Home > Uncategorized > Thatcher and the neoliberal counterrevolution

Thatcher and the neoliberal counterrevolution

from Lars Syll

The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes … I believe that there is social and psychological justification for significant inequalities of income and wealth, but not for such large disparities as exist to-day.

John Maynard Keynes wrote this in General Theory (1936).

Four decades later the Iron Lady appeared in the Parliament with this gobsmacking attempt at explaining away the problem:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/okHGCz6xxiw?feature=player_embedded“>

It’s hardly surprising that Pinochet-lovers like Margaret Thatcher and other neoliberals of the same ilk had this rather debonair attitude on rising inequality. But how about economists?

Economists are not rewarded for studying the economy. That is why almost everyone in the profession missed the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which stands to cost the country more than $7 trillion in lost output according to the Congressional Budget Office (that comes to around $60,000 per household).

Few if any economists lost their 6-figure paychecks for this disastrous mistake. But most economists are not paid for knowing about the economy. They are paid for telling stories that justify giving more money to rich people. Hence we can look forward to many more people telling us that all the money going to the rich was just the natural workings of the economy. When it comes to all the government rules and regulations that shifted income upward, they just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Dean Baker

In case you’re in doubt, you might better have a look at e. g. what Harvard economist and George Bush advisor Greg Mankiw writes on the rising inequality we have seen for the last 30 years in both the US and elsewhere in Western societies:

Even if the income gains are in the top 1 percent, why does that imply that the right story is not about education? …

It may be better to think of the return to education as stochastic. Education not only increases the average income a person will earn, but it also changes the entire distribution of possible life outcomes. It does not guarantee that a person will end up in the top 1 percent, but it increases the likelihood. I have not seen any data on this, but I am willing to bet that the top 1 percent are more educated than the average American …

The rising inequality that has been going on in our societies since the Reagan-Thatcher era is outrageous. Income and wealth has increasingly been concentrated in the hands of a very small and privileged elite. And a society where we allow the inequality of incomes and wealth to increase without bounds, sooner or later implodes. The cement that keeps us together erodes and in the end we are only left with people dipped in Reagan-Thatcher libertarian egoism and greed.

Now, more than ever, is it high time to reawaken Keynes’s dream of a more egalitarian society and once and for all put an end to the neoliberal counterrevolution!

  1. February 12, 2016 at 4:41 am

    What made the British Empire strong, global, and durable? According to Professor George M. Wrong, in 1909 the Empire was all of these things because it controlled the destinies of millions of people around the world who could not govern or protect themselves and would be easy prey to rapine and injustice without the Empire. The Empire moreover shielded democracy and capitalist economics from destruction for most of their history. Something no other nation on earth has ever done. OR, the British Empire was strong, global, and durable because it was among the most racist, intolerant, and indecent nations on earth. It kept millions in slavery. Subdued and used others to fill its armies and conquer nations from the middle-east to Southeast Asia. It tinkered with world geography and politics to suit its own ends. Same debate going on today. So why does the US economy “work?” Because of its roots in and adherence to capitalist principles. OR, because the those enclosed in and living with the fallacies and inadequacies of the economy find “work arounds” that hold it all together, sort of and temporarily. Ms. Thatcher and her “friend” in the US clearly see only the former. Her “blood” opponents see only the latter. Is there a middle ground? If so, what is it?

  2. Peretz
    February 12, 2016 at 9:35 am

    And J.M Keynes said that we have to “euthanasian”(?) the rental people who are living with the money gain. That mean we have not to forget the real demand of people. And to obtain it, the best is aid working people first, instead firms first. Mainly banks.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s