Fantasy land only becomes possible in a society of general affluence and freedom from fear of the basic wants.
Reality will return double quick when crisis occurs, be it a winter when the lights go out, the heating fails and people die as a result or the government can’t fund itself any longer because the bond market decides that enough is enough.
It is deeply regrettable that we are going to have to face such severe pain to restore sanity. But I fear that is how it is.
An astute distinction. Seems to fit the UK world at least, rather well. To this outsider the Labour Party conference appears to be a cauldron of emotions. It will be interesting to see how the Conservative conference fairs in this regard. (I don't recollect the overall balance between emotion and reason at the Reform event)
Another area of fantasy v reality is in climate policy. The Stern Review 2006 gave economic justification to cutting emissions based flawed assumptions. Principle were
1) Limited, economically efficient and global policies. The UK is inefficiently rapidly cutting emissions with little regard for cost control and adverse consequences. Meanwhile, global emissions are still rising.
2) The costs of unmitigated climate change were modelled as being a function of global average temperature rise. Climate Change costs are locked in for centuries due to assumption of zero or very limited adaptability. The reality is that folks adapt over time. In the last few decades the world has not just muddled through, but experienced a phenomenal transformation in living standards.
" ...we are trying to promote a form of liberty that is imaginative and attractive, one based on storytelling and emotional attachment as well as facts. This is something that the free-market movement must get better at." This I like, because while I agree with the sentiments expressed in the article, it is otherwise a bit of a rant.
Establishing facts costs effort and time, especially when we are bombarded with "information" without most of us having developed critical thinking. Our "lizard brains" that are for our survival make opinion-forming quick and effortless. Our opinions are almost bound to lead our knowledge, and for many, modifying opinion feels like climb-down and failure, rather than an acknowledgment that we've learned something.
This is why the passage quoted is onto something - we like stories. One approach might be to set out a vision of how life might be without ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives, which has occurred so stealthily or left as a hangover from the past, that most folk don't notice.
The Institute of Economic Affairs. Right wing, free market is everything, low tax, little regulation, minimal govt has been the model followed in the west since 1980.
It has had close to 50 years free rein and here we are in 2026 with the same ideas being proposed to fix the problems the same ideas created.
The fantasy is that these policies would be a departure from established economic ideology.
You say this, yet the facts are that our tax burden has never been higher, the state has never been bigger or spent more, and the UK economy has never had more regulations.
I am grateful for your response because you have proved the point of my piece.
And yet the rich have got richer, the rest of us have become worse off.
Wealth has transferred from us to a tiny minority, major companies have forced governments into competing for a minimal amount of tax and live with threats of disruption of democracy as politicians from the free market right are bought by massive donations.
And then it should be noted that there is a body of tax dodging enablers in the finance, legal and property sectors who benefit from this corruption and give voice to sentiments like yours.
Capitalism can only survive if the vast majority benefit and the massive transfer of wealth undermines its survival.
I don’t think I have. We have had nearly 50 years of economic policies and they haven’t work.
In fact it is a straight forward response that it has resulted in the exact opposite outcome.
There isn’t a privatisation that has worked to the benefit of service users.
The neglect of the public realm will inevitably result in the need to invest in fixing the problems caused.
In terms of regulation I should point out that the deregulation and shrinkage of building control gave us Grenfell and if you look across the pond the removal of regulation and food safety inspection has created a chronic health problem.
Ordinary people are over taxed because the rich and powerful have ensured that they are under taxed, because assets are easy to hide off shore.
The windfall from the North Sea has been utterly wasted by right wing ideological policies.
The nonsense of Badenoch s latest missive is thoroughly demolished by Richard Murphy’s latest post on here
The tax burden has never been higher, government spending has never been higher, and there have never been more regulations on businesses. In what world is this capitalism unleashed? I know what world: the world of fantasy.
May I add one more please, on the Fairford "bias" statement.
I applied for a VISA to visit Iran a couple of years ago. I received no reply. So, I did not go.
However, is that the sort of "confirmation" exhibited by Andy Burnham?
Or did the security wallahs find a letter from Iran that said to consider a protest? without saying how.
I bet the UK only have "my one sided" link (to, but not from) at best, for Andy Burnham's security comment winding up every copper and media in the UK.......
1) Interesting in the 5 comments made so far - none talk about Earning Money..... like Engineers do. And Govt supported AI tech giants? more likely to take the City's Services jobs, than British Engineers who Design and Make Hardware that Buyers people actually want, but UK Govt does not!
2) Andy Burnham says the Fairford five arrested had some link to Iran - Confirmation Bias in my view. I bet there were No other Triggers investigated, like.....
2a) the Maldives hates the USA for submerging all of their land below water due to burning so much coal and oil.
2b) Or: how about some people want those Fairford B1 bombers hit London? Harry?
Harry, you know we have had many conversations before. And it’s true I enjoy listening and reading your views.
But as usual I try to get you to think differently.
It’s easy to think that facts out Trump feeling. But consider this. …
Let’s say facts tell us that the costs of economists and pundits of economic journalists are too expensive? That they produce nothing but hot air and more questions than answers!
Would that fact be enough to give you and your colleagues the boot? Or should we be more holistic and think actually you are worth every penny and our gut feeling is you are required by those less qualified to receive your wisdom? Your gut feelings based on your right wing assumptions??
So Harry don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Please, I happen to like your views so I can argue them! We gave to have all sides up for debate so we can win the argument not accept them as gospel!
Look the problem this piece highlights is that you as an economist and logical accountant of a household budget think in those two dimensional terms! Left or right. Right or wrong profit it loss, fact or fiction, fact or feeling?!
When I have just pointed out a cause to think holistically in the round in 3D not 2D.
But in talking about our economy that is time critical then we must think in 4D not 2D.
This piece tells me you are stuck in a 2D pattern.
When we need 4D answers.
Look, our whole economy is based on two things. MONEY and SPENDING. They are two dimensional. So on their own make you think in those limited 2D terms. So I don’t blame you.
Every day we think in profit and loss. Spend and receive, buy and sell.
But frankly Harry that’s just not good enough.
Money has to be resupplied by the act of SPENDING. The same money has to be rotated around and through our hands to ensure we are constantly resupplied. So inevitably money has to be spent! By those holding it. So it rewards more than one recipient. Producing more than one wage. Rewarding many not just one person.
Snd because the need is time critical we need it in time! So there is the 4D need right there!
If you hero looking at things solely in 2D you won’t see the problem let alone the answer Harry. But you’re not alone. Steve does it. All at the IEA seem to do it.
We need not just better thinking we need to up our game! That’s a feeling Harry!
Money had to be spent not just to pass it in to others in a 3D motion but the act of SPENDING triggers all taxes! Yes even income tax and Nic are both triggered by SPENDING MONEY.
We know this Harry because NOT SPENDING MONEY gives us no passing on forward of money and doesent trigger any tax! None!!
So to get the growth in tax take we are all needing to give government it’s required and sufficient amount necessary for its needs to spend on our collective selves then we need to make sure we are spending all our possible money in sufficient quantities and in sufficient time to not only reward us but to trigger the necessary tax take for our government to have!
Now you may FEEL that sounds wrong. Because hitherto you didn’t have or understand the above facts. So don’t let your feelings get in the way of the truth.
Many thanks for your interesting comments as always on my pieces, Brian!
I think we largely agree on the problems and that is where my analysis is aimed at rather than the solutions.
On the solutions though, I appreciate your points that we need to think more imaginatively, and you are not wrong, but the facts of history show that free markets unleashed drive growth and prosperity, not the state.
You are speaking in terms that aren't unreasonable but our disagreement seems to be on the ability of the Government to spend money in a positive way. If evidence could show that the Government could do so then I would agree with you, but the evidence from at least 2010, is that the Government does not spend money better than the private sector. Of course tax receipts increase with spending, but the question here is whether that money is better spent by the Government or left to the private sector to drive economic growth.
If only higher tax receipts and better Government spending were needed to turn around our economy, then we would be in a much better situation than we are now. The major issue is that tax receipts and indeed the tax burden are higher than they have ever been, but the state has failed completely in utilising those resources.
Fantasy land only becomes possible in a society of general affluence and freedom from fear of the basic wants.
Reality will return double quick when crisis occurs, be it a winter when the lights go out, the heating fails and people die as a result or the government can’t fund itself any longer because the bond market decides that enough is enough.
It is deeply regrettable that we are going to have to face such severe pain to restore sanity. But I fear that is how it is.
Your opening sentence. If I may suggest. the word “society” should be replaced with “the ruling elite and its cronies and acolytes”.
An astute distinction. Seems to fit the UK world at least, rather well. To this outsider the Labour Party conference appears to be a cauldron of emotions. It will be interesting to see how the Conservative conference fairs in this regard. (I don't recollect the overall balance between emotion and reason at the Reform event)
Another area of fantasy v reality is in climate policy. The Stern Review 2006 gave economic justification to cutting emissions based flawed assumptions. Principle were
1) Limited, economically efficient and global policies. The UK is inefficiently rapidly cutting emissions with little regard for cost control and adverse consequences. Meanwhile, global emissions are still rising.
2) The costs of unmitigated climate change were modelled as being a function of global average temperature rise. Climate Change costs are locked in for centuries due to assumption of zero or very limited adaptability. The reality is that folks adapt over time. In the last few decades the world has not just muddled through, but experienced a phenomenal transformation in living standards.
" ...we are trying to promote a form of liberty that is imaginative and attractive, one based on storytelling and emotional attachment as well as facts. This is something that the free-market movement must get better at." This I like, because while I agree with the sentiments expressed in the article, it is otherwise a bit of a rant.
Establishing facts costs effort and time, especially when we are bombarded with "information" without most of us having developed critical thinking. Our "lizard brains" that are for our survival make opinion-forming quick and effortless. Our opinions are almost bound to lead our knowledge, and for many, modifying opinion feels like climb-down and failure, rather than an acknowledgment that we've learned something.
This is why the passage quoted is onto something - we like stories. One approach might be to set out a vision of how life might be without ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives, which has occurred so stealthily or left as a hangover from the past, that most folk don't notice.
Fantasy indeed. Pretty much the whole of this article has it the wrong way round
In what sense?
The Institute of Economic Affairs. Right wing, free market is everything, low tax, little regulation, minimal govt has been the model followed in the west since 1980.
It has had close to 50 years free rein and here we are in 2026 with the same ideas being proposed to fix the problems the same ideas created.
The fantasy is that these policies would be a departure from established economic ideology.
You say this, yet the facts are that our tax burden has never been higher, the state has never been bigger or spent more, and the UK economy has never had more regulations.
I am grateful for your response because you have proved the point of my piece.
And yet the rich have got richer, the rest of us have become worse off.
Wealth has transferred from us to a tiny minority, major companies have forced governments into competing for a minimal amount of tax and live with threats of disruption of democracy as politicians from the free market right are bought by massive donations.
And then it should be noted that there is a body of tax dodging enablers in the finance, legal and property sectors who benefit from this corruption and give voice to sentiments like yours.
Capitalism can only survive if the vast majority benefit and the massive transfer of wealth undermines its survival.
I don’t think I have. We have had nearly 50 years of economic policies and they haven’t work.
In fact it is a straight forward response that it has resulted in the exact opposite outcome.
There isn’t a privatisation that has worked to the benefit of service users.
The neglect of the public realm will inevitably result in the need to invest in fixing the problems caused.
In terms of regulation I should point out that the deregulation and shrinkage of building control gave us Grenfell and if you look across the pond the removal of regulation and food safety inspection has created a chronic health problem.
Ordinary people are over taxed because the rich and powerful have ensured that they are under taxed, because assets are easy to hide off shore.
The windfall from the North Sea has been utterly wasted by right wing ideological policies.
The nonsense of Badenoch s latest missive is thoroughly demolished by Richard Murphy’s latest post on here
The tax burden has never been higher, government spending has never been higher, and there have never been more regulations on businesses. In what world is this capitalism unleashed? I know what world: the world of fantasy.
Of course that begs a question of why should capitalism be anything but leashed in the interests of the majority
May I add one more please, on the Fairford "bias" statement.
I applied for a VISA to visit Iran a couple of years ago. I received no reply. So, I did not go.
However, is that the sort of "confirmation" exhibited by Andy Burnham?
Or did the security wallahs find a letter from Iran that said to consider a protest? without saying how.
I bet the UK only have "my one sided" link (to, but not from) at best, for Andy Burnham's security comment winding up every copper and media in the UK.......
Couple of things please
1) Interesting in the 5 comments made so far - none talk about Earning Money..... like Engineers do. And Govt supported AI tech giants? more likely to take the City's Services jobs, than British Engineers who Design and Make Hardware that Buyers people actually want, but UK Govt does not!
2) Andy Burnham says the Fairford five arrested had some link to Iran - Confirmation Bias in my view. I bet there were No other Triggers investigated, like.....
2a) the Maldives hates the USA for submerging all of their land below water due to burning so much coal and oil.
2b) Or: how about some people want those Fairford B1 bombers hit London? Harry?
JimQ
Harry, you know we have had many conversations before. And it’s true I enjoy listening and reading your views.
But as usual I try to get you to think differently.
It’s easy to think that facts out Trump feeling. But consider this. …
Let’s say facts tell us that the costs of economists and pundits of economic journalists are too expensive? That they produce nothing but hot air and more questions than answers!
Would that fact be enough to give you and your colleagues the boot? Or should we be more holistic and think actually you are worth every penny and our gut feeling is you are required by those less qualified to receive your wisdom? Your gut feelings based on your right wing assumptions??
So Harry don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Please, I happen to like your views so I can argue them! We gave to have all sides up for debate so we can win the argument not accept them as gospel!
Look the problem this piece highlights is that you as an economist and logical accountant of a household budget think in those two dimensional terms! Left or right. Right or wrong profit it loss, fact or fiction, fact or feeling?!
When I have just pointed out a cause to think holistically in the round in 3D not 2D.
But in talking about our economy that is time critical then we must think in 4D not 2D.
This piece tells me you are stuck in a 2D pattern.
When we need 4D answers.
Look, our whole economy is based on two things. MONEY and SPENDING. They are two dimensional. So on their own make you think in those limited 2D terms. So I don’t blame you.
Every day we think in profit and loss. Spend and receive, buy and sell.
But frankly Harry that’s just not good enough.
Money has to be resupplied by the act of SPENDING. The same money has to be rotated around and through our hands to ensure we are constantly resupplied. So inevitably money has to be spent! By those holding it. So it rewards more than one recipient. Producing more than one wage. Rewarding many not just one person.
Snd because the need is time critical we need it in time! So there is the 4D need right there!
If you hero looking at things solely in 2D you won’t see the problem let alone the answer Harry. But you’re not alone. Steve does it. All at the IEA seem to do it.
We need not just better thinking we need to up our game! That’s a feeling Harry!
Money had to be spent not just to pass it in to others in a 3D motion but the act of SPENDING triggers all taxes! Yes even income tax and Nic are both triggered by SPENDING MONEY.
We know this Harry because NOT SPENDING MONEY gives us no passing on forward of money and doesent trigger any tax! None!!
So to get the growth in tax take we are all needing to give government it’s required and sufficient amount necessary for its needs to spend on our collective selves then we need to make sure we are spending all our possible money in sufficient quantities and in sufficient time to not only reward us but to trigger the necessary tax take for our government to have!
Now you may FEEL that sounds wrong. Because hitherto you didn’t have or understand the above facts. So don’t let your feelings get in the way of the truth.
The truth can’t be wrong!
Many thanks for your interesting comments as always on my pieces, Brian!
I think we largely agree on the problems and that is where my analysis is aimed at rather than the solutions.
On the solutions though, I appreciate your points that we need to think more imaginatively, and you are not wrong, but the facts of history show that free markets unleashed drive growth and prosperity, not the state.
You are speaking in terms that aren't unreasonable but our disagreement seems to be on the ability of the Government to spend money in a positive way. If evidence could show that the Government could do so then I would agree with you, but the evidence from at least 2010, is that the Government does not spend money better than the private sector. Of course tax receipts increase with spending, but the question here is whether that money is better spent by the Government or left to the private sector to drive economic growth.
If only higher tax receipts and better Government spending were needed to turn around our economy, then we would be in a much better situation than we are now. The major issue is that tax receipts and indeed the tax burden are higher than they have ever been, but the state has failed completely in utilising those resources.