fast and breaking stuff.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
As such, in lieu
of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, pillars of behavioural economics such as
nudge theory probably find more of a role as villainous underlings in targeted
news campaigns (the presumed resources of a political advertising machine) than
they do in deciding who will be targeted in the first place. Indeed, would the
Cambridge Analytica scandal be a scandal if people did not believe – rightly or
wrongly – that the efforts of the company were relevant to whatever outcome
they were trying to facilitate?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Possibly, but it
is much less clear than it might be otherwise. If the HOW of the matter is to
receive some blame, and be subject to some reformation, behavioural economics
may be as worthy of criticism as Big Data is. I find myself coming to this
conclusion on the Cambridge Analytica story: Big Data is the new corporate
sexy; cognitive deficiencies make us feel dumb. The latter should not be
forgotten because the former is a more palatable creature.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
This point,
however, should not be conflated with the Cambridge Analytica story. That
circumstance is more unique; the tandem utilisation of Big Data and behavioural
economics need not be.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
In an election,
everyone is a potential consumer. Whilst Big Data might be used to target those
more susceptible to a particular side’s advertising, for those who are
accidently targeted the message is not wholly lost – the message is just less
efficiently received. But for a commercial advertising campaign, where the
promises of bang for your buck may make or break a would-be Cambridge
Analytica’s business model, behavioural economics becomes more relevant.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Here, there is
no need to go fast, and certainly no desire to break stuff. On the contrary;
where the demands of Big Data are the maximum return from the number of
advertisements placed, behavioural economics comes to the aid. The manipulation
or exploitation (both controversial words) of ubiquitous cognitive shortcomings
may reduce the cost of accidental mis-targeting, whilst the framing of products
as defaults, offers as loss averting and the use of multiple ads to invoke
herding effects may make advertisements too effective for those already
considered susceptible.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
In other words,
Big Data may tell us who to talk to, but behavioural economics may tell us what
to say. In this sense I return to the title of this piece; behavioural
economics may be the force that pulls the lever of Big Data. This is a logical
realisation I believe many in the field of behavioural economics will come to.
A nudge such as a default option effect is far from perfect; for benefits of
this nudge to be seen, a great many observations are often needed. As such, the
domains in which Big Data and behavioural economics rely are the same: across
populations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Whilst the
discussion of this piece has been framed around a scandal, it is not my
intention to suggest either Big Data or behavioural economics are malignant. As
with the discussion of the benefits of social media, such an accusation would
be far too simple, and far too easy. But a great deal of the commentary on the
nature of data and its place in society misses the point: it is HOW we use data
that matters. If this discussion is to be had, I feel behavioural economics
must be included.</div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-77086897006422458672018-08-19T01:45:00.000-07:002018-08-19T01:45:28.192-07:00Why I (Currently) Believe a No-Deal is Unlikely<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
Theresa May
started her premiership with a lie. Or, at least, an implied mistruth. Whilst
many debated the content of the statement, “No deal is better than a bad deal,”
almost everyone missed the point. Politically, for Theresa May, no-deal is the
worst deal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
This is why I
believe a no-deal outcome is (currently) unlikely to occur.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
Let us step back
a moment and unpack this situation, because it does not take much pontificating
to realise no-deal is not universally <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">politically</i>
bad. In the short-term, such a scenario would satisfy the hard Brexiteers (though
I stress in the short-term; in the long-term it is less clear how beneficial
no-deal would be to this sect) and may extend political capital. Additionally,
if the chaos that is forecast comes to pass, those campaigning for a second
referendum will feel validated, if not invigorated. Whilst they might deny this
– less they be accused of complacency in this outcome – it is the reality.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
The third group
to consider are those backing the Prime Minister’s Chequers agreement. By
pitching this plan as the last workable option, this group seeks to rally
support for the plan. Yet with dissenters on both sides, such a pitch demands
we re-evaluate the ground on which we stand: if the Chequer’s agreement is the
only deal that can be done, surely the only alternative is a no-deal?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
It is the jockeying
of hard Brexiteers on the one hand, and advocates of a second referendum on the
other, that is propelling this narrative about no-deal. And the media, though
rightly evaluating and informing of the consequences of a no-deal, wrongly
projects significance onto the meagre odds of such an outcome espoused by those
with their own agendas.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
Let us remember
this Prime Minister’s agenda. Theresa May was a Remainer; I am confident that
she desires to be more than just a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Brexit</i>
Prime Minister. Brexit, in lieu of her legacy, will be an inevitable
cornerstone. Yet I see little reason to believe Brexit is all she desires to
achieve, and – from the Prime Minister’s perspective – it seems hard to not
characterise Brexit as that thing that simply <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">need</i> be achieved before the regular business of governing can
begin. No-deal is not an option, because it is almost by definition an
admittance of her failure.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
This should be
obvious. Whilst it is necessary to retain the rhetoric of walking away, the
purpose of a negotiation is to reach a negotiated position. Should Theresa May
fail to do so, she will have failed in her primary task as Prime Minister, and
her remaining in the position will be untenable. Alternatively, consider the reality
of a no-deal; a no-deal represents a breakdown in negotiations, not a
satisficing of those things which need be negotiated. In other words, sooner or
later the UK would have to negotiate with the EU again, over one matter or
another. Would this country really entrust a Prime Minister who failed in the
primary negotiation to lead secondary or tertiary negotiations?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
A no-deal
demands Theresa May’s resignation, and if we have learnt anything of Theresa
May this past year or more, it is that she is not easily displaced.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
I am not sure,
either, whether the Conservative party realise the political damage a no-deal
would do to them. Whether or not the average Tory voter is inclined to see a
no-deal outcome as beneficial, they must surely concede their elected party has
failed in its aim. This will be the narrative that dominates the party for the foreseeable
future; the failure that calls into question the would-be party of competency.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
If there is any
entity that I consider more desperate to cling to power than Theresa May, it is
perhaps the Conservative party as a whole.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
We could play around
with a scenario for a moment: that Theresa May, stoic in her resolve, walks
away at the eleventh hour claiming such an action was the duty of any good
Prime Minister given the villainous proposal on which the EU would not
compromise. This, I concede, might score some points in her party. But it would
be an obvious change in tone, one that no one would truly believe. It would not
mask the sense of failure; it would not protect the party.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">
I do not deny the
possibility of a no-deal, and to do so I think would be foolish. But rather
than get caught up in the hysteria of a no-deal apocalypse, let us refocus our
attention on the politics of this matter. A no-deal would be disastrous for the
Prime Minister, and the Conservative party. Even those who would like to see
the former gone will often find themselves exposed to the latter. It is for
these reasons I (currently) do not think a no-deal will happen.</div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-18127804834667422432018-08-09T08:04:00.000-07:002018-08-09T08:08:03.583-07:00Cryptocurrencies are not Libertarian<br />
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b>Introduction</b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Beyond all those
discussions which confuse or concern the financier and bemuse or excite the
speculator, the prevalence of opinion that cryptocurrencies are a vehicle for
the libertarian’s dream seems to be a point of great consensus. However, I
contend, with little abstraction beyond ordinary observation and the same
liberal thinking that should be familiar to my adversaries on this account,
that the belief that cryptocurrencies are libertarian is in fact a myth; the
victim of a miasma of technological optimism and general ignorance that
accompanies any assessment of that which is new and unknown.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
My arguments,
and the structure of this piece, follow in what I believe to be the most
logical order. I will begin by addressing the most common point of contention:
that cryptocurrencies, being decentralised and anonymised, embody and
facilitate libertarian values significantly more than traditional currencies
might. I dispel this first argument by pointing to the benefits of cash.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
This, of course,
invokes retort in lieu of financialization and an increasingly cashless
society. In such a world, I confess, there may be benefits to cryptocurrency;
but only insofar as anonymity is concerned, and not as regards centralisation.
Here, I argue, the general ledger system of cryptocurrency is simply a parallel
of online paper trails which may be generated via online financial systems and
offers little new to the individual. Further, I contend, the lack of
transparency that may be associated with the creator of a cryptocurrency,
compared with levels of transparency that may be found in a company or a
government, serves as a further libertarian deficiency of cryptocurrency.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Finally, I
address the silver bullet that is anonymity. Whilst I will not attempt to
refute the claims of anonymity in this piece, I will argue that the
libertarian’s placing of importance on the matter of anonymity demonstrate
their misplaced concerns, with the regulation and legality of that which <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">any</i> currency might purchase, rather than
the currency itself, being the correct target for libertarian efforts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
It is my sincere
hope that the logical progression of my arguments might be ascertained from the
above; certainly, it is my hope that by the end of this piece, irrespective of
one’s opinion on the validity of my arguments, the process of these arguments’
development is clear.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Groupthink on Value</b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The state is the
easiest enemy of the libertarian to identify. This, of course, is a
simplification – if not an error – with entities such as the state being used
to supplement more abstract ideas in layperson discussions. Yet, with the state
more often than not cast as the enemy in libertarian discussions, it is the
term I use here.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The libertarian
benefit of cryptocurrency in the first degree is that the value and the
issuance of units of value – namely the cryptocurrency – are not controlled and
regulated by the state or similar financial institutions such as a central
bank. Insofar as the things I have read and the discussions I have had, I have
been left wondering why such a feature is exactly a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">benefit</i> of cryptocurrency from the perspective of the libertarian;
yet, given some thought, I propose two ideas.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The first is
that a cryptocurrency not produced by the state, but rather legitimised via
individual consent, may insofar as the philosophy of human value is concerned,
better reflect the value of a given individual. Let me explain: irrespective of
any labour theory of value, if the return to the worker in terms of a wage is
denominated in a currency whose value is only acknowledged and guaranteed by
the state, then the worker may feel like their value added due to their labour
is detached from themselves. If the end product of labour is owned by the
capitalist, and the return to worker is only valuable pending the approval of
some entity other than the worker, what immediate role might the worker be said
to have beyond being that of a puppet whose strings past from one set of hands
to another?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The contention we
might make in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">defence</i> of the
libertarian nature of cryptocurrency is that no entity such as the state or the
central bank exists to give value to the cryptocurrency. Rather, the value of
the cryptocurrency is determined – besides the costs of producing the currency
– solely by the attributing of value by the holders of the currency. Our
hypothetical worker, in a world where they may choose in what currency they
received their wage, may be said to exhibit more liberty over their labour as
it is their advocation of the value of the currency – much as they might
advocate the value of their labour by pointing out the quality of their work –
which gives the currency value. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The second,
though only subtly different, argument that I suggest is that a cryptocurrency
represents a choice on the part of the individual, rather than an imposition.
In whatever country a citizen lives in, baring the rare exception, we citizens
have never been consulted on what currency should be commonly used. We have not
been asked what the currency should be called, what assets might back it, at
what rate it should be exchangeable with another currency, and for what it
should be exchanged and by who. This list is not exhaustive. Like a great many
things that come to form the state – what we oft call institutions – we are
born into them, with little individual power to really change them. Insofar as
this might frustrate the libertarian, cryptocurrency perhaps offers a solution,
if only for a small part of a larger structure, as they can choose almost all
aspects of a cryptocurrency. An individual can be the creator, the central
banker, the account manager, the publicist, etc. of a cryptocurrency, and
regain some of that liberty that, if we are honest, was dubiously lost in the
first place.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Yet I lament to
say these supposed benefits offer little more than a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">perception</i> of enhanced liberty, and, in actuality, demonstrate
little difference between crypto- and traditional currencies. My primary point
of refute on both charges is that the mechanism by which the state deems a
currency to be valuable is identical – practically speaking – to how an
individual deems a cryptocurrency valuable. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The question of
what a state is is beyond the scope of this piece; it is sufficient enough here
to say a state is an identity which a large enough number of people subscribe
to such that – if this identity were to be challenged – the constituent parts
could defend in one way or another their advocacy for that identity. The
provision of defence is necessary for this point, for it is what we might call
the weight or the clout of a state which allows the value of a currency to
become accepted and maintained despite the objections of any given individual.
Indeed, we need not consider a state, but simply two individuals, to understand
this concept. The value that the owner of an item assigns to that item can be
any value they choose. Yet if they desire to convert that item into another
item of the same value, they must find other individuals who are in possession
of the desired item, but who also <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">acknowledge</i>
the value of the owned item.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
In other words,
whilst the individual might desire and – in isolation – be able to prescribe a
value to themselves, their work and their possessions, it is only through the
acknowledgement of value in such things by others that gives those items any
semblance of objective value.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
In both
benefits, whilst an individual may feel a sense of liberty from choosing to use
a cryptocurrency over another unit of value, there is no legitimate claim to
the individual giving it value. Instead, the individual must rely on others to
recognise the value of the cryptocurrency in much the same way a state gains
the legitimacy to guarantee a currency. I dismiss any arguments of subjective
value: should an individual be able to survive based on their subjective
valuation of things alone, then there is logically no need for a
cryptocurrency, and thus no benefit to be gained, as that individual is already
master of all that which they require, and may – it is hoped – always be able
to strike a deal with oneself on the price of a good.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
If these are the
only benefits, insofar as libertarianism is concerned, that can be gained from
the decentralised structure of cryptocurrency, then I must conclude presently
that cryptocurrencies offer no libertarian benefit as they, as with traditional
units of value, demand the acceptance of value from others. One might, I
concede, gain benefit from the feeling of choice that cryptocurrencies allow –
ignoring the lack of markets where cryptocurrencies may actually be used – yet
I contend that few individuals would find such feelings satisfying when faced
with the reality of a valueless asset.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Considerations of cash, credit and consent</b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
We shall return
to arguments of state and decentralisation. It is now I would like to turn
-<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>having established the commonality of
traditional currency and cryptocurrency in terms of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">value</i> – to a discussion of anonymity and cash. This argument, I
believe, is a very simply one.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Whilst I cannot
deny the anonymous nature of cryptocurrency, I feel compelled to defend
traditional currencies against the claims of the libertarian that traditional
currencies may not be similar. Let us make one thing clear; insofar as there is
any substance on the matter, my decision to enter a store and purchase an item
with cash preserves my anonymity. Should such a purchase be performed on
credit, this statement is disputable, yet I will address such a dispute
shortly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
First, however,
it might be argued that my statement is false as there are repercussions to my
purchasing an item with cash that do in fact infringe my anonymity. Is it not
the case, it might be supposed, that my anonymity is tarnished by those who see
me entering the store; by the shop workers who facilitate my purchase; by the
cameras that capture my image and store it for as long as interested parties
desire? I cannot deny these activities as being necessary for any purchase to
occur; but let us think rationally. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The concern over
cameras, for example, is an issue of liberty, but it is not one that concerns
the means by which I purchase an item. For the libertarian to take aim at the
cash in my pocket, rather than the surveillance utilised by others, is to mark
such a person as senseless in their priorities. Of course, there remain others
who might identify me in the process of purchase; who might destroy my
anonymity. To this point, I feel compelled to express sympathy to any person
who imagines this to genuinely be a problem worthy of concern. Is not the
alternative – again, irrespective of the currency used – to be a hermit, to
hide away in self-imposed isolation such that some mystical notion of anonymity
might be preserved? Is it not a foolish admittance of desperate anti-social
behaviour to argue the witness of others threatens one’s anonymity, and thus
strengthens the libertarian claims of cryptocurrency? I think so.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
What might
strengthen these claims, I do admit, is if such a purchase is done on credit.
Before all else, it is necessary to explain why such a method may infringe my
anonymity. To this point, I offer a discussion of consent. By virtue of it
being necessary, I consent to the shop worker participating in any purchase I
make from the store; further, in keeping with the values of individual liberty
which any reasonable person will accept, I accept the reality of others seeing
me when I make me way to and from the store; and I consent, as part of my
obligations to purchasing an item from a store, to be photographed and recorded
doing so. Even if questions of consent regarding these issues may still be
raised, for the sake of our present discussion, let us allow for my consent on
these things to be given actively and unquestionably.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
To what activities
do I consent to my credit card company doing with my purchase information? Let
us be sensible: I consent to their handling of my money, requiring access to my
financial information and knowledge of with whom I am transacting; I consent to
their sending me billing information so that I might pay the costs of the
service, and as such I consent to their having my address and again access to
my purchasing information; and, by the act of being a customer, I consent to
whatever fees are associated with their service. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
I do not
necessarily consent to a stranger, an individual at the credit card company,
looking at, analysing or wantonly distributing my purchase information.
Further, I do not consent to the company holding my data forever. These are
valid points, and in establishing the boundaries of consent in any transaction,
we might begin to see how cryptocurrency purchases may diminish the opportunity
for our consent to be violated – for our liberty to be preserved. It stands to
reason, therefore, that any libertarian benefit of cryptocurrencies must
improve on the weaknesses of credit cards by – in my simple analysis – keeping
my data private, even from the eyes of those who handle the data, and by
keeping no record of my purchase, or at least a record which I control.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Those who are
familiar with blockchain technology must acknowledge, either partly or wholly,
that cryptocurrencies do neither. Let us consider the latter point first.
Blockchain technology records the transactions between parties of a particular
cryptocurrency in an online, distributed ledger. It is not possible, and would
certainly undermine the innovative thinking behind blockchain, if a transaction
could be removed off the blockchain. Whilst my credit card purchase might
eventually be deleted off the company’s system or diminished within a literal
paper trail of historic transactions, the blockchain ledger remains. One might
argue the anonymity of a posting to the blockchain invalidates this point –
indeed, at this time I have no rebuttal which I would dare to call strong – but
one also cannot deny this is a weak defence of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">spirit</i> of libertarianism, predicated only on the infallibility of
online anonymity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The spirit is
weakened in another regard: the blockchain is publicly visible. This is a
necessary part of maintaining the sanctity on blockchain transactions, one that
promotes transparency and which I applaud. Yet, when compared to my credit card
transaction which could only be seen by those who had access to such data at
the company, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">spirit</i> of anonymity,
or the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">spirit</i> of individual privacy,
seems to me so much more publicly exposed by cryptocurrencies than alternative
technological methods. In actuality, this claim might be dubious; but in
actuality, again, one must surely see that the two methods are more similar
than they are alien. If one is a panacea to a libertarian crisis, then is the
libertarian not twice cured? If one is not, surely the libertarian is still
sick?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
But, allow me to
interject one final point before moving on. I have offered the state as the
enemy of the libertarian, though I have done so acknowledging this is an over
simplification. As such, let us now complicate it: are not the issues of
consumer rights regarding credit cards, of data access and distribution and
security and so on, are those concerns not countered by state legislation?
Legislation which, less we forget, does not necessarily exist with
cryptocurrencies. From the simplified perspective of libertarianism, I agree
this makes cryptocurrencies more libertarian; but even the famed liberal John
Stuart Mill, and a great many critics thereafter, acknowledge that some
legislation and regulation may actually preserve and enhance liberty! Such laws
as govern the treatment of consumers and their data give me confidence to use
credit cards, allowing me – through such use – to exercise my liberty. It is
not my contention, but it should not go unsaid, that concerns regarding the
security of cryptocurrencies may infringe a person’s capacity to exercise their
liberty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such a thought requires
addressing by those advocates of this whole libertarian affair.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Returning to question of state</b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The above is
perhaps a preamble as to what I would like to discuss now. Partly as an aside,
but yet I hope soon obvious, is mention of the irony that so much surrounding
cryptocurrency seems to be applicable to that old adage of two sides to every
(bit)coin. We have seen it above, to various degrees, be it the similarities in
value mechanisms between traditional and cryptocurrencies, or – as I would
contend – the false positive claims of greater liberty through reduced
regulation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
These debates,
these positives and negatives and the ensuing tug of war for argumentative
dominance are not surprising when we consider that questions of liberty are
messy, if for no other reason than perspectives bend and break, switch and
grow, and what one might consider perfectly acceptable, another considers
abhorrent, and so on. Nothing is new here, though I remind the reader the state
most often is the subject of many disparaging remarks in these debates. I
speculate, if I might for a moment, that this is because – almost ironically –
the state is the great unifier; the omnipresent other of which we all know
intimately, and yet inevitable feel detached from. Perhaps, I suggest, even
those individuals who find great strife with one another may unite against the
state should it attempt to deny the warring peoples their strife.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Above, I offered
the state a reprieve. I now offer it another. A strong, positive argument for
the proliferation of cryptocurrency is improved transparency. Ignoring the
distant laughs of tax authorities and criminal enterprises, the blockchain does
seem – at least theoretically – to promote transparency of exchanges even if
the exchangers remain anonymous. Compared to the great behemoths of the state,
of central banks and the financial industry more widely, we should acknowledge
the beauty of the blockchain idea.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
It is necessary,
however, before proceeding, to clarify why the question of transparency is
crucial to the libertarian debate. First, liberty insofar as the natural
sciences allow, and its denial, requires someone to deny said liberty. One can
deny their own liberty but may just as easily reclaim it; it is only through
the interaction with others that a person’s liberty may become diminished.
Secondly, I would argue that any interaction with another in some way reduces a
person’s liberty, be it through violence or obstacle or the then-established
prejudices of another, the initiation and continuation of a dynamic with
another reduces a person’s liberty (it may, of course, enhance their liberty.
My point should focus more on a person’s changing sense of liberties; where one
door opens, another may close. That person is not necessarily worse off than
they were previously, but they are changed, and insofar as they don’t want to
be changed, as they desire to return to a time without the bonds of this
connection, they are left stranded. More, of course, could be said of this
issue, but it is not the intention of this piece to do so). This though, is not
necessarily a matter of moral repugnance. If the reader will recall, I may
consent to the restriction of my liberties to assume various benefits from
compliance, or to adhere to my own beliefs. Considering all these things, it
follows that the entity which seeks to deny us of liberty must be sufficiently
transparent for us to consent or reject the entity. This notion, loosely, is an
abstraction of the Rawls’ (1971) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">publicity
principle</i>, an idea previously considered by Kant.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Now we may
return to cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency, it appears to me, solves the
transparency problem by claiming to remove the second party – the party that
is necessary to deprive a person of their liberty. Supposing this is the case,
it is easy to see why many would call cryptocurrency a libertarian tool.
Similarly, considering the bureaucracy of state – indeed, the very existence of
the state! – those same individuals will surely argue that centralised
institutions are abhorrently opaque, and thus fail a test such as the publicity
principle.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
I have
demonstrated above, in regard to data security, evidence of this flawed
thinking. I now offer my retort to this accusation directly. To do so, I ask a simple
question: how might one be anonymous, and yet transparent? For all the rhetoric
that may surround the state or private banking institutions, let us not forget
we know who they are. I can, should my dissatisfaction become so great, change
my bank, vote out my representatives, or indeed move to a different country
entirely. I can write letters to CEOs and politicians whom I am disgruntled
with; I can hold protests and write essays exclaiming my frustrations; I can,
if I want, even challenge directly the positions of those individuals with whom
I am so irate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
It is an
insufficient argument to say that the state or a bank is too large to surely
know which specific individual it is that is violating my liberty at that
moment, for such a grievance may be handled in a manner that is sufficient
simply by knowing the party or the bank with whom this individual is
associated. Can I do the same with cryptocurrency? I cannot.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Whilst I can
access the blockchain and perhaps see evidence of market manipulation, I cannot
see which person or organisation is behind it. Whilst I can know exactly how
much of a particular cryptocurrency has been mined, I cannot petition more to
be realised, as I might be able to petition a central bank to increase the
money supply. Note the difference: I need not know the person who operates the
printing presses at the Bank of England for my concerns to be discharged at the
bank generally; but given the nature of cryptocurrencies, my screams may echo
into the aether. This is liberty, but only nominally. This is transparency, but
only technically.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
This argument is
perhaps the beginning of my attack on the claims of anonymity, but I would
rather consider it a defence of the merits of the state, of which I would hope
any wise libertarian would acknowledge there are. If this argument feels
detached from the rest of this piece, that is unfortunate, but perhaps
inevitable. Let us turn, therefore, back to the claims of anonymity once more.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The correct target</b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
In my
introduction, I described anonymity as the silver bullet of cryptocurrency, a
feature which serves a purpose and fulfils a promise of the technology that no
rival has come close to dislodging. The promise of anonymity, insofar as the
libertarian is concerned, is panacea, for it offers the chance for the
individual to do whatever they like and not suffer the consequences of these
actions. It is now, therefore, that we must address criminal activity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Let me be clear
here: it is not the purpose of this piece to levy a moral judgement on such activity
beyond that which all civil society must surely agree is repugnant. As short
commentary on this matter, I see no point in debating the content of this piece
with that person so fanciful of the doctrine of libertarianism that they might
permiss those activities that bring harm to others. This is not a clear line,
as any scholar of the harm principle will know; but I take solace in the belief
that at the extremes the colours are less grey. It is the person whose colour
is much distinguishable from grey, and much the opposite of the average
person’s, to whom I address my repugnance.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
The anonymity of
cryptocurrency enables individuals to purchase a whole range of illegal
products and services online. By doing so, these individuals seem to circumvent
the laws of society and insofar as libertarianism advocates the liberty of all
people, this feature of cryptocurrency certainly seems initially to be
libertarian. There will be, of course, those libertarians that do not support
this argument; those who argue we should be granted maximum liberty within the
confines of the law, law which exists for a valid reason. I recognise this
perspective, despite having never myself met a libertarian who did not advocate
some adjustment of the law in one way or another, and for this I am glad. Just
as those who might permit repugnant acts in the name of libertarianism ignore
the wider debate of what should and should not be legal, so too do those that
only challenge liberty within the confines of the law, and do not push for debate
– all be it from the opposite direction to their counterparts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
At present, I
feel I am offering a reasonable defence for the libertarian nature of
cryptocurrency as it allows individuals to interpret the grey areas of legality
safely – by which I mean anonymously – which I will not deny may have benefits.
But this, I contend, is actually a great weakness of cryptocurrency as a
libertarian tool, and the impetus for the invalidation of anonymity as a
worthwhile feature.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Remember the
cameras. The anonymity of cryptocurrency is only necessary when pertaining to
the purchase of illegal items because such items are illegal. If those items
were legal, the narrative reverts to the isolated hermit terrified of the
world, less common sense be allowed to take over. Anonymity as a feature is a result
of the illegality of some items that may be purchased. As such, I suggest it is
not libertarian to tout cryptocurrency as a libertarian tool; the liberal
activity is actually the debate surrounding the legality or illegality of those
items being purchased. Recall our discussion on the merits of cash; my
purchasing from a store may just as well have been a purchase of illegal
substances. Should I be caught, justice – rightly or wrongly – will be levied
not on the means by which I purchased those substances, but on the act of
purchase and possession of those substances. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
It is thus the
debate about the illegality of the substances that is relevant to the libertarian
and should be the target of their efforts. Cryptocurrency, beyond the benefit
recognised above, merely serves as a substitutable method amongst many others,
and should not in und itself be considered the focus of libertarian attention.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
But there is a
further point to be had. The great defence of cryptocurrencies as being anonymous
and thus libertarian crumbles when we realise that anonymity is only relevant
when it comes to the purchase of illegal items, and in all other cases, be it
the charge of transparency or of value, anonymity is perhaps harmful to the
libertarian cause. Of course, I do not seek to belittle the debate; I simply
charge libertarians with identifying the wrong area of debate – not the
currency, but the item for purchase.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
Let us debate
the illegality of various things but let us simultaneously relegate
cryptocurrencies to the realm of simple units of value. Let us not place
anonymity on a pedestal, for anonymity – when necessary – may be found in all currencies
and is only necessary in almost all circumstances when they facilitate the
purchasing of illegal items. Anonymity is not a feature that should be touted
and, insofar as questions of liberty are concerned, anonymity offers little
practical benefit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Concluding remarks</b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
It is easy I
believe to take the remarks I have presented here and see an author wholly
opposed to cryptocurrencies. I am not. But, with an arrogance I fear has
pervaded this piece, I charged some readers with ignorance at the start of this
piece. I am surely ignorant also.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
However, on this
matter I stake a defence. Cryptocurrencies are not libertarian. This does not
mean they detract from the libertarian cause, and it does not mean I am opposed
to them outright. On the contrary, throughout this piece I have argued the
features of cryptocurrencies often mimic that of regular units of value – a
strategy I would contend may facilitate the widespread adoption of the
technology.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
But in far too
many discussions I have heard this rhetoric repeated: cryptocurrencies have
many libertarian advantages over traditional units of value. I hope I have
conveyed to you why this is false:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: 150%; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol>
<li>As a means of
value being determined, multiple people must agree on a value; as such, the
individual is not free to set the value;</li>
<li>Cash is insofar
as it practically matters as anonymous as a cryptocurrency;</li>
<li>Where credit is
concerned, blockchain creates a record of transaction that – at least in spirit
– fails to differentiate cryptocurrencies and credit;</li>
<li>Anonymity
shrouds cryptocurrencies in shadows, making adherence to the publicity
principle difficult and diminishing the individual’s power of objection;</li>
<li>Anonymity is
only necessary for the purchase of illegal items, with such items being the
true centre of any libertarian debate, rather than the means of purchase</li>
</ol>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: 150%; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
In writing this
piece, other ideas came to mind. But I feel, in one form or another, any
objections that I presently have the power to predict may sufficiently find
redress in the content of this piece.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
If I may repeat
myself once more: I am surely ignorant also. There is not a semblance of belief
in my mind that I have the vision to imagine the future of this technology, nor
the cognitive power to predict all the nuances attached. I only levy this one
charge, based on the content of this piece: cryptocurrencies are not
libertarian.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-45489193138953340782018-07-16T06:06:00.000-07:002018-07-16T06:06:00.436-07:00A Second Referendum is not a Solution<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem with vapid statements is they work only as
placeholders, and cannot exist as anything beyond meaningless soundbites –
except, maybe, in the form of a joke. A wonderful example of such a statement
is Theresa May’s, “Brexit means Brexit,” which, this country has come to
discover in recent days/weeks/months (I guess it depends how much obnoxious
foresight one wishes to prescribe to themselves) isn’t quite sufficient to
negotiate one of the most complicated diplomatic de-couplings in history. The
effectiveness of, “Brexit means Brexit,” at least initially, stems from the
same syllogistic logic that 1 = 1. The difference, however, is that most people
know what the number 1 means.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is not that people – be it politicians or pundits or the
public – do not know what Brexit <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">means</i>
per se; we all know that Brexit means the United Kingdom leaving the European
Union. Rather, the problem is the question of how we leave the European Union –
stumbling drunkenly out of the club reciting an infamous retort of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e35AQK014tI" target="_blank">Bender from Futurama</a>; or thanking everyone on our way out for giving us such a lovely time,
before sending them a Facebook friend request. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Such analogies for a hard and soft Brexit might sound dumb,
but frankly, they are as valid as any other description of our current
negotiating debate. Do not misunderstand me: it is not that people do not know
what they are doing, it is that nobody seems able to agree on whose nicely
typeset and grammar checked proposal should be put through the Westminster
meat-grinder this week, and whose should live to die another day.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This, “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/13/soft-hard-brexit-no-commons-majority-theresa-may" target="_blank">majority for nothing</a>,” situation is what has caused
the former education secretary Justine Greening to add her voice to the
increasing numbers calling for a people’s vote on the final Brexit outcome (why
exactly they are calling it a people’s vote and not a referendum, beyond the
benefits such linguistic wizardry may provide in a PR battle, is beyond me). I
have previously written about a potential second referendum, to an extent
advocating for it, and I will not shy away from grounding my thoughts on Ms.
Greening’s proposal in my previously held position. But first, let us lay out
what is being proposed:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">There will be three options available: a clean break (no-deal), a facilitated customs arrangement (FCA; Mrs. May’s Chequers plan) and the option to remain in the EU.</span></li>
<li style="text-indent: 0px;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Voters will be given a primary and secondary vote, allowing them to vote for two of the above options – essentially showing their ranked preference of all three options – which will ensure the option that wins has a majority backing.</span></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Insofar as such an incendiary thing as a second referendum
goes, I like Ms. Greening’s initial proposal, and her rationale for proposing
it. Whilst a Remainer, this referendum feels less like an obvious Remainer coup
masquerading as devolved democracy than previous calls might have done. The
proposal certainly tries – though, may not succeed – to ensure the vote spells
out a more specific arrangement than the 2016 referendum question achieved.
Finally, at least theoretically, the primary and secondary vote structure
brings clarity to the country’s preference, and again helps dissuade criticism
that this is just a Remainer coup. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On that latter, and indeed immediately former point of
praise, I have heard criticism, however. Some might argue that two leave
options and only one remain option will split the leave vote, biasing the vote
towards remain. This may be true of a vote consisting of only one elected
choice, but with a primary and secondary choice, such criticism appears to be a
misunderstanding of reality. A leaver, we might presume, will vote for both
leave options (the exact preference does not matter). Yet a Remainer, whose
primary vote will support remaining in the EU, will have to (provided
single-elective votes are not counted, which, given this is all presently
hypothetical, I must assume) vote for a leave option as their secondary choice.
Rather than such a referendum being biased towards Remain, this referendum
proffers a Leave sentiment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This, in turn, leads to a second curiosity to consider: who
would win? To that it is hard to say, but I do offer an alternative
proposition: the vote for a soft-Brexit (the FCA plan backed by Mrs. May’s)
will dominate, and will muddy any outcome. This will be despite it<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>would be the public’s least preferred option.
Here’s why.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Extend the rationale prescribed above. Those on the extremes
of this debate, hard Brexiteers and Remainers, will of course favour no-deal
and remain respectively. Their second elective, by demographic definition, must
be for a soft-Brexit. On paper, thus, the only apparent agreeable consensus
between these two groups is a soft-Brexit – they both said it was their
secondary choice! In as long as it is short, this is the situation we presently
find ourselves, and we are at an impasse. In terms of the extremes, this referendum
will solve nothing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, the purpose of the referendum is to garner the
opinions of the British people, and the majority of the British people are not
on the extremes, at least insofar as they are willing to listen to argument and
allow themselves to be convinced by it. But even a Remain-leaning voter, or a
Leave-leaning voter, will most commonly select amongst their choices the soft-Brexit
option (possibly as a first-choice, often as a second-choice).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The structure of this vote will inevitably polarise people
(this is mathematical fact: if 1 and 3 represent polar opposite positions, and
you must pick two numbers between 1 and 3, one foot must end up on an icecap),
and thus the majority of people, whom we might assume are broadly split down
the middle between the extreme positions, will appear most reconcilable around
a soft-Brexit. Again, this accomplishes nothing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Further, because the vote is inevitably polarising, I would
predict the Remain and Leave campaigns, rather than a third soft-Brexit
campaign, to dominant the narrative. In effect, then, this vote would be
rendered a re-run of the last referendum, which has a smell of democratic-subversion.
But this is not the point I would immediately like to make. Rather, my point is
this: in such a referendum campaign, the number of individuals who elect,
primarily or secondly, both no-deal and remain in, will be reduced, and thus
the proliferation of a soft-Brexit vote will be facilitated. We might expect
such a group of people to be small anyway, and that is true, but unless there
is a strong core of supporters campaigning for a soft-Brexit, this group will
get smaller. As an aside, if such hypothesising is true, it seems terribly
offensive to the democratic process that the winning strategy might be to do
nothing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One should not ignore an additional line of inquiry, one
that is somewhat ironic given my previous statement, that being that a
soft-Brexit vote is one that most preserves democracy, by which I mean honours
the outcome of the previous referendum. Of course, the no-deal option does so
too; but I can imagine a compelling logic in the mind of the average voter that
Brexit must happen, but it should not jeopardise various interests, and thus a
soft-Brexit is preferential.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me clarify: I am not riling against a soft-Brexit
outcome. Instead, I am arguing that a soft-Brexit outcome invalidates the whole
reason for having the second referendum. I can see some reasoning, of course: one
or both of the extreme sides of the Brexit debate may be side-lined as a result,
less they be accused of subverting the democratic will. This might enable a
majority in parliament for the FCA, or something similar. But a soft-Brexit
arrangement, by its nature, would be a messy outcome, and thus anyone believing
these groups would go quietly is deluding themselves; a soft-Brexit still
leaves room for hard Brexiteers and Remainers to return. It still allows both
sides to argue mass favour of, or dissention towards, the EU. Consider it
another way: was the 2016 referendum not a clear-cut question that should have,
in theory, silenced – or at least demobilised – those whose arguments lost? As
it did not, what guarantees do we have that a second referendum, irrespective
of outcome, will resolve the situation we find ourselves in?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If, then, this new referendum may devolve into a re-run of
the last referendum; if the result may leave us exactly where we are; and if
the new result may not guarantee parliamentary consensus; if all these things,
why even have the referendum? The retort to these arguments is that we don’t
know, and cannot know until run, what the outcome would be. I will not argue
against such a retort, though I do not believe it invalidates the arguments I
have raised. A second referendum is not a panacea.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Following my previous
comments<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I might be accused of being a hypocrite, given that
sentence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have <a href="http://stuartmmills.blogspot.com/2017/10/leviathan.html" target="_blank">previously </a>written about the prospect of a second
referendum. In that piece, I argued Mrs. May could take a political gamble to
strengthen her position in her own party, and perhaps in parliament. My
proposal was simple: re-run the referendum, and side with Remain. The youth
support so enamoured with Jeremy Corbyn would suddenly have a new champion – at
least in terms of Brexit – in the form of Mrs. May, whilst the hard Brexiteers
in her own party would be forced into an existential contest: win, or accept
the PM’s authority. Of course, Mrs. May would also face an existential contest,
for should she have lost she would have had to resign. This is why it was a
gamble, and given Theresa May will surely have a promising career as a glue
salesperson once her time in office is up, it was never one she was likely to
take.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ignoring Mrs. May’s FCA plan, this barrier to a second
referendum remains. As the 2017 General election demonstrates, Mrs. May will
not take a risk unless she believes herself likely to win. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But we cannot ignore the FCA; Mrs. May has made her bed, and
she must now sleep in it. If my thoughts are right, nothing will change; if my
thoughts are wrong, Mrs. May will have to resign. A second referendum now holds
none of the advantages that it did prior to her unveiling her plan. When I
hypothesised about the potential political benefits for Mrs. May of holding a
second referendum, I considered only the political benefits, which – at the
time – I believed existed. For Mrs. May, these benefits no longer exist, and
thus she will not call another referendum.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yet this is an obvious conclusion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This conclusion is also simply mathematics: if there isn’t a
consensus to get any Brexit plan through parliament, there is certainly not a
majority to get a second referendum vote through parliament without (and
possibly even with) the PM’s backing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All of this Brexit debate, and I do mean all of it, points
to the elephant in the room. Shaped by the rhetoric of the victors, too often there
is a narrative that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">country</i> wants
Brexit, that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">country</i> thinks Brexit
will be bad for jobs, that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">country</i>
wants control of its borders, that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">country</i>
is concerned about leaving the single market. The only thing we can say about this
country and Brexit is that 52% voted to leave the EU, and 48% voted to remain
in the EU. For all the talk, for all the rhetoric and vitriol, if you want to
know why we’re divided on Brexit, the answer is because we’re divided on
Brexit. I am not confident a second referendum will change that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-16363144093321392272018-06-04T14:54:00.001-07:002018-06-04T14:54:24.639-07:00iRegulate – Apple’s solution to screen addiction and personalised paternalism<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
This week at their annual developer’s conference Apple released
details of new software features aimed at curbing screen addiction. Such
features might be considered novel by some and a cynical attempt to avoid legal
action by others (Bradshaw, 2018 in the <i>Financial
Times</i>), but to some people – by which I mean me – this marks an important
step in the development of personalised paternalism.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Personalised paternalism is an interesting idea that exists,
at least in theory, as a response to the existing problems standard paternalism
in regulatory frameworks. Though, standard paternalism is a bit of a misnomer,
so let’s clarify some terminology first.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Without full details, it’s hard to assess how closely Apple’s
new software will be borrowing from nudge theory – a branch of behavioural
economics (which itself is a branch of economics with a good helping of psychology
mixed in) that focuses on adjusting (or, as some might argue manipulating. See,
for example, Rebonato, 2014; Arad and Rubinstein, 2015) how a proposition is
presented to a decision maker in order to influence their choosing of a
specific option (see Thaler and Sunstein’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nudge</i>
(2008) for more). However, some reported elements, such as time-usage reports
and mandatory downtime options, clearly have a grounding in the world of nudge.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The trouble with nudges, at least philosophically, is
primarily the question of who should nudge? We all like to think we make wise
decisions most of the time, but what if you were told you were often wrong in
your decision making? And further, what if you were told there was someone who,
at no expense to yourself, was willing to nudge you in the right direction?
When phrased like this, it’s hard to really be aggrieved at your benevolent
advisor. But think about it this way: what if Apple didn’t let you set the
downtime options, but instead decided that they understood your usage better
than you and chose for you how long you’re access to a specific app was
restricted?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is part of the problem with paternalism (and it is
definitely paternalism. Nudges, typically, do not objectively limit freedom of
choice – there is some debate regarding <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nominal</i>
freedom of choice, but that’s beyond the scope of this piece). Whilst both you
and Apple may agree you need and want to cut down on your screen time, and
whilst Apple may be better informed of how to meet this end more effectively,
there’s something deeply sour about this approach.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In nudge theory, the scenario is not so explicit. Say you
want to pick a pension scheme, but there’s a lot of information out there and
you don’t really want to trawl through it all to pick the absolute best scheme
for you (assuming you’re even able to do that). Nudge theory may advocate a
carefully selected default option pension scheme. The default option effect
states that when faced with a decision, people are more likely to pick the
default option than an alternative option. If the default pension plan is the
optimal pension plan for the average saver, then, so the theory goes, welfare
may be maximised by nudging people towards the default plan, rather than
allowing them to sift through all the information and potentially pick the
objectively wrong policy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And for most people this system works. Whilst some argue
against this idea, conjecturing it’s not possible to know what other people
would choose for themselves (again, see Rebonato (2014), or, more broadly, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On Liberty</i> by Mill (1859)), this misses
a point: in some situations, most people will not know what is the best option
for them, and they’ll be happy enough to be nudged in the ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">good enough</i>,’ direction (see Sunstein and Thaler (2003) who cite
Beattie et al. (1994) on this point). The stronger criticism comes in the form
of a question: can we do better?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is where personalised paternalism comes in. The problem
with either the hard paternalism example of Apple setting the downtime options
or the soft paternalism of experts nudging people towards the best – on average
– pension scheme is that most people will still be left somewhat unsatisfied by
these approaches. Whilst the default scheme might be good enough, it won’t
necessarily be optimal for me as an individual. Similarly, whilst on average it
might not be wise for a person to spend umpteen hours a day on their phone, you
might be able to cope with the effects of screen time much better than the
average person. By adhering to averages, everyone will lose out – though some
more than others.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To get the best of both worlds, we would need to be able to
feed all our preferences, ideas and uncertainties into the system, and then let
someone else’s expert judgement determine the best course for us <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">specifically</i> (assuming, of course, you
want someone else making the decision). This is personalised paternalism, and
as we begin to collect more and more data about ourselves, the potential for
the theory to become realised skyrockets. Apple’s screen addiction software may
mark an important step in this direction. Here’s why.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Say Apple reports back to you how much time you send playing
Candy Crush every week, and you decide you want to cut down. You could specify an
amount of time each week you are allowed to play Candy Crush, and let the
software work in the background to keep track of everything. Perhaps in the
future this software might access data in your calendar to know when you should
be working, or your location data to figure out you like to play whilst you’re
commuting to work, and it will build your allotted time around these preferable
and not so preferable time frames? This might work fantastically, potentially
increasing productivity and making downtime feel more rewarding.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, it’s easy to spin all of this as a positive and
ignore the negatives. If the goal of this software is to cut down on screen
time, is it really the best strategy to let technology coordinate <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">more</i> around your life? Additionally, as
I have argued before – following arguments put forward by Bar-Gill (2012) – even
in disclosure interventions (when a person is given more information to help
them reach a better decision themselves, rather than asked to trust the
judgement of someone else who has that information, i.e. a nudge) which the
above example is, there are still paternalistic aspects, and aspects that
infringe on freedom of choice. For example, if I was told how much time I <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">don’t</i> use my phone every day, my
feelings about how I should moderate my use will probably be different compared
to the effect of being told how much I use my phone. The decision of how to
frame information disclosure is a paternalistic act in itself.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, we should always ask an important question: why do
we need it? Personalised paternalism supposes to make our lives better by
tailoring regulatory strategies and nudges to our specific requirements; but is
it right that we should feel compelled to regulate ourselves? Is it the
consumer’s fault that they spend too much time on their iPhone, or Apple’s for
making such an appealing device, or King’s for using bright colours and sounds
in Candy Crush? There is no absolute answer to these questions, but I believe
they’re important ideas to think about nevertheless.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I generally believe Apple’s announcement is a positive one,
and when we accept some form of paternalism will always exist, the ability to
have some control over it if we want is an important feature to have. But
paternalism, nudges and the agency question that surround both remain important
questions to consider, and it would be dangerous to see one solution as a panacea.</div>
<h3>
References</h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Arad, A, Rubinstein, A (2015) ‘<i>The people’s perspective on
libertarian-paternalistic policies</i>,’ working paper no. 5/2015, research no.
00140100. [Date accessed: 04/06/2018] [Online]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ariel_Rubinstein2/publication/321161872_The_People%27s_Perspective_on_Libertarian-Paternalistic_Policies/links/5a129b3e458515cc5aa9e5a4/The-Peoples-Perspective-on-Libertarian-Paternalistic-Policies.pdf<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Bar-Gill, O (2012) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Seduction by Contract</i>’ Oxford University
Press: Oxford<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Bradshaw, T (2018) ‘Apple
addresses screen addiction with new suite of tools’ <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Financial Times</i>. [Date Accessed: 04/06/2018] [Online]: https://www.ft.com/content/e4048d90-6824-11e8-b6eb-4acfcfb08c11<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Beattie, J, Baron, J, Hershey, J,
Spranca, M (1994) ‘Psychological determinants of decision attitude’ Journal of
Behavioural Decision Making, 7(2), pp. 129-144<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Mill, J S (1859) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On </i>Liberty’ in ‘On Liberty,
Utilitarianism and Other Essays’ (2015), Oxford University Press: Oxford<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Rebonato, R (2014) ‘A Critical
Assessment of Libertarian Paternalism’ <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Journal
of Consumer Policy</i>, 37(3), pp. 357-396<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Thaler, R, Sunstein, C (2003)
‘Libertarian Paternalism’ The American Economic Review, 93(2), pp. 175 -179<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Thaler, R, Sunstein, C (2008) ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nudge’</i> Penguin Books and Yale University
Press: London<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-53207063306982340052018-05-30T10:47:00.000-07:002018-05-30T10:50:49.028-07:00A Modest Proposal for a New Social Media<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">For many observers and commentators of the recent Facebook
data scandal, now is the time to bask in smugness. Smugness, in one regard,
because it is Silicon Valley (or at least a major member of it) finally
receiving what some might consider to be comeuppance, but also because many
will claim to have seen such a scandal coming. The logic behind the latter
consideration is simple; with so much data, and so many users, eventually
something would go wrong. Popularity, or perhaps frequency, breeds inevitability
– a notion that we will return to.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The response to such a scandal, too, has thus far been quite
typical of the current digital age, with hashtag movements seeming to galvanise
the popular, if sometimes discreet, zeitgeist rejecting social media (irony, of
course, pervades, namely, a hashtag campaign to rally against Facebook
membership). Meanwhile, governments, who, in more ways than simply potential
election irregularities, have felt marginalised by social media, embrace the
opportunity to assert some legislative position, even if ultimately nothing
transpires from these witch hunts (the use of the phrase ‘witch hunts,’ is not
done with some hyperbolic tone as might be conceived; such investigations are
supported, and the phrase has been used for lack of a better word).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">It is valuable, and indeed necessary, in my opinion, that we
begin to examine the role of a) social media, b) digital enterprise more widely
and c) big data within the frame of the democratic and social contract. Such
examination, I believe, was necessary even before the several high profile
examples of dubious social media exploits that have brought these questions to
the fore; whilst one should be sad that said scandals have occurred, one must
be grateful of any progress given the unrelenting ferocity with which some
imagined, ‘future,’ seems intent on imposing itself on society (again, I fear
the negative undertones in my words; to be sure, whilst sceptical, it is poetic
license, and not the entrenchment of a position, that should be identified from
my choice of phrasing). Be it some calls for the public ownership of big data,
or the application of anti-trust laws in the face of Silicon Valley behemoths,
solutions, be them effective or fanciful, are valuable if only in acknowledging
that there is a problem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Yet, despite the themes alluded to thus far, a precise
picture of what has and is happening does not appear clear. It is argued here,
to an extent, this is because nothing fundamentally has changed in the way
Facebook and its users operate. I think it is a helpful to begin by considering
the impending crisis in social media (which, I would suggest, is not
necessarily a crisis solely within social media, but also within big data
regulation and anti-trust laws around tech companies) to that of the 2008
financial crisis. The parallels, though superficial at times, do, I believe,
provide a reasonable basis of thought with which to proceed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">In terms that are far too simplified, the 2008 financial
crisis was a failure from regulators, from government, and from individuals, in
moderating the behaviour of massive financial institutions as they placed a
vast number of moral hazard trades. Such hazardous morality was (and is, to an
extent) found in their size and importance to society at the time. The collapse
of the banking system challenged not only the financial dominance of the
Western world, but also the civil authority of governments – certainly their
political authority. Genuine fears of the loss of deposits (even if the threat
of such lost deposits was not genuine, the fears certainly were), of home
repossession and so on highlighted the importance, yet simultaneous fragility,
of the financial system as a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">social</i>
institution. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Whilst profit-motive was certainly a driving factor from the
perspective of bankers, from the perspective of customers, their motive was to
receive some fantastic benefit – say, a home – from the perceived progress and
innovation within the financial system. They were sold an idea.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I suggest similar, all be it less apocalyptic, parallels can
be drawn between the 2008 financial crisis and Facebook (amongst others) today.</span></div>
<h2>
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Social
media and the social contract</span></i></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">It is foolish to ignore the integral social role Facebook,
Twitter and Google play in our society, even if the actual purpose or value
generated by these companies within an individual mindset is limited or even
possibly negative. The value of these sites is not in the services they provide
per se; rather, value is derived from the ubiquity of their services. It is
quite impossible to tell if Facebook is the best social media company, or
Google the best search engine; but we are quite certain that a plethora of
friends may be found on Facebook, and a sufficient quantity of relevant
information found on Google. This is the tenet of big data – precision may be
forgone, provided a large enough sample is available (precision is oft the word
used when discussing big data – it is perhaps more appropriate to say
personality when discussing Facebook or Google, amongst others). Equally,
quality may be forgone, provided what remains is sufficient given present
demands. This phenomenon, rather than traditional mechanisms of establishing
monopoly, is how these sites have become embedded in our society. They do <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">just</i> enough, and those few that would
like more, or at least different, are just that – few.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">It is the popular premise that big data, harnessed via social
media’s complex algorithms, can provide a social networking experience that
offers genuine benefits to the user; an augmentation of a user’s social
interactions with others <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for the better</i>.
Yet it seems unreasonable to allow a company whose business is the augmentation
of societal interactions to exist outside of the social contract that governs
all other social interactions, especially when the natural barriers of reality
are blurred and belittled by digitised substitutes (it might be cute and
amusing to see a company’s sassy Twitter response to a customer, but one should
not forget that each retweet is also advertising, for example).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">By engaging in this industry, one must accept their social
responsibilities, and the moral hazards that are also brought forth, and act in
such a way as to not defile the former and exploit the latter. Further, and in
what will be discussed in more detail below, it is an insufficient argument to
suggest that the lack of obvious equitable exchange between a social media
platform and its users constitutes a means of invalidating the social contact;
quite the opposite, I suggest: data is not currency, and as such, any exchange
involving it must embed the tenets of trust and consent that follow a great
many other interactions governed by the social contract.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">If one still remains unconvinced that social media holds a
social contract with us, or more generally that the movement of activities from
reality to the online space serves to invalid any formerly present social
contract, one need only ask oneself would they divulge the same amount of
personal information given online to real world strangers? Would they post a
photo of themselves in the middle of the town, knowing that photo is not just
liable to be seen, but also stolen and exploited, by those one neither knows
nor trusts? Perhaps, if all one’s friends had also participated, but then we
must ask the question of who is validating the action? Surely a social contract
still exists; not between oneself and the entire town, but between oneself and
one’s friends, whereby faith in their judgement is levied against any other
consequences. However, such an argument seems dumb – the fury at any und to ord
consequences is surely to be levied at the person who steals the photo or
hijacks the information, not the colleagues who advocate the advertisement of
such things in the first place. And surely, by extension, the existence of any
fury demonstrates a violation of something borne between oneself and this
mystery villain – a social contract.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">And thus, even if you would be willing to give tremendous
amounts of personal information to a stranger, be it for apparent benefit, or
via a friend’s recommendation, or both, one might only deny the presence of a
social contract if an undesired – yet possibly permitted – use of that information
does not invoke outrage, fury or despair. Given the furore presently
surrounding social media, and what I would contend is a perceived undercurrent
of distain for social media more generally – though, of course, I offer no
evidence for this conviction – I believe my argument is sufficiently valid, at
least insofar as this piece is concerned, to take that as evidence of the
presence, and recent violation of, a social contract between social media and
society at large.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Accepting that a social contract does exist between social
media and its users demands, thus, that we consider how this relationship
manifests currently, which is to say how are these companies presently embedded
within society?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Where Twitter has enabled the public broadcast of a stray
thought as would previously be limited to a conversation in a coffee shop or
bar, Google has enabled the modern construction of Alexander’s library.
Facebook has perhaps been even bolder, combining all which might be called
media into a self-curated space – what I have previously likened to the
invention of the soul. These companies challenge our notions of institutions,
public and private, by leveraging promises of efficiency that what might be
called terrestrial institutions could never possibly achieve. The impetus of
such efficiency is, of course, data; and it is to data we now turn (it is not
beyond me that the transformative nature of social media makes the former
comparison between social media and the stranger on the street dubious, as social
media may redefine what a stranger is and indeed force us to question where, or
at least how long and wide, the street is. Yet I feel the comparison still
serves a relevant purpose, if only insofar as it makes a complex digital
landscape more rational for non-digital entities – namely humans – to understand).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">To understand what role social media plays in society, we
must consider how we and it interact, and – in what might be an economist’s
unavoidable habit – perform something akin to a cost-benefit analysis. I first
propose a simple idea: that the exchange of data, insofar as it might act like
currency, for greater efficiency through the medium of customisation, is as
equitable a trade as the exchange of dollars for bread. Supposing this notion
is true, then it is not the case, as some might suggest, that the act of
exchanging data is inherently bad. Instead, it is an act that is concerned with
choice and trust. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Returning to the financial crisis, the act of taking out a
mortgage was not in itself malignant; yet the act of irresponsible lending –
where choice was manufactured and falsified, and trust manipulated – produced a
crisis.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">In a sense, one might accuse the transgressions during the
financial crisis of consisting of an irresponsible leveraging of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">social</i> equity, leading to dramatic
consequences when such an account was ultimately balanced. Similar, I propose,
has occurred with Facebook. In utilising personal data to achieve desired
efficiencies such as targeted advertising, the leveraging of social equity has
occurred, and it has been disastrous. In part, I feel, because the recent
exploitation of private data was done with intent and purpose, rather than
simple neglect, damaging the sanctity of trust between user and site.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">But in part also because data is not currency. The value of
data is not in the collective belief in its value, as currency might be said to
function, but rather in its specificity to an individual. In that sense, we
cannot compare the risking of deposits on risky mortgage products with the
careless utilisation of data for questionable ends as the bank notes –
regardless of one’s depository claims – bare no intrinsic relation to the
depositor in the process of utilisation, whilst the data always does. The
attitude of treating data like capital which might be utilised to achieve
profit ignores the fundamental characteristic of data, and as such perpetuates
its misuse. This serves to demonstrate the apathy of choice; that any
utilisation of personal data demands that we choose to have our data utilised
that way, and in absence of that conscious choice we feel betrayed. Such a
betrayal may not intimately be felt when our deposits are gambled by banks, as
we choose to deposit a specific amount of money, not a specific <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">type</i> of money (which is to say, we do
not care if the bank notes we receive on withdrawal are the exact same notes we
deposit, only that the value of the withdrawal meets the value desired).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Thus, in considering how social media is currently embedded
in society, I suggest the answer is immediately prevalent. It is the process by
which social interactions are used to derive and ultimately combined with those
that might seek to interlope on such interactions – advertisers, special
interests, punditry perhaps – which forms the odd amalgamation that is social
media, and thus that leaves us wanting. The exploitation of personal data on an
industrial scale on the one hand serves to atomise the individual’s relevance
and degrades concepts of choice and trust attached to their data (for remember,
data is not currency; unlike the bank deposit that can be spent as the bank
wishes, for their only obligation is to return the deposit upon request,
personal data is only ‘deposited,’ in the context of the need expressed by the
company, and as such any further use of the data, serves to violate the data in
the context of the social contract).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">If we are to fix social media, or at least address some of
the issues and concerns that are coming to the fore, it seems necessary as part
of a partial solution to improve a user’s perception of their choice when using
social media, and to improve the trust relationship between platform and user.
These things are, of course, only part of the solution, though additional
problems, most notably the widespread use of misinformation online, receive
significantly more coverage than the problems of choice and trust. Whilst this piece
does not seek to belittle the need to solve the problems of fake news and
clickbait (to give them their accurate titles), these problems may be
implicitly tackled by improving the choice and trust in social media. Choice,
in that rather than algorithms identifying those potentially more susceptible
to misinformation (and any targeted information, for that matter) it is the
user whose conscious actions consent to their viewing that information. And
trust, for whilst any misinformation online is undesired generally, a user will
feel more aggrieved at, say, Facebook, if they believe either through intention
or negligence they are receiving false information and that they can’t trust
the site to respect their data and/or their intellect.</span></div>
<h2>
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">A modest proposal</span></i></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Multiple ways of embedding choice and trust surely exist, and
are accessible to those minds more inspired than I; I offer here a single
conceptualisation. It is an inescapable fact that those who use social media
must be subjected to advertising, and thus it seems logical to target this
element of social media beyond all else. My idea is rather simple at the heart
of it: allow users to choose what advertising they see, and show them nothing
they have not elected to see. Of course, we must then ask the question: why
would anyone elect to see advertising? The answer I propose is because it is
part of a fair, equitable exchange.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Here is the crux of my proposal. Social media should
implement a reward based system for users, allowing users to generate some sort
of token currency, perhaps even a cryptocurrency (yet, at this early stage of
conception, this seems to create more problems than solutions), from their
regular activity online. This currency could then be taken to an online
marketplace where users could purchase benefits from innocuous cosmetic items
to perhaps real-world discount coupons (in lieu of cryptocurrency once more,
such a platform seems odiously suitable for a product such as crypto-kitties).
In purchasing these coupons, users would consent to these companies advertising
to them on the site, and thus an equitable exchange of sorts may be seen to
have been established (again, and with emphasis on the infancy of this idea, such
currency might be used to pay for online news subscriptions, adding a barrier
to entry for dubious sites to get onto social media feeds, and imbuing in
readers an expectation of quality news given they’ve laid out their hard
earned, shall we call them, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">clicks</i>?).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Several problems present themselves, most notably, how might
such a system be created such that it is not rife for exploitation and does not
degrade the meaning of a like or a share. Additionally, how might the financial
relationship be structured such that a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">click</i>
(see above), which seems to have even less inherent value than real world fiat
money, translates into a pound or a dollar?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">On the latter note, my initial estimation would be that the
spending commitment generated by the selling of a discount coupon is greater
than the revenue generated from even well targeted advertising. Of course,
without such a system in place to test such a hypothesis, we are left to
pontificate. On the former, I would task the hypothetical computer scientists
and mathematicians to resolve this problem. Exploitation of the laws of diminishing
returns built into complex and tightly guarded algorithms with currency sinks
(see cosmetic items) to regulate this new currency market seem like one answer,
yet again, such a system seems difficult to judge purely theoretically.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I am not beyond the slippery slope. The slow but
promising rise of Sesame credit in the East seems wholly comparable to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">click</i> system proposed here, and must
certainly raise the question of where would it end. To regulate a secondary
market in coupons, for example, a unique user code tied to each social media
account may be necessary – how long before this becomes an online
identification code? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Further, would such a system suck any soul out of social
media, turning the process of socialising into a financial grind? Would a like
become meaningless; a status update literally a means of earning the daily
bread? For some, surely these things are already reality; yet who am I to
subject others (potentially) to such a reality? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Finally, there is of course the problem of control. Those
same algorithms and the computer sciences behind them would hold tremendous
sway over a potentially enormous online institution. Any changes, and all
judgement calls, would not just impact a person’s convenience, but also their
financials. This is serious enough in itself; but when combined with the
copious amounts of data also held by these gatekeepers, be it age or gender or
race, the risk of implicit bias built into a system which, in its present state
and for better or worse, is rather equal in this regard, seems not without
concern. However, though not to diminish these issue, we should acknowledge
that such faceless discretion is held by social media giants presently and
must, as anyone in the regulatory and policy world will tell you, be held by
someone no matter how the system is assembled. This is not to excuse this
concern as one without solution; instead, I only wish to suggest any solution
will likely not being wholly or even mostly satisfying.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I bring up these issues because they are inescapable whilst
borne out in theory, and it is incumbent as part of good authorship to
acknowledge them, even if solutions are not forthcoming. As part of any
criticism that might surround this piece, surely these weaknesses must form an
integral part. Whether one accepts the proposal given here as panacea, or
rejects this proposal as a menacing nail in an imagined coffin, the key to any
development, and certainly any online development, is time and consideration.
Though hardly the sexiest of messages for Silicon Valley, if this piece has any
point it is to highlight that social media cannot ignore its social
responsibility, and thus, if any solution is to be proposed, it seems prudent
to address the issues openly, as a means of forestalling negligence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">We cannot escape social media, and in the spirit of the
internet – indeed, by the means which social media functions so effectively, it
is difficult to rationalise an application of anti-trust laws as was seen with
the robber barons. That is not to say these laws are irrelevant, but additional
tools and nuanced ideas, of which it is hoped this piece has contributed
towards, might sure to provide more effective solutions to the problems of
social media.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-70176401363528501352018-04-09T07:42:00.000-07:002018-04-09T07:42:56.045-07:00The Disentanglement of Social Media<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For all the difficulty and
pretentiousness surrounding David Foster Wallace’s <i>Infinite Jest</i>, the point – if such a book can be said to have a
point – is that what you believe is good for you, what you believe you want and
even what you believe is right may not, after a while, turn out to be all that
great.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Whenever I talk to people about
social media, I get this feeling. It did not take last month’s data hacking
scandal to convince the world that Facebook was in an overly powerful and
compromising position; nor was it the impetus for misgivings about social media.
If I were to speculate, part of the problem with the innate ill feeling that I
do believe is prevalent in the face of social media is it’s hard to explain
what these feelings necessarily are. I think Wallace sums up my view of social
media in its current form best with this line:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Was amateurish the right word? More like
the work of a brilliant optician and technician who was an amateur at any kind
of real communication. Technically gorgeous… but oddly hollow.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 90.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Infinite
Jest pp. 740, David Foster Wallace<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
To an extent it’s impossible to
argue that social media is good or bad, partly, I think, because it’s
spectacularly new compared to the contemporaneous mediums of news media and,
well, human interaction. But also, crucially, because used theoretically it
should simply reflect the user; in absence of a user, or taken as an entity in
und itself, Facebook, for example, is a tabula rasa. Perhaps, I concede, it is
that very thing; that the oddly hollow nature of social media reflects the fact
that it is not a community or institution in the classic sense, but a system
that may only mimic, and not create.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I understand such musings are not
the day-to-day considerations of either the movers and shakers of these social
media companies nor the users of said companies; yet, I believe, if we are to
rectify the doubts that are present about social media in our society, and
indeed to establish the place and purpose of social media in our society, it is
crucial to understand quite what social media is intended to be. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The misappropriation of data, for
example, seems to me less so an intrinsic breach of trust – for did we all
truly believe such nefarious manipulations would not occur given how much data
Facebook holds? – and more so a dramatic collision, or perhaps we might call it
a reminder, of the reality within which the online presence is held; that all
the silly little things we do on Facebook have consequences. Thus, I argue, social
media is not just some innocuous means of disposing of time. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The rules and means by which we
communicate and interact in the real-world are governed fundamentally not by
laws, but by the social contract. The threat of the law is meaningless if we do
not first have <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">faith</i> in the law
(which is to say, in each other), and thus the social contract prevails.
Likewise, such a contract governs the media, yet with an extension that demands
the objective reality of the world, insofar as it can be perceived, to dominate
the subjective interpretation of the world which we find in common social
interactions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
These camps, when considered as a
conversation on the street, or the browsing of a newspaper, are distinct and
understood. The innovation of social media, when detached from its online
domain, is that it seeks to combine these two camps into one, and, in the
process, promises tremendous benefits. Yet, such benefits can only be
understood as pertaining to either the social camp or the media camp, so long
as the new notion of social media remains unembedded in the social contract.
Social media may bring us closer together; however, it also highlights the
discrepancies in our objective understanding of the world. It may inform our
objective understanding of the world; but in doing so, it places us in silos.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The algorithms of social media
are technically brilliant. But in practice the result feels absent of any real
communication. This, I posit, is the source of any doubts – we, nor the social
media giants, know what the purpose of social media is. Any failures of
Facebook is also – party – a failure of
society in which Facebook is contained; it is not a question of why does Facebook
need our data, instead, it’s a question of why do we need Facebook?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And, drawing on that question,
the response we’ve seen in recent weeks of those leaving Facebook seems
natural. However, I feel, unhelpful. Insofar as this brief analysis has
posited, it seems more coherent to attempt to answer the question posed, as
opposed to invalidate the question in the first instance. And the logical
answer, again insofar as is posited here, is to break the hegemony of social
media back into its constituent parts: social <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and</i> media.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The benefits of online
socialising have at no point demanded the intrusion of advertisers, companies
and special interests. Such intrusions, if ever made prior to social media,
were done so via the purposeful intention of those whom we were socialising
with, and interpreted based on the social credibility with which we attributed
to that person. Social media, insofar as notifications and likes are concerned,
makes credibility unitary and eliminates purposeful intention. For social media
to be social, it must seek to restore these virtues.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And yet, from a business
perspective, social media must act as a platform for those aforementioned
groups. This requirement being accepted, social media should present news and
advertising in a way that absolutely distinguishes itself from the aspects with
which the site is deemed social. Such distinctions would return the agency that
exists in our current social contract to the user, as it would be their elective
to browse the news and consider the advertiser’s propositions. Again, the
business voice might say, such a system would result in users electing to avoid
such media content and the site becoming unprofitable. To such an argument for
the status quo, I reply as such: that is the nature of business, and if the
product does not appeal, one cannot blame the customers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
To summarise, we should not
reject social media, though we should demand changes. Yet part of those demands
must be a holistic consideration by the users as to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">why</i>, not how, we use social media. For social media, I suggest a
distinct disentanglement of the social and media aspects of social media, less
doubts be allowed to linger, and the foundations of our patronage be
jeopardised. To return to DFW: we have the tools and the technical know-how to
leverage them, yet our attempts thus far have been amateurish.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-5233148937962626242018-04-06T07:13:00.000-07:002018-04-06T07:13:39.782-07:00The Political Economy of Veganism<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I’m not a vegan, though for no
substantial reason I must confess. Perhaps it is this lack of tangible
opposition to veganism which is why I find myself increasingly thinking about
the motivations and mentalities of those that do pursue the diet; at the same
time, I’m apprehensive to discuss veganism with sweeping generalisations. Yet,
from a political economy perspective, veganism offers some interesting musings
that – perhaps because they’re not wholly relevant beyond merely being
interesting – I don’t believe are ever discussed that much. For the purposes of
this piece, let us define political economy as the study of the distribution of
excess production. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As the global population increases,
food demands, logically, will also increase, and as such the means by which we
produce food should also be re-evaluated. The philosophy of veganism, to an
extent, attempts to do so. By advocating a diet that is not dependent (where
dependent, depending on one’s perspective, might be replaced with exploitative)
on animals, those means of food production that are very resource intensive –
such as cattle farming – become challenged; if demand for meat were only to
fall, so the logic might go, resources used inefficiently in meat production
could be redistributed to crop production and used more efficiently, and thus
satisfy the increased demand for food.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Whilst I disagree with this line of
thinking, I do celebrate veganism for being one of few voices (if not the only
voice) that seem to place, perhaps accidentally, questions of food security at
the heart of their ethos. Still, I disagree. The problem of food security – and
environmental concerns also, less we forget – is partly solved by more
efficient food production, of which one might argue crops are compared to say,
meat. Yet the problem, insofar as the developed West should be concerned, is
not that of production, but of <i>consumption</i>.
If one continues to consume the same amount of resources, the only difference
being the source of the consumption, is the problem really solved? I’m not so
sure. As a mental exercise, I do wonder whether the rise of vegan, ‘<i>culture</i>,’ does not serve to compound
this problem? <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Perhaps then, if not an obviously
effective (though still, maybe, partly effective) solution to the problems of
food security, we should consider the advantages veganism supplies in the
ethical department, for, I concede political economy can be a cold subject that
oft fails to capture such intangible things. On the question of ethics,
generally, I think there is no question veganism is the superior dietary plan.
I will not argue against this here; this piece, so far as it has a point, is to
muse about perspectives. And thus, when vegan ethics is considered through the
lens of political economy, another interesting consideration arises; does the
cultivation of crops not exploit human labour in much the same capacity as
animal labour, and as such why does veganism not advocate the consumption of
foodstuffs produced only by the product of expressly voluntary (insofar as
labour for food production can be voluntary, given we need food to survive)
labour?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The great distinction that might be
drawn is that, ‘<i>animal labour</i>,’ in
food production involves killing said animal, whilst a human, even one
exploited by the modern capitalist system (some might argue) is never actually
killed in the process. To me, over the long-term, I think this is a pedantic
distinction; it is certainly an unhelpful distinction, as such a distinction
fails to explain the vegan opposition to, say, dairy production whilst
simultaneously invalidating the question. Thus, I think the question remains
valid, though not easily answered.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Allow me to consider this question
with an alternative question: are vegans more likely to be socialists? Now, I
retain my apprehension about speaking in sweeping generalisations, and thus I
will not explicitly answer this question beyond saying recent research (see
Wrenn, 2017) does seem to suggest the answer is yes. But, returning to the
original question, veganism, I believe, serves as a fascinating framework with
which to consider the long-standing question of the role of, and return to,
labour in the production process; most prominently because the ethos already
demands the emancipation of an entire – albeit non-human – part of the labour
force.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is the interesting side for
the political economist; yet for progressive veganism, tackling such a question
may, if dietary ubiquity is the desired outcome, have to be tackled in the
future. So too then must more robust economic arguments be supplied re: food
production – a process which may demand a whole re-evaluation of western vegan
culture. Undoubtedly, there are more musing to be had, but yet, as what may
constitute an outline of <i>vegan political
economy</i>, I believe this will suffice.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">References:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">Wrenn,
C L (2017) ‘Trump Veganism: A Political Survey of American Vegans in the Era of
Identity Politics.’ </span><i style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">Societies</i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">, 7(4),
pp. 32-45</span></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-42476934039255824392018-02-24T06:54:00.000-08:002018-02-24T06:54:02.184-08:00A Theory of Dual Monopolies<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">From
the perspective of many, on the one hand, and the perspective of non-Austrian
economists, on the other, neoclassical and Austrian definitions of monopoly
markets fail to address the question of barriers to entry in order to abolish
the monopoly. To an extent, both schools offer another solution – government intervention
– yet given the more limited definition of monopoly within the Austrian school,
as argued by Mises, this explanation is weak. Indeed, Mises specifies the
second form of monopoly is one established by government. With this in mind, it
is helpful to understand the respective monopoly models concerned here, before
proceeding further.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">A
neoclassical monopoly may be found when a firm within a market has a price
elasticity of zero. In effect, they may set any price for their product such
that all buyers within the market must be price-takers. Of course, one may be
tempted to charge an infinite amount for one’s product in this circumstance;
yet as buyers may withdraw themselves from the market when given prices exceed
the buyer’s willingness to pay (given demand is characterised by a buyer’s
capacity <i>and</i> willingness to pay),
there exists instead a price effective for achieving profit maximisation.
Therefore, this monopoly firm will set prices at the point of profit
maximisation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Within
the Austrian school, and as offered by Mises, the neoclassical definition of a
monopoly market is not a monopoly, because competition may eliminate the state
of monopoly. A classicist may disagree with this logic, arguing that high
barriers to entry will prevent competitors entering the market. However, the
Austrian rebuttal is that a market may not be a market without competition;
further, competitive advantage will always exist as monopolies do not have
perfect knowledge of the market they control, and as such they will forgo
profitable opportunities out of ignorance or error. This enables competitors to
lucratively enter these markets. Further to this point, an Austrian economist
might argue the presence of a neoclassical monopoly is not due to a lack of
competition, but rather <i>because</i> of
competition, as the individual who enters a market and is able to exploit a
monopoly of profitable activity has simply exploited knowledge and expectation –
which is to say out-competed rivals – that others have forgone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Austrians,
therefore, draw an important distinction between entrepreneurial profit through
better knowledge, and profit achieved through the exploitation of an
Austrian-defined monopoly, which shall be discussed shortly. The reason such entrepreneurial
and better knowledge exists is because market participants do not have perfect
knowledge, as markets do not occur as equilibrium positions between buyers and
sellers, but rather are <i>processes</i>
that occur over time. For example, a supplier will not know their future demand
curve, and as such they may miss-price their product in the future. Such an error
may be exploited by rivals for profitable gain; further, such an error occurs
because of the firm’s uncertain expectations of the future. Given this
argument, Austrian’s dismiss the neoclassical argument of barriers to entry, as
they suggest sufficient competition always exists within neoclassical
monopolies (and all scenarios which we might call markets) to – over time –
eliminate such monopoly positions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">It
is Mises that offers two monopolies that may be deemed as such within the
Austrian school. The first are those monopolies that are created by the state,
and as such warrant limited theoretical discussion. The second occurs when a
single firm controls the entire supply of a demanded resource. In this latter
monopoly, it is argued, the firm may purposefully manipulate the supply of the
monopolised resource to establish the point of profit maximisation. Such a
practice is indicative of a neoclassical monopoly, and prompts the same
criticism as such a monopoly for not addressing the problem of barriers to
entry. Yet Austrians will argue such a monopoly is not a monopoly in the sense
that the Misesian monopoly is not a market, for no better information may offer
a competitive advantage to rivals, and thus no competition exists. Any gain by
the monopoly-firm is not due to entrepreneurial knowledge, but due to circumstantial
control of a resource that is demanded by some and that has not no substitute. Following
this logic, to argue the issue of barriers to entry is to define or misunderstand
this monopoly as a market – there is no competition, and thus no market, and
thus Austrian theory does not have to explain such a state of affairs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">It
is this paper’s argument, contrary to the logic presented above, that the
problem of barriers to entry may be solved for both the Austrian resource
monopoly and the neoclassical monopoly by considering the presence of
monopolies of demand, and invoking the notion of processive competition
employed by prior Austrian theory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Both
monopolies offered are monopolies of supply, achieved by a lack of competition
and thus restriction in the neoclassical case, and by purposeful restriction of
supply of resource in the Austrian case. The result is that monopoly firms
operating in both models will set a price that maximises profit. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Yet
any buyers in these models will desire a lower price. This statement is
obvious, but may be mired in difficulty as buyers in monopolies must be
price-takers. However, following the Austrian school, firms will compete with
each other to gain advantage, with knowledge emerging over time. Such knowledge
may be that, for a firm pricing at the point of profit maximisation, the
withdrawal of a single buyer would result in a price position that will result
in reduced returns for the firm. This gives every buyer in a monopoly a
quasi-monopoly of demand. A buyer might gain a competitive advantage over
rivals by withdrawing their demand less the monopoly-firm lower the price of
its resource. Such action might be called irrational, as the refusal to
purchase a necessary, monopoly-controlled resource would result in the
ineffective activity (and potential failure) of the firm. This paper cites the
findings of Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler (1986), who argue individuals are
willing to punish behaviour they consider unfair, even when at cost to
themselves, as justification for this line of thinking (also see Zajac’s (1996)
discussion on perceived economic fairness).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Irrespective,
if exploiting this quasi-monopoly results in the failure of the buyer before
the monopoly-firm must adjust prices in favour of the buyer, such attempt at
competitive advantage will result in the emergence of better knowledge for all
buyer’s transacting with the monopoly firm (it may also be a successful
strategy, though one cannot say that the exploitation of a quasi-monopoly of
demand will always result in one outcome or the other). This knowledge is that collective
withdrawal will force price-adjustment from the monopoly-firm (of course, such
certainty only occurs when all buyers threaten or do withdraw from the market;
so long as one buyer remains, there is a theoretical ground that allows for negative
– for the buyer – price adjustment to occur). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Such
action would turn the monopoly-firm into a price-taker, with each reduction in
the price resulting in a weaker collective position on the demand side. The
logic for this weakness is that eventually the cost of the monopoly resource
will fall to less than the cost of an alternative part of a buyer’s production
process, and thus competitive gains will be found in greater proportions, for any
particular buyer, in other areas. The monopoly-firm, in the Austrian model,
will increase supply of the resource – previously restricted – as a means of
maintaining profit levels prior to being a price-taker. In the neoclassical
model, such a shift will enable more firms to enter the market, essentially
increasing supply. Such a supply side response would be expected in a market
where prices fall. The collective response on the demand side, which may be
called the monopoly of demand, might be likened to collective bargaining within
labour markets, and is not a logical, coordinated response within the
neoclassical model. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
comparison to collective bargaining within labour markets in certainly a fair
one, and indeed, perhaps serves as an exemplar extension to the Mises resource
monopoly. Certainly, it serves as evidence for the premise suggested here: that
no monopoly on the supply (demand) side might occur without the emergence of a
monopoly on the demand (supply) side to challenge it. Yet this paper will not
dwell on the labour comparison, for regardless of the theoretical approach
taken here, markets such as those for labour are multifaceted and so should not
be used as the sole comparison of theory. It is this multifacetedness on the
demand side, which may be called entrepreneurial or competitive rivalry in the
Austrian school, which offers an extension of the neoclassical model, which
should be addressed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
neoclassical model supposes that demand is determined by the maximum a buyer is
willing to pay. It is, therefore, a fallacy in this model to argue a buyer
might decide that the price they are willing to pay is <i>not</i> a price they are willing to pay. It is Austrian arguments of
time and competition that address this issue: a buyer’s demand for a product at
a certain price might only be stable so long as there are other forms of
competitive advantage that offer greater returns to be realised. As these
returns are realised over time – in part because demand side coalitions may
need time to form and effectively lobby – the demand curve, even at stationary
prices, will vary over time. It is this logic that explains why an acceptable
price for a buyer may simultaneously not be an acceptable price – because there
are alternative costs that are more important to address presently.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">This
paper has briefly offered an adjustment to the neoclassical notion of monopoly
by utilising tools espoused in the Austrian school of economics. In doing so,
this paper has offered an address of the barriers to entry criticism of the
Mises resource monopoly, with respect to the address already offered by the
Austrian school. This paper has argued that all monopolies face the emergence
of a counter-monopoly that rectifies the original monopoly position. This
counter-monopoly emerges due to competition that occurs in other markets. This
logic holds for the neoclassical theory of monopoly if a temporal element is
added to the evaluation of the demand curve, and addresses the Mises resource
monopoly by suggesting competition on the demand side substitutes for the supply
side competition, challenging the monopoly firm.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">References<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Kahneman,
D, Knetsch, J, Thaler, R (1986) ‘Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking:
Entitlements in the Market’ <i>The American
Economic Review</i>, 76(4), pp. 728-741<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Kirzner,
I (1998) ‘The Driving Force of the Market: The Idea of “Competition” in
Contemporary Economic Theory and in the Austrian Theory of the Market Process’ <i>In</i> Prychitko, D (ed.) ‘<i>Why Economists Disagree</i>.’ 1<sup>st</sup>
ed. Albany New York: State University of New York</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Zajac,
E E (1996) ‘Perceived Economic Justice: The example of public utility
regulation’ </span><i style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">In</i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Peyton Young, H (ed.) ‘</span><i style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Cost Allocation: Methods, Principles and
Applications</i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">.’ Amsterdam: North-Holland.</span></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-78063076258092628552018-01-24T13:54:00.000-08:002018-01-24T13:54:13.240-08:00An Unacceptable Metric<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The current
crisis in the National Health Service will persist until rising temperatures
and a media exhausted by repetition of the acronym allow the ‘story,’ to
disappear. There will be no new money, substantive or otherwise. Nor will there
be any bold action, any concessionary or apologetic speeches – anything that
might be considered leadership.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The consequence
will be repetition. There will be an NHS winter crisis over the 2019 new year.
If the system – or the government in charge of it – has not broken by then, the
same will be true of the 2020 period. It is a sad truth of politics that when
no obvious or easy solutions present themselves, inaction becomes a viable option.
Yet inaction creates a vacuum that gets filled with ideas that are dangerous,
disruptive or just wrong. Inaction allows the narrative to be hijacked by those
with wicked agendas, who will then point to future crises whilst wearing
incredulous grins chuckling “<i>I told you
so</i>.” In a sense, this is the long-term danger of a lack of leadership with
the NHS – that those who talk of privatisation may rear their heads and become
validated in the eyes of some.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">And thus, we
return to the need for leadership. It is opportune that in the same week the
NHS was reaching breaking point, the health secretary Jeremy Hunt was proving
where his loyalties lie – himself. He is obviously the individual whom blame
should most firmly be placed, if for no other reason than his position makes
him the figurehead of the organisation. He should be sacked, not because of
politics, but because anyone, in any line of work, who was failing in their
position so egregiously should be, and would have been, sacked.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Yet the Prime
Minister can’t. Indeed, it seems she is incapable of doing much of anything,
but staying on point momentarily: her attempts to remove Mr. Hunt from health
were scuppered by her own weak position. Justine Greening, formerly of
education, had already walked, and Mr. Hunt must surely have been aware that
his departure would have threatened Mrs. May’s government. Again, despite
politics (and frankly, despite the NHS crisis) when a Prime Minister does not
have the authority to appoint, dismiss and rearrange members of their cabinet,
we must question their capacities. Of all the things that can be said about the
current government, incompetent does not seem <i>wholly</i> fair, whilst cruel implies some conspiracy. Instead, I
prefer sycophantic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">But returning
to the NHS, what can Mrs. May do? An initial action immediately presents itself
– more money. Many critics, including myself, argue that simply throwing more
money at the NHS will not solve the underlying problems within the system, and
that is true (though money is clearly a large part of any solution). But whilst
there is an immediate crisis, concerns for fiscal efficiency must be set aside
so that people may be seen, treated and given a bed if required. For those,
mostly elderly individuals, who have paid taxes and now call on the medical
services of the NHS, it is their right and this government’s obligation to
ensure those services are provided and unimpeded. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">I understand it
is not possible to expand the capacity of our hospitals, or the number of
doctors and nurses on the wards, overnight. That is why Mrs. May should move to
commandeer the resources of private healthcare providers in the short-term.
Such powers are those exclusive to the government, and should be utilised when
the situation calls for it. Right now, the situation calls for it, yet such a
bold move seems outside the reach of those presently in power.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Finally, and I
think most importantly for the long-term, the government needs to understand
the pressures facing the health service. Of course, the government will claim
it does (amongst other claims), but I offer some tangible actions that might
add credence to this quite vapid statement. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Firstly,
Theresa May should visit every hospital in the country. She should not visit
one or two with a press pack, and talk only to those members of staff who have
been photogenically lined up by the reception desk. She should visit every
hospital, and field the concerns of every doctor, nurse and patient who wish to
speak to her. For Mrs. May, it must not be an act of PR or policy launching,
but simple listening and observation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Second, there
should be an inquiry into the cause of the current NHS crisis that places blame
and puts forward solutions, so as to prevent the predictions I have made above.
Certainly, the heads of hospital trusts should testify, as well as Jeremy Hunt,
and the Prime Minister if so required. Only once the social, financial and
political causes of the strains in the NHS are understood should further ideas
– such as royal commission – be considered. This seems only logical.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Third, we must
not ignore the NHS. As eluded to earlier, the coverage in the press plays a
huge role in how the health of the health service is understood by the public.
Yet if during the summer we ignore the state of the NHS, simply because there
are no headline-grabbing stories, should we not expect issues to arise when the
winter pressures hit? Indeed, should we not be more aware of the <i>constant</i> pressures facing the NHS? If we
only fight for something when there is an existential risk to it, are we not
partly to blame when it disappears? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">There are some
things the government could be doing right now to solve this problem, but
through distraction and weakness they are failing to serve the NHS, and by
extension the country. The consequences of doing nothing, in both regards, may
be counted in lives lost, and surely that is an unacceptable metric?</span></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-53242445919606777352017-12-28T14:55:00.000-08:002017-12-28T14:55:20.110-08:00The Colour of Bitcoin<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Stock
markets tend to go up at the end of the year. Quite why this happens isn’t all
that obvious, but it may be fair to say even stockbrokers feel the holiday
spirit once in a while. The fact that stock markets tend to fall slightly in
January and February may also be testament to this – I mean who likes January?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">As
much as it is a novel trait, it is dubious to impose such a trend onto the
virtual currency market. Throughout December Bitcoin has been on a generally
upwards sloping trend, with the new price heights the currency has reached
bringing to the fore, quite prominently, concerns of a bubble. The trouble with
virtual currency, unlike say, the dotcom bubble of the late nineties, is that
virtual currencies are not simply new investment products within a new
technology (almost like tech shares in the new online space), but possibly a
catalyst – or at least a necessary tool – for the emergence of a truly digital
economy. And, further, as regulators around the planet have been slow to act, the
conditions surrounding the growth and innovation of the industry remain
unbounded, and thus – apparently – unpredictable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">But
the dotcom bubble is vitally important to remember in this discussion, not just
because it was a bubble, but because it was a bubble formed within unexplored
horizons. It is fair to look to dotcom when pondering the future of virtual
currency. However, I aim to argue within this short piece that whilst the
parallels between the current virtual currency market and previous bubbles
exist, the likes of Bitcoin and others pose a unique challenge that warrants
perhaps more concern than it is receiving.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">How many sides to a
Bitcoin?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">To
start, we must consider the two conditions of the most popular virtual
currency, Bitcoin, that affect its would-be viability as a ‘real,’ currency. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
basic philosophy of a virtual currency is the philosophy of all fiat, namely that
something has value because people believe it has value. I, amongst others,
would suggest a thing only has value at the point it is used in the exchange of
goods, which is to suggest money in the bank, or indeed your pocket, is only
worth something when someone is willing to take it in exchange for an item you
value (for the purposes of simplicity, I am ignoring the consideration of the
value derived from a thing’s <i>potential</i>
to be transacted, which I do believe is a form of value also, and I have
written about previously). Given this proposition, I would suggest Bitcoin,
with few entities accepting it as valid payment, has no value. Yet this argument
is plainly void, and not really of concern here. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
immediate concern is of utility, namely a currency must be able to be utilised
in order to have value. People may believe Bitcoin is worth several thousand
dollars, but my point of contention would be it is worth <i>dollars</i>. Until there is an active trading market for Bitcoin, by
which I mean you can buy and sell things in Bitcoin, the value of Bitcoin must
always be determined as the value of an alternative, utilisable currency. Bitcoin
in itself has no purchasing power. If one wanted to see a sign of a bubble, I
would suggest mass investing into an item that in itself cannot be utilised for
any valuable purpose is one, for the emperor most certainly has no clothes in
this regard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
second condition, much more unique to Bitcoin than a ‘real,’ currency, is the
ability to mint more of it. There is only so much Bitcoin in the world, just as
there are only so many dollars or pounds in the world. Yet tomorrow the Federal
Reserve or Bank of England could choose to print more of their respective
currencies. This would incur inflation, and impact confidence or alter interest
rates. All of these things would impact the exchange rate, which is essentially
the metric we are using to value currency (a weakness of the point above –
Bitcoin must be valued against another currency, for the value of one unit of
currency is meaningless without comparison. The point above is more trying to
suggest the consequence of purchasing power, namely that Bitcoin has none, and
thus its value might only be reflected in the dollar’s purchasing power). Of
course, part of the appeal of Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are the
absence of central banks and governments, in what some will surely see as a
truly democratised currency. Yet without the ability to create more Bitcoin, I
suggest Bitcoin is identical in substantive terms to gold.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Gold,
just like Bitcoin, holds no intrinsic value in und itself. Nor will a shop keep
accept a bar of gold or a transfer of Bitcoin, instead preferring the
dollarized value. Finally, and returning to the point, there is a finite amount
of gold on the planet, just as there is a finite amount of Bitcoin left to be,
fittingly, <i>mined</i>. The consequences of
this perspective are interesting – it may bring calm and alarm to the current
situation. Calm as the volatility in the price of Bitcoin is similar volatility
that has been seen in the price of gold for centuries, and thus we might
question whether recent events are really a cause of concern. Alarm, because it
means rather than betting on the future, as some Bitcoin speculators surely
think, they are essentially betting on the price of gold and hoping – through
the sheer act of betting – that the price rises. In short, and irrespective,
the nuance is lost.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Not the same story<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Of
course, the parallels between the dotcom bubble and golden Bitcoin also exist.
Ignoring some important considerations such as voting rights and dividend
pay-outs, Bitcoin, gold and stocks might be grouped similarly, all owing value,
but value found through conversion. Indeed, in a discussion with colleagues
regarding the vast increase in the number of ICOs, the dotcom bubble was raised
in the following context:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36.0pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">perhaps
there is a bubble, and many of these coins are worthless and will be swept
aside. But companies such as eBay and Amazon were born in the days of the
dotcom boom. Right now, people are simply looking for the Amazon of virtual
currency, whilst aware many more will fail.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36.0pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
above is paraphrased, but the point remains clear. However, my issue with that
line of thinking is it is too simplistic. Whilst accepting a bubble exists, the
search for the Amazon of virtual currency assumes that the currency exists to
be found. I would argue we cannot find hope in virtual currency in the same way
we found hope in the late nineties because that assumes the likes of Bitcoin
does something fundamentally different to, say, Ethereum. After all, Amazon did
not survive whilst others failed because of random chance – they survived
because they were better than their competitors.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">If
confidence in the virtual currency market is lost, just as in the days of the
dotcom bubble, the loss will affect every currency. Some will argue that,
within the coding of various coins, exist tangible features that enable them to
rise above the rest. This may well be true, but until the market exists for
these coins to be utilised, and thus these features’ benefits demonstrated, the
differentiating factors are irrelevant. At least with a company like Amazon (in
its early days) one could at least test out their recommendations service, even
if they remained sceptical of the viability of the actual company. Currently,
there is no logic in thinking the emergence of a bubble in virtual currency is
just the same economic natural selection in progress. I suggest this is because
our way of thinking about virtual currency is profoundly flawed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Who</span></i></b><b><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">
are we betting on?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Why
does the dollar exist? I’m sure there is a complicated historical reason, but
the pragmatic answer is the nation of America required a currency for the
purposes of conducting trade between themselves and others, just as the British
did with the pound or the French with the franc. The currency existed not for
its own sake, but because the country that backed it (with gold, most
prominently) and utilised it existed. That concept of country was itself backed
by the intangible sense of nationality, and the more tangible threat of
firepower. Another question to consider is why did the dotcom bubble occur? One
might find emphasis in the bubble part of that question, but fundamentally the <i>dotcom</i> bubble occurred because the
internet came into being, which facilitated the creation of online companies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">For
the most part, the trading of a currency is not the trading of a country, just
as the dotcom boom was not about betting on the internet itself, but about
betting on entities being founded in the online space. Colonisation may also be
considered – the territory colonialists sort to settle was never in question;
they were gambling on their ability to settle.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Really,
beyond the question of is there a bubble in Bitcoin, and beyond the technical
conditions that distinguish and make interesting virtual currencies, is what is
the point of virtual currencies? We already have a largely online banking
system, whilst the internet remains without sovereign status and the very real
power of nuclear weapons protects the global financial order. To answer this
question, I am going to move away from some of the metaphysics discussed above,
and explain why I believe the question must not concern whether there is a
Bitcoin bubble, but rather whether there is a much more explosive fragility in
the virtual currency market itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The real problems of
virtual currency<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
rise of virtual currency is found in its alternative name – cryptocurrency. It
is no surprise that the transactional market for the likes of Bitcoin stems
from its use in the anonymous purchasing of illicit items. This aspect is, on
the one hand, a criticism in itself, and on the other, a point worthy of praise
– in the age of big data, with the need to ask questions about who owns our
personal data, and the anonymity of cryptocurrencies may be a valuable tool in
this area. It is not the purpose of this piece to argue for one hand over the
other, though I do confess as an answer to my rhetorical question, “<i>what is the point of virtual currency</i>,”
anonymity may serve as a valid reply.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">But
today, anonymity seems only a point of technical excitement for those in
developer circles, and unable to explain the cacophony of speculation that
surrounds Bitcoin’s December ascendance. Instead, I want to again consider the
paraphrase above, as well as the novel story of the Ice Tea shop that increased
its value massively simply by adding ‘Block Chain,’ to its name. A quick Google
search will show that 2017 saw a meteoric rise in the number of ICOs (initial
coin offerings), ranging from obvious jokes to serious propositions. And,
importantly, the money generated in these offerings is real, and for some
extremely large. This practice of rapid production for quick public offering
does and should raise echoes of the dotcom boom or just a classic bubble, but
unlike the dotcom boom there is a much more pressing concern – who is issuing
these virtual currencies?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Just
like the Ice Tea company (cynically) leveraged the furore surrounding block
chain technology for profit, so too will celebrities leverage their fame to
make a quite buck. Unlike the sale of shares in a company, or the entering of a
loan agreement, or even the good faith transaction that occurs via crowdfunding
sites, the launch of virtual currency comes with no obligation on the part of
the issuer to honour or maintain the value of the currency. And, though the
same could be said with a share issue, there is at least the acceptance of risk
on the part of the shareholder that their investment may lose value. When we
mentally evaluate virtual currencies, there is a danger we think of the
purchasing of Bitcoin simply as a currency transaction, with no evaluation of
risk because the cash in our wallet does not (often) become worthless overnight
– why would the cash in our virtual wallet do anything different? (I don’t
really want to talk about all of this here, but I think a mention of how the
industry is branded and marketed is important. Calling virtual currency
portfolios wallets as opposed to accounts, for example, associates the ‘investment,’
with something innocuous. Similarly, the presentation of trading websites, with
an emphasis on user friendly access – not in itself a bad thing – should raise
the alarms of a bubble. When something complex is sold as something simple,
mistakes will happen)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">But
celebrities may simply operate on the periphery. Companies might choose to
raise capital via a coin offering in the knowledge that they as the issuer have
no obligation for the performance of the currency there after. If these
offerings were then used in share buybacks, as has been the habit on Wall
Street in recent years, we would see a massive and baseless shift surrounding
corporate wealth. This, of course, ignores the fragility that is unearthed when
considering the issuing of virtual currency by corporations – what happens to
the value of all other virtual currencies when Google, Facebook or Apple engage
in their own ICO? For virtual currencies, where value is derived entirely from
the confidence people place in them, the above companies will certainly command
a great deal of confidence – and belittle others as a result. Further, when
these companies issue coins whilst retaining data rights to the coin’s ledger,
they cement their monopoly positions, and destroy the benefits of anonymity.
For those that praise the anonymous aspect, they must become aware of this. For
the technologists that presume virtual currencies to be inevitable, they must re-imagine their paradise with various corporate logos.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Finally,
we must consider the role of countries in this emerging market. As it stands
today, when a country wishes to borrow money they issue gilts on the bond
market, and repay those gilts in accordance with the conditions of – what is
essentially – the loan. My question would be when will we see countries
engaging in the virtual currency game, again, for the same benefits as those of
already discussed? The phenomenon would, essentially, be the same – the
leveraging of perceived prestige and security to create confidence in the ICO,
only for it to be discovered later that neither the prestige nor the security
are part of the deal. It is here we find another point of contention. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">That
same idealistic technologist mentioned above may well retort to much of my
criticism that once the digital economy has fully developed, with the
transactional capabilities of say Bitcoin proven, the problem of the reliance
of confidence will be absolved much like the fiat nature of many ‘real,’
currencies is accommodated already. But, I argue, there are two fundamental
problems with this logic when we introduce corporations and countries as
players into this market. The first is that, in order to reduce their exposure
and protectionist burden towards a virtual currency, a country might actively
discourage the integration of that currency as a part of the economy. The
second, and I suggest more realistic response, will be extremely tight
regulation of virtual currencies such that the benefits are maintained for the
issuer and not for the holder. In this new, imagined digital economy we must
question whether it remains a free market economy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Regardless
– and I do believe the above rhetoric is weak – it would be a mistake to assume
our current currency structures, which have developed over centuries, will
immediately make the leap into the virtual world. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
involvement of nation states into the virtual currency market is not fantasy
however, and I believe is much more inevitable than many realise. The primary
example currently is Venezuela, which finds itself in the mists of economic
turmoil. With an economy dependent on oil, and many traditional lines of credit
unavailable to the Venezuelan government, the talk of an ICO for the country
has been making the rounds. Some will argue this is merely a conflagration of
headlines – on the one hand Venezuela’s crisis, on the other hand Bitcoin’s
ascendancy – turning into an idea that will never actually come to fruition. I
argue otherwise. If we are to believe virtual currency and the fully realised
digital economy are inevitable, we must look to the game of empire played
centuries ago by the world’s leading super powers to see they will either forge
the path, or be left behind. Whilst nuclear missiles and battleships might
ultimately maintain the dominance of the dollar, those same resources will, I
believe, ensure a similar power for America’s <i>eDollar</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">In
many ways, for the purposes of advancing the digital economy and maintaining a
certain level of financial stability, the involvement of nation states into the
virtual currency market may be the best outcome. Yet, assuming my prior cynicism
is unfounded, that surely means the benefits of decentralisation and anonymity
currently enjoyed by virtual currencies will be lost, in which case I return to
a previous question – what is the point?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">To
conclude, Bitcoin is quite clearly in a bubble at this moment in time. But this
bubble is not the serious point of contention when we consider virtual
currency. As I have argued, the problem with virtual currencies is that they
are masquerading as real currencies, with no sovereign state nor regulation to
maintain their value – only confidence. I suggest confidence is a dubious
thing, and I believe I make a compelling argument in comparing the investible
nature of virtual currency to the investible nature of gold. I also dismiss the
claims that the current virtual currency market is simply the re-imaging of the
dotcom bubble by pointing out that all virtual currencies suffer from the same
flaws, and thus the emergence of an Amazon of virtual currency is a fallacy position.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">I
believe absolutely that virtual currencies are here to stay. Really, this is
why I believe governments will end up embracing virtual currencies, rather than
persisting with the current policy of reactionary regulation. And despite my
apparent tone in places, I do not dislike them.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">However,
I believe in the same capacity that we must – as a society – debate the role of
big data and social media from a health and liberty perspective, so too must we
approach virtual currencies with caution. I remarked above that the bubble of
Bitcoin has formed in the unexplored horizon of virtual currency; I am not the
first to make the parallels between the American Frontier and the digital
economy. But the Frontier eventually met the Pacific Ocean, at which point
consolidation, integration and regulation of the territories was vital to
ensure prosperity. We must do this now with virtual currency, though the
decisions we make will fundamentally influence the shape of the digital
economy, and who holds power in the digital economy. It is futile to argue
about a bubble in Bitcoin – whether it explodes tomorrow or not is irrelevant,
virtual currencies are here to stay. Let’s accept that fact, and have a much
more profound discussion about what we want this technology to be.</span></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-61795439466094528452017-12-10T05:11:00.000-08:002017-12-10T05:11:37.081-08:00Two-year degrees are a short-term fix<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
Conservative government pledged in their election manifesto to increase the
number of students participating in two-year undergraduate degrees. The up-take
thus far has proven disappointing. With explicit benefits touted by the
government for would-be students, and implicit benefits more quietly touted for
the government itself, the apparent fault for this lack of up-take lies with
the universities.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Let’s
consider the economics. Completing an undergraduate degree in two years would,
in theory, lead to graduates holding less debt than their three-year
counterparts. In the face of higher tuition fees, as well as the general increase
in the cost of living, reducing the duration of the course seems desirable. Further,
the graduate may now enter the job market sooner.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Both
reduced debt and earlier work have benefits for the government also, who act as
the lender of student finance and collect taxes on earnings. Politically, such
an endeavour is also useful, for the nagging issue of tuition fees may be
placated by this new, cheaper, alternative. Alternative is also important to
recognise; in a market dominated by three and four-year courses, two-year
courses offer more choice, which all parties concerned may see as a positive.
(I use the word market, and a discussion of choice, dubiously, as we shall see)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Greater
choice must certainly be a selling point supported by the universities. If such
a course could be packaged to bolster the notion of employment (which, even if
false, will inevitably happen), universities will classify this as another
positive. Yet, the argument must return to economics, and it is here we find
the opposition. For a two-year course to be offered as a cheaper option, the
reduced cost must be borne by someone, with the appetite for such a subsidiary
not with the government. Two-year degrees would demand universities alter their
teaching structure and receive less for the pleasure.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">There
is an argument that two-year courses would attract more students and increase
demand for the universities. Yet such an argument seems dubious; there is
already a notion in this country that we have enough graduates – further, even
a smaller amount of debt to one’s name may still be viewed as unnecessary debt
in the eyes of someone unconvinced university is for them. Two-year courses are
not likely to generate sufficient demand.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">What
they do, however, is alter certain perspectives regarding higher education. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Immediately it should be stated, as someone who believes in the abolition of
higher education tuition fees, I regard two-year degrees not as a bad thing,
but as a half measure. The desire to learn should not be prevented due to
monetary barriers. Arguments made by the government in regard to this policy
seem to acknowledge this is the state of higher education for some. Indeed,
spend any time around a university campus and one will hear such stories,
coupled with nihilistic approaches to the debt itself.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The
latter statements compliment the point we now return to. The system of higher
education in its present form is not sustainable. It is not sustainable due to
the burden of debt, certainly, but it is also unsustainable given the growth in
online education. If the appeal of two-year degrees is that they are cheaper,
then the appeal of an online course (considering only the cost) must be several
magnitudes greater. Of course, degrees, it is argued, offer something more. Yet
this effect seems diminished as universities continue to promote the
employability aspect of their courses, rather than the old adages of expanding
one’s mind. At post-graduate level such adages return, but with a slight wink
and a healthy dose of employability skills thrown in. Regarding employability,
online courses are most certainly a threat.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">MOOC
companies such as <i>Coursera </i>generate revenue largely through recruitment, with
their students having been taught content curated for specific employers. The
variety of courses offered by various education sites is also expansive. For
the traditional university model, two-year courses do little to compete on
either market choice or employability; instead they are a continuity of the
current model with benefits that only address internal issues with the current
model. They do not consider the changing nature of higher education – the external
issues such as MOOCs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Again,
I do not dislike two-year degrees as an idea. I think there are a great many
financial benefits for both students and the government, and perhaps even going
so far as to change the norm from three to two years would be wise? Yet it
feels like a sorry offering at this current time. Never has higher education
felt more like an industry; simultaneously, never has an industry felt less
innovative. Fees must fall so as to break the stranglehold whilst not
disenfranchising those who now dream of going to university. But fees must also
fall so that universities may return to teaching students as if they are
students, and not economic units. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">There
will be some that dismiss this as liberal daydreaming, but it is not.
Inevitably employers will begin recognising qualifications offered via online
education platforms. When that happens, the credential value of an
undergraduate degree will be the same of one earnt online, and the most
dominantly factor will become cost. Yet universities will never be able to
compete on price, and must offer something else in return for the higher mark
up. In this regard, student experience has value, and embracing innovation in
education is invaluable.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Two-year
degrees do neither. By gaming the cost at the expense of other elements, they
do not tackle the growing competition. By continuing the current higher
education model, they do not embrace innovation. And by regimenting the
university process, they reduce the value of other things universities have to
offer.</span></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-51125272638188108512017-12-04T12:45:00.000-08:002017-12-04T12:45:20.264-08:00Middle of the Road<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">I find myself stuck finding a position regarding the government’s
introduction of T-Levels<sup>1</sup> and the Chancellor’s recent promise of
more maths education.<sup>2</sup> There are a few things to acknowledge. The
first is that we need skilled workers and that young people should have the
opportunity to gain skills and pursue their ambitions. The second is, as a
lover of mathematics myself, I do not object to a more comprehensive push for
maths education.</span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The reason I find myself stuck is I must ask the question of whether
these initiatives are really building an effective future labour force? Goos
and Manning (2007) paper <i>‘Lovely and
Lousy Jobs</i>,’<sup>3</sup> does a great job of explaining this issue.</span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">The long-held belief is that automation (which doesn’t necessarily mean
computers - automation has been happening for years, as we will come to see -
but often does mean computers) would first reduce the demand for low-skilled
work, as these were (apparently) simple jobs. The result of this automation
would be an up-skilling of the workforce, which would be wonderful. This is the
sentiment behind the government’s current strategy (which, I reiterate, I don’t
condemn), and they have good reason to think this way.</span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Automation is a very popular topic in business schools, and whenever I
am discussing it with my colleagues I raise the point of Adam Smith. Smith
spends a respectable portion of <i>The
Wealth of Nations</i> discussing the shift from an agricultural economy to an
industrial economy.<sup>4</sup> I proclaim, in said conversations, that all
society need do is embrace change and implement the necessary skill-shift to
accommodate the new dynamic, in the same vein as Smith, and any automation
fears would be set aside (I am simplifying here). In this sense, the
government’s policy seems to come from a sensible place (Smith I mean, not me).</span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Yet Goos and Manning argue that rather than targeting low-skill work,
automotive processes target routine work, irrespective of skill requirement.
And if we think about it, this makes a lot of sense. Computers can do extremely
complicated and time-consuming mathematics almost immediately. In terms of raw
cognitive power, computers have humans beat every time. In terms of abstract
cognitive power, less so.</span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">A good example of this is accountancy. Services such as Quick Books
threaten many of the small accountancy firms.<sup>5</sup> This is because of
automation, yet many people would not classify accountancy as a low-skill
profession. However, it is one that can be automated with a certain level of
ease, and as such it has become susceptible to our digital overlords.</span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Whilst the consequence of low-skilled automation should be the up-skilling
of the workforce, the consequence of routine automation is that only those
roles that are physically and cognitively difficult for computers to perform will
see growth in human labour demand. This is the infamous polarisation of work
and the hollowing out of the middle class, where low-skilled but physically
demanding jobs such as a cleaning see growth, high-skilled and cognitively
challenging work such as a CEO remain in demand, and middling jobs fall away.<sup>6</sup></span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Returning to the government’s policies, this is where my issue lies. The
Chancellor recently stated he would like the British people to have good jobs,
which is a noble but mathematically difficult ambition - we can’t all be CEOs.
Similarly, mathematical knowledge will always be useful, but it will not be a
distinguishing factor for many top jobs in a world where we all have impossibly
powerful calculators in our pockets. Technical skills perhaps offer a ray of
hope - for the time being trades such as electrician look pretty safe. But
again, there is finite demand for all these things.</span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">We already see the problem of over-qualified and under-demanded people
in this country, given the number of graduates taking low-paid work.<sup>7</sup>
My fear is that a promise that would have worked previously is now just
offering false hope.</span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">I say this as someone who has optimistically espoused the wisdom of Adam
Smith. The intention of the government is to train young people in the skills
needed for the digital economy, much like Smith advocated for the industrial
economy. Yet that wisdom needs to be dragged into the 21<sup>st</sup> century.
To answer this, I refer to <i>The Second
Machine Age</i> by Brynjolfssen and McAfee.<sup>8</sup></span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">In this book, the authors argue that computers and humans are greater
together than as the sum of their parts. Where computers can process data in a
way humans never could, humans can apply the data and derive complex social
links that a computer would be blind to. Behind every good algorithm is an
insightful observation.</span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">I have always been a supporter of a social contract for the digital age.
Automation and human work is part of that contract. The solution in terms of
up-skilling and re-skilling is to be more radical, and to embrace what we do
well which computers do not. T-Levels have merit, but alone they do not tackle
the growing polarisation of work. As part of a long-term strategy, the solution
is complex, though it almost certainly involves investment in technology,
robust institutions to ease the transition in work and a willingness to embrace
new ideas about education and skills-training. Our role in work is changing,
and so must we.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">References<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<sup><span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">1</span></sup><span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> </span><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/education-secretary-announces-first-new-t-levels"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/education-secretary-announces-first-new-t-levels</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<sup><span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">2</span></sup><span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> </span><a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/philip-hammond-to-give-schools-cash-for-teaching-more-maths-pupils-n8j7gdc52"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/philip-hammond-to-give-schools-cash-for-teaching-more-maths-pupils-n8j7gdc52</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<sup><span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">3</span></sup><span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> Goos, M, Manning, A (2007) ‘Lovely and Lousy
Jobs’ <i>The Review of Economics and
Statistics</i>, 89(1), pp. 118-133<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<sup><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">4</span></sup><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> Smith, A (2012, 1776) ‘<i>The Wealth of Nations</i>’ Wordsworth
Editions Limited, St. Ives<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<sup><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">5</span></sup><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> </span><a href="https://www.accountingweb.com/technology/accounting-software/can-software-really-replace-accountants"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">https://www.accountingweb.com/technology/accounting-software/can-software-really-replace-accountants</span></a><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<sup><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">6</span></sup><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> Autor, DH, Levy, F, Murname, RJ (2003)
‘The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration’ <i>The Quarterly Journal of Economics</i>,
118(4), pp. 1279-1333<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<sup><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">7</span></sup><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/aug/13/quarter-of-graduates-are-low-earners"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/aug/13/quarter-of-graduates-are-low-earners</span></a><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<sup><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">8</span></sup><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"> McAfee, A, Brynjolfssen, E (2014) ‘<i>The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress and
Prosperity in a time of Brilliant Technologies</i>’ Norton & Company Ltd.,
London<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-13691849796468693762017-11-24T06:31:00.000-08:002017-11-24T06:31:59.114-08:00O-turning<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The trouble with the Budget is it’s mired in show business - it’s made
into a pivotal event. And it is, politically, but not to the extent as the BBC
covered it, with a pre-show followed by a four hour long pre- and post- speech
analysis which included a tracking aerial shot of Mr. Hammond’s Jaguar as he
made his way to parliament. Now, I’m not criticising the BBC, in part because I
adore the absurdity of it all. I’m just setting the scene.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<span style="background: white;">Of course, almost as much show business and
performance went into the address itself as did go into the coverage of it. A
jokey Budget is how many newspapers are describing Mr. Hammond’s hour-long
delivery in the Commons. Some will argue it shows confidence and gives the
government a much-needed sense of swagger; some that it shows Mr. Hammond
fighting for his corner; some will say it shows a government and a Chancellor who
is already sinking, so why bother to be bothered about further perceptions?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<span style="background: white;">From my point of view, and what is almost a
defence of the Chancellor, though the jokes were awful, when we all know the
content of whatever is said will be reduced to a half-dozen bullet points by
the commentators covering it, why not give them more cheesy content to sift
through? But this, nor the other reasons suggested, are really the reason the
Chancellor put on a show. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Though more jovial than most, Mr. Hammond’s tone and turn of phrase was
just mimicry of what is seen in that chamber every week, and indeed what was
seen immediately before during PMQ’s. Politicians speak in such a way as to
embed their real politicking within a defensible question or statement. Many
see it as annoying, or sycophantic. Yet that is the reality, and one the
Chancellor cannot shy away from.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">When he speaks about his decision to, “<i>choose the future</i>,” as if he had a choice, or about his desire for
his children to live in a country where people have good jobs, as if this were
somehow a new revelation, surely the intention is to paint himself as some
political visionary. Yet it says something about the orator, I suggest, when
the entirety of a speech’s punch is found in the rhetoric. Indeed, those same
words could have come out of Michael Gove’s mouth and they would have had the
same impact. In a profession based on candidacy, this is a problem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<span style="background: white;">Now it is unfair to say this is the exact
problem that faces this government, not because it’s untrue, but because such a
statement implies this is the only government that is forced to hide behind
vapid statements, bluster and stage lights. Indeed, much of Labour’s high and
mighty tone invokes such methods. But it is this government, distinguished with
a nightmare (bureaucratically and logistically, if not actually) in the form of
Brexit on the one hand and a failed yet crucial economic policy on the other
that mean it seems to consist almost entirely of empty phrases spoken by
interchangeable and frankly forgettable characters.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<span style="background: white;">This is of course the sign of a dying government
- one with an obvious lack of vision and too much time spent in office to
suddenly decide to find a new one. The fact such a government remains in power
demonstrates the priority is not serving, but <i>sustaining</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<span style="background: white;">Brexit remains its own animal, yet the rhetoric
spouted by the government of full sail ahead whilst fires break out left right
and centre shows they are, somehow, also drowning. A stronger government might
be honest with the public that there are challenges in the process, some of
which were unforeseen and some which stubbornly persist. Yet this government
cannot for fear of upsetting the balance of power and collapsing into civil
war.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br />
<span style="background: white;">On the economy, we see a similar story. Seven
years into an austerity policy and government debt to GDP (this week’s
favourite statistic for citation) will only soon <i>begin</i> to peak. Meanwhile, Andrew Neil of the BBC questioned whether
the promise to eliminate the deficit has been abandoned, and Norman Smith (also
of the BBC) asked whether Britain just needed to accept we are a poorer
country? Yet Mrs. May and Mr. Hammond will continue to refer to Britain’s, “<i>strong economy</i>,” and their party’s
economic credentials.</span><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">This is the equivalent of closing one’s eyes and putting fingers in
one’s ears and shouting, <i>“la la la!”</i>
into the aether. A strong government would, at the very least, address these
concerns and debate the effectiveness of their choices. Yet for the
Conservatives to abandon austerity, they would also have to abandon their
legacy of the past seven years. They would have to accept they were
consistently wrong, and would have to acknowledge the sense of stagnation (at
best) that is gripping the country. They’d self-destruct, shooting themselves
with their own silver bullet - economic credibility.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background: white; color: #212121; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The Budget serves as a fine example of all of
this. Immediately after, buoyed by the announcement on stamp duty abolition,
the Chancellor may have believed he’d done what many thought was impossible -
delivered a good Budget. Yet within hours the maths had been run, and the
projection looks an awful lot grimmer and problematic.</span><span style="color: #212121; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> Mr. Hammond had
to U-turn on his previous budget. This is also a sign of weak government, as
the Conservatives should most certainly know. But it is much more concerning
when a government is so fragile they cannot even risk changing their mind.</span></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-13214920530228447002017-10-08T07:04:00.000-07:002017-10-08T07:04:26.908-07:00Leviathan<div class="MsoNormal">
This week marked the closest Theresa May has been to being
removed as prime minister since her disastrous general election result in June.
A now infamously bad speech, cabinet infighting and a general perception of her
being weak have made her departure, in the eyes of many, inevitable, even if
for the time being not immediately forthcoming.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Depending on who you ask (or, depending on the interviewee’s
political leaning) the problem facing Mrs. May and the Conservative party in
general is either Brexit, or a lack of clear, coherent and compassionate
domestic policy. The discrepancy in reasoning is caused merely by respective
actors emphasising their strengths – the issue is the same regardless: there is
a lack of direction in Theresa May’s government.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This, in the opinion of many, will be fatal, if for no other
reason than cool-headed reliability to do a task they have been asked to do is
proudly promoted by many Conservatives as the modus operandi of the Tory party.
A lack of direction, and by extension an inability to effectively deal with the
tasks at hand, all serve to damage the party doubly as they damage the <i>Conservatives</i> the government and the
brand.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is why Theresa May is most certainly a dead woman
walking. The very fact she is still walking is because the crisis facing the
Tory party is systemic, rather than a sickness held in the head. The most likely
candidate to replace her is Boris Johnson, eluding again to the behemoth of
Brexit that is crushing this government and, it must be said, most of
Westminster. An election of Boris as leader of would almost certainly smother
some of the Brexit fires, but would leave other flames to burn out of control.
It would also reinforce the perception that the Tories are out of touch;
according to YouGov, he has never been more unpopular.<sup>1</sup></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In what is now becoming a list of problems, the
Conservatives find themselves with another: Mrs. May can’t lead but must,
whilst Mr. Johnson can lead be must not. If we were to muse as to how to solve
this problem, one might take it as a joke when I refer to a snake, but it is
not. A leviathan in the context of history is one that unites various warring
tribes through its singular might. Politicians might be snakes, but are any
leviathans?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The apparent consensus is no, but that’s hardly creative
thinking. Brexit has caused all of this mess, and perhaps it can fix it. Mrs.
May faces an increasingly difficult task in leaving the European Union, whilst
Brexiteers breathe down her throat, and the masses of young Remainers at home
flock to Jeremy Corbyn. As a political move, calling a second referendum on
Brexit may solve all three of these problems.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Assuming that, given the chance to vote again, a coalition
of mobilised youth, terrified metropolitan elite and regretful middle-Englanders
might reverse the result, Mrs. May may save her premiership. Talk of Brexit
would be over, allowing her to focus on a strong domestic agenda and give her
party an important sense of direction. Equally, it would cripple the hard
Brexit wing of the party – including Mr. Johnson – through a shift to the
centre ground. The result would be alienation for Boris and co. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, Mr. Corbyn (whom I have spoken little about) would
have his wind knocked out of his sails as his legions of supporters would, in a
manner of speaking, side with the enemy. To put it another way, Mrs. May would
be offering the young something only a prime minister could offer, and the
young would be hard pressed to refuse.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a solution, of course, it is not perfect. There would be
accusations of old wounds opening (though, I would retort, that said wounds
never closed) and it is certainly short-termist – the problem of Europe would
continue to plague the Conservatives for years to come. But as I have written
previously, this will be the case regardless.<sup>2<o:p></o:p></sup></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though these are not the major flaw with this plan. The
major flaw is the assumption that the result would be reversed. Just as Mr.
Cameron did before her, losing the referendum would result in Mrs. May’s
resignation. But so too will a ‘no deal,’ outcome, or simply a strategy of
waiting it out. Mrs. May is on a collision course with failure, and only a risk
might rectify that. If ever there was a time for bold and brave (if not
necessarily strong and stable) leadership, let it be now. Call a second
referendum.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>1</sup> <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Boris_Johnson">https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Boris_Johnson</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>2</sup> <a href="http://stuartmmills.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/how-do-you-solve-problem-like-brexit.html">http://stuartmmills.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/how-do-you-solve-problem-like-brexit.html</a><o:p></o:p></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-59289542369310321302017-09-26T12:31:00.000-07:002017-09-26T12:31:12.103-07:00Europe's Tug of War<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
The end of the European Union will not be on the back of
Britain’s decision to leave it, regardless of what some members of the British
political aristocracy might believe. But whether this nationalist arrogance is
baseless or substantial is irrelevant. The illustrative point remains –
nationalism will, eventually, kill the European Union.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Of course, it’s easy for a quite stereotypically British
Remainer to say such a thing – it allows me to support my country by claiming
the crumbling empire is not my country by <i>their</i>
continent, whilst simultaneously bashing the abhorrent nationalistic overtones
that consumed much of the Leave campaign’s media strategy (“<i>take back control</i>,” “<i>Independence Day</i>,” anybody?). However,
the seeds of the European Union’s demise are not found in the dissent of little
England, but instead within the textbooks of history.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Are we so far removed (or, perhaps, so democratically
evolved?) to forget that 100 years ago Europe was embroiled in the (then)
largest war in human history, only to then go and top that a couple of decades
later? Or, choose more recent conflicts such as the Balkans in the 1990s, the
Kosovo crisis and the return to genocide on European soil. These conflicts are
borne out of national identity and the desire for self-determination – take
back control could be applied to almost any European state at some point in
that state’s history.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
To believe, as many European technocrats and Remainers do,
that the European Union is somehow a fundamental (and, by extension, permanent)
entity is dubious at best. For what’s next for Europe but some sort of
federalised state? The crisis in the Eurozone has shown the current model is
tremendously fragile, and as reaction from Britain breaking away is it so mad
as to think the European technocrats would call for closer integration between
those that remain? And is the ultimate – perhaps extreme – outcome of this not
something like the United States of Europe?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
Such federalisation is unlikely because of nationalism, and
the evidence is clear to see. A prime example is the calls for independence in
Catalonia, which inevitably leads to a discussion of the Basque country. Or
consider a 2015 Scotland, or even Kosovo should political forces move
sufficiently. From the perspective of <i>integration</i>,
take Turkey. The core part of what remains the sick man of Europe, those in
Brussels seem to believe Turkey is sick, but certainly not European (Union,
mind you). Lastly, take Switzerland – which is not even in the European Union –
which consists of 26 federalised <i>Cantons</i>
which operate quite independently.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
History is expressed through our geography, which is itself
expressed through colours on a map. Europe, for its size, is rather colourful.
The question of why is because nationalistic beliefs dominate Europe, and have
shaped the lay of the land (sometimes literally) when stressed. Though I think
inaccurate, it is still a justifiable inquiry to say technocracy and loss of
control in Europe stressed these tensions in Britain, resulting in Brexit.
Further stresses – perhaps brought on by further integration – may lead to more
Brexit scenarios popping up in the near future (a great example of this, in my
opinion, is found in Emmanuel Macron, who is calling for a stronger European
Union whilst his opponent in the election – Marine Le Pen – had a very
Eurosceptic message. You could argue Macron is acting on a mandate, given he
won. You could also argue Macron should be trying to convince those who didn’t
vote for him, less they bite back next time).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
The reverse – more decentralisation – is almost an admission
of defeat. For those of us who want the European Union to survive, of which I
am one, we must find another cure for the beast. That cure is not immediately
forthcoming, but it should include the European Union rethinking its role
within Europe the <i>continent</i>. If it
continues to act as a self-actualising behemoth, it will fail to see the minute
cracks until they become caverns.<o:p></o:p></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-55571569837408861092017-07-13T13:26:00.000-07:002017-07-13T13:26:27.492-07:00How do you solve a problem like Brexit?<div class="MsoNormal">
It is a natural British phenomenon to be simultaneously
tremendously cynical and baselessly optimistic, particularly in matters of
patriotism. This phenomenon is perhaps best illustrated with the Brexit
negotiations David Davis started the end of June. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though the left is wanton to brand Mr. Davis’s initial
negotiations as wrought with concessions to his opposite, Michel Barnier, and
the right keen to use words such as bilateral, professional and mutual, one
should not ignore the fact that many do not believe these talks will result in
a good result for the United Kingdom, regardless of political leaning.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a week where Theresa May called for consensus, this is
what I offer. Observe Mr. Farage’s comments after the general election result
in early June, where he expressed concern that Brexit would not be done right.
He even threatened to re-join front line politics, which is perhaps a more
terrifying prospect than the often discussed cliff edge. Or, take Mr. Farage’s polar
opposite, someone such as Vince Cable, who said on Andrew Marr that he felt
Brexit might not even happen, given the challenges it presents.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In this landscape, I suggest it’s irrelevant whether Mr.
Davis made concessions to the Europeans or not. The result of these
negotiations is already determined, regardless of which side one is on. The
deal will be bad. This is consensus, albeit to Mrs. May’s horror.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And make no mistake, there will be a deal. Whoever is prime
minister in March 2019 (something that, at this time, seems extremely
uncertain) must ensure there is a deal with the EU, or else their reign will be
tarnished with what would be seen as a great failure of cooperation and
diplomacy. When Mrs. May says, “<i>no deal
is better than a bad deal</i>,” she is not technically wrong – there are worse,
hypothetical, deals that could be offered to us – but she is being deceptive in
her stance. There <i>must</i> be a deal,
less her position be untenable.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And thus we have a problem. On the one hand, we have a
political landscape where right and left will be unhappy with whatever deal is
eventually reached, and at the same time we have requirement to strike a deal,
or get a new prime minister. Indeed, if after June’s election result Mrs. May
did not see her position as untenable, there is little chance she will
voluntarily walk to the hangman’s noose in 2019.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One might simply put it as, ‘how do you solve a problem like
Brexit?’ Well, for many Leave campaigners Brexit was never a problem, but a
solution to a great many problems. Sovereignty, the NHS, immigration. These
were all sicknesses for which Brexit was the panacea. But the reality, at least
from a Remain perspective, is Brexit is not a panacea, and this will be
evidenced when, post-2019, these problems still exist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If Mrs. May secures a deal that Brexiteers applaud, they may
have to eat their words when these problems persist. Though they will not, for
Mrs. May will not secure a deal that satisfies Brexiteers. Perhaps we will have
a transitional arrangement, or retain membership of the Customs Union, or pay a
large divorce bill. It does not matter. What matters is that Brexit must remain
an issue for those on the right, less they admit their errors in calling for
the UK’s exit of the EU. From a Brexiteers’s perspective, they <i>cannot</i> afford be satisfied.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2019 will not see the emergence of a post-Euroscepticism era
in the UK; rather, we will bear witness to the rise of the Releaver. In the
general election, the term Re-Leaver was used to describe a Remain voter who
was planning on voting Conservative. But I suggest a Releaver is actually
something quite different, and quite literal: someone who will demand we
renegotiate our terms of leaving the European Union.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I imagine a phrase such as, ‘leaving the EU was right, but
the way we left was wrong,’ to be quite a common phrase is 2019, when the
problems that face this country persist and the EU, now no longer a viable
scapegoat, must be recast in that role again.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
For Brexit is a tremendously complicated issue, but the
politics, at least in a pragmatic sense, is remarkably simple. As a country, we
must now all be cautiously optimistic for the future, for what else can we be?
But make no mistake, the infamous British cynicism will return, if indeed it
ever left, and the whole Brexit furore will rumble on beyond our eventual
departure. Mrs. May might believe no deal is better than a bad deal, but
perhaps it is time we all come to accept there might only be bad deals going
around?<o:p></o:p></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-45361729235993824562017-06-17T08:04:00.000-07:002017-06-18T02:52:24.005-07:00Head Over Real<div class="MsoNormal">
There’s a certain amount of absurdism surrounding Donald
Trump, and it’s not even in what he says or does. Rather, in my opinion, it is
absurd how <i>much</i> he says and does. Of
course, for a politician this might be seen as praise, but it isn’t.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If it isn’t something rather bigoted, or misinformed (those
two aren’t mutually exclusive), or petty, or Russian, it’s something else. I’ve
previously discussed the issue of supply and demand that comes with the 24-hour
news cycle, and there’s no doubt the story that keeps on giving that is Trump
is in part fuelled by the insatiable appetite of the media. But there’s another
reason – Twitter.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now of course Twitter isn’t the full picture, but it is
synonymous with the President, and it is redefining presidential protocol.<sup>1</sup>
No, Twitter is more illustrative of another point – the world is faster than
it’s ever been, and the cracks through which issues may slip are wider than
ever.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Trump’s tweeting, such as the infamous <i>Covfefe</i>-gate,<sup>2</sup> is just one example of what I’m talking
about. Another is perhaps the speed at which information surrounding the
Conservative party and habitation legislation surfaced in the wake of the London
tower block fire.<sup>3</sup> Or, for that matter, the spread of the naughtiest
thing in the world – that which involves a field of wheat.<sup>4</sup> In the
same kin, we could look at the situation consuming Uber<sup>5</sup> (a company
many, I’m sure, would tout as prized for a place in building the future) and
their leadership, or the controversial <i>Daddy
of Five</i> story,<sup>6</sup> or more I’m surely forgetting about.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My point isn’t that these situations are all of an equal
severity – each must be considered with a fair amount of context and information.
My point is that these stories represent ones where the narrative has moved
extremely quickly, and the ability to control the story’s traction has
collapsed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Everyone knows the Internet forces the likes of politicians
to be more careful (*cough* Anthony Weiner, *cough*), though it has mostly been
stressed due to the permanence of information online. But the ease of
Twitter in that it allows someone like Trump to say what’s on their mind
quickly and without the oversight of a speech writer, or the ability to share a
video on Facebook enabling a gaff like <i>Fields
of Wheat</i> (I <i>really</i> don’t want to
use the -<i>gate</i> suffix) to blow up,
represents a different danger of the Internet – immediacy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the same vein (perhaps) as Uber is that of United Airlines,
whose treatment of a passenger on an overbooked plane dominated the news and
web forums such as Reddit in a matter of minutes.<sup>7</sup>
Or take that of Justine Sacco, whose tweet about AIDS whilst boarding a plane
meant that as she landed she was trending globally.<sup>8</sup></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These cases illustrate a new way of being in the Internet
age, and whilst something like <i>Covfefe</i>
is amusing, it underlines a much more important point. That in various arenas,
be it political, commercial or entertainment, we still operate with a slower
mindset. The Trump administration is evidence of this dissonance. I think
Theresa May could be described as similar. And many and more. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We should all
wish to run with the pack, but we must keep up. Literally.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>1</sup> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/06/12/the-covfefe-act-would-preserve-donald-trumps-tweets-as-presidential-records/?utm_term=.0796c3aa019f">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/06/12/the-covfefe-act-would-preserve-donald-trumps-tweets-as-presidential-records/?utm_term=.0796c3aa019f</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>2</sup> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/us/politics/covfefe-trump-twitter.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/us/politics/covfefe-trump-twitter.html</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>3</sup> <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-warns-tory-ministers-10622663">http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-warns-tory-ministers-10622663</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>4</sup> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/theresa-mays-wheat-field-failed-the-naughtiness-test-can-you-do-better">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/theresa-mays-wheat-field-failed-the-naughtiness-test-can-you-do-better</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>5</sup> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-ceo-idUSKBN1953C1">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-ceo-idUSKBN1953C1</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>6</sup> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39627969/youtube-pranksters-daddyofive-deny-child-abuse-claims">http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39627969/youtube-pranksters-daddyofive-deny-child-abuse-claims</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>7</sup> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/united-airlines-reaches-settlement-passenger-dragged-plane/">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/united-airlines-reaches-settlement-passenger-dragged-plane/</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>8</sup> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html</a><o:p></o:p></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220341650439224600.post-71574936496819237052017-06-14T07:20:00.000-07:002017-06-14T07:20:49.984-07:00Everyone's cross about Brexit<div class="MsoNormal">
After the general election, Nicola Sturgeon is quietly
bleeding. For all the respect I have for the woman, I do not want Scottish
independence, and it seems much of Scotland agrees. She’s walking wounded.
However, that didn’t stop her making one of the most sensible suggestions I’ve
heard in a long-time: that Brexit should be negotiated by a cross-party
delegation.<sup>1<o:p></o:p></sup></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup><br /></sup></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The idea sounds immediately brilliant. So brilliant in fact
I have to wonder why is isn’t what we’re already doing? It sounds democratic,
and representative and conciliatory. But that’s not what we’ve got.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Instead, in the furore and fallout of the 23<sup>rd</sup> of
June 2016, we got Theresa May. She capitalised on Brexit, perhaps trying to
look strong and stable, later announcing what she thought Brexit meant<sup>2</sup>
(Brexit, <i>obviously</i>…) and what her
plans for the negotiations were.<sup>3</sup> Some even began calling her
Supreme Leader<sup>4</sup> for her style of control.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And yet now we have a general election result which has
destroyed the Supreme Leader in the most painful of ways,<sup>5</sup> and it
has (accidentally) thrown the questions of how and who re: Brexit wide open.
YouGov recently did a poll which showed support for Mrs. Sturgeon’s idea (an
idea, let’s be honest, that only came about because Sturgeon hasn’t gotten what
she <i>really</i> wanted), with 51% of
participants wanting a cross-party delegation.<sup>6</sup> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup><br /></sup></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, 51% isn’t much of a majority, but considering Brexit is
an issue because of 52%,<sup>7</sup> I’d be hesitant to dismiss the poll quite
so soon if I were a Tory Brexiteer.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That’s besides the fact that YouGov were one of the few
pollsters during the general election that seemed to get anything close to the
actual result.<sup>8</sup> Indeed, we can criticise methodology sometimes – and
I very much encourage people to do so – but right now YouGov are having their
moment in the sun.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The idea seems sensible for another reason. If the
government of the day must lead the talks, who will lead when we don’t exactly
have a legitimate government? Of course, we can debate the word legitimate, and
yes Corbyn didn’t win, but neither did May, or anyone else for that matter.
Following Mrs. May’s own mantra, surely now she must cede some control of the
talks to Labour, the SNP and others? Surely, a Brexit for Britain should be a
Brexit that <i>represents</i> Britain, no?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But this will not happen. For the same reason that Mrs.
Sturgeon’s current weakness has prompted her to soften her position, Mrs. May
must harden hers. To cede any say to any other party, to give Mr. Starmer or
anyone else (besides maybe someone of the Northern Irish<sup>9</sup>
persuasion) a seat at the table, or to make Corbyn look even vaguely legitimate
as a leader, undermines her near hollow position.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For Mrs. May, the noose is already around her neck. But in
the name of Tory preservation the party has stayed the execution. A cross-party
delegation would almost certainly cause her to fall through the floor, and she
knows it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>1</sup> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/12/nicola-sturgeon-calls-for-may-to-pause-brexit-negotiations">https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/12/nicola-sturgeon-calls-for-may-to-pause-brexit-negotiations</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>2</sup> <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-means-brexit-conservative-leadership-no-attempt-remain-inside-eu-leave-europe-a7130596.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-means-brexit-conservative-leadership-no-attempt-remain-inside-eu-leave-europe-a7130596.html</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>3</sup> <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech">https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>4</sup> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/30/kim-jong-may-awkward-and-incredulous-as-journalist-asks-question">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/30/kim-jong-may-awkward-and-incredulous-as-journalist-asks-question</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>5</sup> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>6</sup> <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/e066e170-4f56-11e7-8ead-1eb0da735179/question/0f1bd200-4f57-11e7-81f3-2ab0a50a8b9c/toplines">https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/e066e170-4f56-11e7-8ead-1eb0da735179/question/0f1bd200-4f57-11e7-81f3-2ab0a50a8b9c/toplines</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>7</sup> <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-referendum/">https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-referendum/</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>8</sup> <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/politics/election-results-hung-parliament-exit-poll-yougov-latest-conservatives-labour-winning-a7780401.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/politics/election-results-hung-parliament-exit-poll-yougov-latest-conservatives-labour-winning-a7780401.html</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<sup>9</sup> <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/815141/Election-2017-DUP-Theresa-May-Arlene-Foster-Brexit-coalition">http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/815141/Election-2017-DUP-Theresa-May-Arlene-Foster-Brexit-coalition</a><o:p></o:p></div>
Stuart Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449693464579482267noreply@blogger.com0