X Close

Liz Truss’s zombie politics Her plan for Britain will only benefit the rich

Thatcherism 2.0 won't work (Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

Thatcherism 2.0 won't work (Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)


September 5, 2022   6 mins

At the age of seven, Liz Truss played the role of Margaret Thatcher in her school’s mock general election. It did not end well. “I jumped at the chance and gave a heartfelt speech at the hustings, but ended up with zero votes,” Truss recalled. “I didn’t even vote for myself.”

It’s easy to laugh off young Truss’s failure to emulate Thatcher at the height of Thatcherism as the first in a long line of speeches gone wrong. The fact that Britain’s next prime minister is still trying to emulate the Iron Lady 40 years on, however, is no laughing matter — not least because her free-market economic agenda, “Trussonomics”, seems to be based on a caricature of what Thatcherism actually was.

In an article in The Sun, Truss described herself as “as a freedom-loving, tax-cutting Conservative”, and explained that she would help Britain “get through these tough times by going for growth… through bold action such as tax cuts, decisive reforms and slashing senseless red tape”. This includes “harness[ing] the power of free enterprise… by creating new low-tax and low-regulation investment zones”; reversing the corporation tax hikes; scrapping the new National Insurance levy; and introducing a temporary freeze on green levies to help with energy bills.

These measures will no doubt benefit the wealthiest households and largest companies, but  do little or nothing for those who face the direst consequences of the current crisis: low and middle-income households and SMEs. Unless, that is, one believes in the fantasy of supply-side, or trickle-down, economics — the idea that economic growth can be created most effectively by the lowering of high-income and corporate taxes, the deregulation of business, and the lowering of trade barriers. This, supposedly, will benefit society as a whole, since the increased gains of the wealthy will then “trickle down” to the poorer members of society.

It was one of the pillars of Thatcherism. It was also a myth. Wealth doesn’t trickle down — it floods upwards, and then offshore. Far from growing the economic pie, these policies have widened social inequality in all high-income countries at an unprecedented rate. As Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang puts it: “making rich people richer doesn’t make the rest of us richer”. Even the IMF, the bastion of economic orthodoxy, now recognises this.

Truss’s claim that she would tackle the cost-of-living crisis by “lowering the tax burden, not giving out handouts” is therefore not only brutally cynical — especially considering that the tax cuts would mostly benefit the big energy companies — but also economically illiterate. Perhaps realising that this was a recipe for mass civil unrest, as she now seems to have diluted her plans, promising some form of direct support which is almost certainly bound to fall very short of what is needed.

Trickle-down economics, however, isn’t the only Thatcherite zombie that looms on the horizon. Thatcher is also credited with launching the “privatisation revolution”, which has led to thousands of state-owned businesses and utilities around the world being transferred to the private sector, from state banks and airlines to public hospitals and postal services. In the UK, Thatcher oversaw the sale of several major public companies, including British Airways, British Telecom, British Steel and British Gas, as well as the electricity, water and rail industries.

Privatisation promised to deliver lower costs and prices, improved services and better working conditions. It was supposed to seamlessly shift workers from the public to the private sector and thus avoid an overall loss of jobs. Some 40 years later, none of these claims has been realised: on the contrary, there is a litany of evidence to show that the privatisation experiment has been marked by underinvestment, lack of financial transparency, poor service quality and higher prices. Meanwhile, private shareholders have raked in huge profits. All in all, the evidence suggests that none of these transfers to private ownership has resulted in improvements to societies’ well-being — quite the opposite.

Furthermore, over the years, many of these privatised companies have had to be bailed out, demonstrating that private ownership amounts to little more than the privatisation of the profits and socialisation of the losses. Nowhere is this more evident than in the energy sector. It’s commonly thought that skyrocketing energy prices are caused by Putin ramping up the bills in retaliation for Western support for Ukraine. But European import gas prices — what Western energy importers actually pay for the gas — haven’t increased that much over the past year, since in many cases these are still based on long-term contracts. Meanwhile, supply to Europe has decreased but not enough to justify the current price hikes.

The real reason for the spike in energy prices is that the latter are linked to the price at which gas is traded on virtual trading markets such as the TTF in Amsterdam or the NBP in the UK — which has increased by a staggering 1,000% over the past year, as energy traders, most of whom work for the world’s largest oil companies, saw the conflict in Ukraine as a perfect opportunity to hike up prices. This is why, as more and more people struggle to make ends meet, global energy giants such as Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Chevron have raked in record profits in the first quarter of 2022, far exceeding their revenue during the same quarter in 2021 — all because they are passing on ridiculous mark-up prices to consumers. So when politicians like Truss wax lyrical about the virtues of the “free market”, this is what they’re talking about — a system where millions of people are about to be plunged into poverty so that some of the richest corporations on the planet can get even richer.

To make matters worse, in response, the Government is not only allowing energy companies to engage in obscene price gouging; but realising that most households can’t possibly afford the projected price rises, it will now even step in to cover a part of the cost increase itself — in effect bailing out the privatised utility companies that would otherwise go bust, while subsidising the big energy companies with freshly created money. It’s hard to imagine a more catastrophic failure of Thatcher’s agenda, which has turned into a system of socialism for the rich and Hunger Games for everyone else. The last thing Britain needs is Thatcherism 2.0.

Guaranteeing the country’s energy security, providing well-paying jobs, maintaining an efficient infrastructure, reaching a certain degree of national self-sufficiency, caring for an ageing population, and solving the numerous environmental crises that we are facing — all these things require an expansion of the state’s role in the economy, not its downsizing, as well as a greater degree of collective democratic control over matters of investment and production, including through the renationalisation and re-regulation of several sectors. The energy sector would be a good place to start.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy, however, is that, out of sheer pragmatism, Johnson and Sunak had begun to shift the Tories away from radical Thatcherism and towards an acknowledgement of a more interventionist role of the state. Truss’s revisionism is now likely to squander that.

None of this is to say that Sunak would have been much of an improvement. Despite allowing the deficit to rise significantly during the pandemic — which was a good thing — he soon started saying that, as a result, the UK’s public finances were now “exposed’ and facing “enormous strains”, and warned that higher taxes would be required to “fix the UK’s public finances”.

Sunak was reiterating some long-standing economic myths. But the reality is that the UK, as a currency-issuing government, doesn’t face the same financial constraints of a household or business — it simply creates the money it needs out of thin air, and has no need to raise taxes or cut spending to “pay back” the public debt (especially if it owes that debt to itself). At least Truss’s people, for all their faults, understand this.

When asked recently about how the Government was going to tackle the growing debt, Julian Jessop, one of Truss’s economic advisors, explained that it’s not the debt that needs tackling but rather a failed orthodoxy. “The Treasury has been too quick to believe you need to start paying the debt down by raising taxes, both personal and corporate taxes,” he said. “Far better to let the deficit take the strain. If tax cuts do mean more borrowing in the short term, I’m completely relaxed about that”.

In that respect, he’s right to be relaxed — faced with the prospect of people not being able to heat their homes, a rising public deficit is the last thing Britain has to worry about. And yet one can’t help but wonder how people will react when they realise that Truss is using the power of the state’s purse to help the rich get richer rather than to help ordinary Brits. Henry Ford once said that “if citizens understood how the monetary system works, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning”. With Britain’s economic crisis unlikely to improve anytime soon, Truss would do well to keep that in mind.


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

203 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
1 year ago

A clearly Socialist criticism of Thatcher which is not worth the paper it is not written on. The reason we are in the current mess is too much Government intervention and interference in the market and in our lives. The idea that lots more of this centralised control will somehow save the poor and the weak is a dangerous fantasy – but one which always figures prominently in the Socialist’s failed and tragically naive prescription.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

This is unfortunate. It’s quite clear that Privatisation has not done all that it promised. Capitalism may have pulled a lot of people out of poverty but big business does not really like to play with a truly free market. They’ve gained too much power over a nations resources, including the people. But, government ownership of resources and interference in the market has also failed, with huge waste and mismanagement. What’s left? Does anyone know?

Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Of course proper regulation and effective regulators are required – if only to avoid monopolies – but Capitalism has not lifted just “a lot of people” out of poverty it has lifted billions of people out of poverty and destitution and will continue to do so, provided Socialists don’t undermine it. Just look at the terrible state of medical and educational provision in the U.K.to see what State monopoly brings. Clearly many have forgotten how awful Nationalised gas, electricity, telephone, water, coal and rail company’s were. Let’s hope we don’t rediscover the depths to which basic provision and customer service in each of them would descend if they were now renationalised – especially by an over borrowed and over taxed U.K. The idea of putting all those vital services under Civil Service management is a frightful thought. The answer is a small Government properly focussed on proper and effective regulation of free markets, the protection of the poor and weak, strong national defence and the rule of law – but certainly not an ever expanding bureaucracy connected to a supposed magic money tree, fed by borrowing and taxation and intent on interfering in every aspect of our lives. I do agree that getting out of the mess we are currently in will not be at all easy but carrying on down the path we are now on will lead to disaster.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

“The answer is a small Government properly focussed on proper and effective regulation of free markets, the protection of the poor and weak, strong national defence and the rule of law”
If my boss asked me to look at a problem and come back to him with a solution and I came back with this, then he’d fire me. He’s not paying me to tell him what he already knows, he was asking for the solution: how do we do it?
I know your comment seems to be a solution but unfortunately it’s not.

Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

All that I was doing was pointing out the destination we should be aiming for. Sadly it is certainly not where we are now headed. Effecting the change in direction will be a very difficult exercise. It calls for strong, principled and intelligent political leadership possessing excellent communication skills. Maybe your boss might like to lend a hand. The works of others, such as Hayek, Sowell and Cowperthwaite, will provide the blueprints.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

Yeah, I get your point about your post.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

I’d be interested to hear where such people would come from, though I imagine they would all have business backgrounds. But their interests and values would have to lie in the interest of their fellow human beings. And I know such people are out there, but why would they go into politics? How do we get these people into positions where they can influence and act on things?

andy young
andy young
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Been very impressed with Kwasi (& Kemi). Can they overcome the entrenched establishment civil service et al though? It needs someone of Churchillian will to do it.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  andy young

That’s interesting. Yes, a powerful will. But who would stand for it?

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
Reply to  andy young

I’m impressed with Kemi but not Kwasi. He’s been in charge of our energy policy for a couple of years now without apparently having spotted any of its fatal flaws.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dougie Undersub
Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

I fully concur with Malcolm’s vision. Unfortunately, turkeys will never vote for Christmas. There is a small group of politicians who are obliged to govern the country through the actions of a large body of civil ‘servants’. We have a situation where the ‘servants’ think they know better than their ‘masters’ who happened to be democratically elected by the citizens.
I am also concerned about the implementation of the sound vision that Malcolm states.
We have had creeping big government for 25 years.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

I think Richard Tice has the right touch. I have not joined his party but he makes sense to my mind.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

You can’t build anything until you have flattened the site. The GreenLibLabCons are the slum that needs clearing. IF we all voted for The Reform Party next time around it would get in, in fact only Brexiteers need vote for them to get a Landslide.
Is it a risk? Frankly, given the fact that we haven’t yet got to the height of the coming crisis & there is no quick cure barring begging Putin to fill both Nordstreams. So I don’t believe it is that big a risk.
Currently we are experiencing the Net Zero energy inflationary crisis. The QE/Low interest rate meets lockdown inflation crisis is arriving but it probably won’t be felt until the ECB breaks more toward mid-winter. But when that happens, it won’t matter who is in power. No one is going to escape the consequences. Putting the Reform Party in would have one immediate and blessed result – it would remove a large number of the current Members of Parliament.

Dominic S
Dominic S
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Ledodger

But I have no desire to vote for that party – it does not stand by or hold to Christian values in any way. And, as with previous problem PMs, it is run by a man shacked up with someone not his wife, and who appear together on TV with no mention of their relationship being made.

Dan Croitoru
Dan Croitoru
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

If your boss wanted to fire you anyway he’d ask you to solve the unsolvable problem of how to make everyone happy

Last edited 1 year ago by Dan Croitoru
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Dan Croitoru

No, he’d make the task very specific.Happiness is relative. He’d begin with something achievable from which we’d take the next step.

James Jenkin
James Jenkin
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Not the entire report but what a great intro

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

If you work in socialist government, you would be made redundant for political heresy. If you worked in private business, you would be expected to develop a marketing business plan to exploit the business opportunity. If you worked in the federal government under a conservative Republican Administration, you would be brilliant for realizing government can’t solve the problem.

Jeanie K
Jeanie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

“…strong national defence and rule of law”
Yes, I am old enough to remember those things.
Not now. As Mark Steyn says, “The UK, where every thing is policed, except crime.

rodney foy
rodney foy
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

Privatised water is a disaster

Last edited 1 year ago by rodney foy
Trevor B
Trevor B
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

“Just look at the terrible state of medical and educational provision in the U.K.to see what State monopoly brings.” Terrible state? Both excellent when compared with the privatised US.

Fred Paul
Fred Paul
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

“Just look at the terrible state of medical and educational provision in the U.K.to see what State monopoly brings. Clearly, many have forgotten how awful Nationalised gas,…”
Mr. Webb… Here in the States, we have state-run health care for people over 65. I pay $150 per month for extra important goodies that my Canadian cousins get for free. Some doctors, the better ones, don’t buy into Medicare. I can’t have any doctor I want. They must be under the plan. I can’t go to any hospital. I get what is available. Self-employed people pay on average!500$ per month for a small family. Else they go without. There are 24 million Americans who are not insured and can not claim Medicaid available for Americans at the poverty level. And you don’t expect top-quality service with Medicaid. Many Americans elect to die before putting their families in financial hardships. They ELECT TO DIE. Even if you did have insurance, you are limited to what will be provided. Once to exceed that limit, it comes out of your pockets.
As far as education is concerned…. expect to spend up to an average of $60000 for your child for a BS or BA at an average university.
This is Capitalism with a capital C for CASH profiting on misery.
Let me tell you about socialism. It isn’t a form of government. It is a system where people are placed first before Capitalism. The fire department, the Army, and the Royal Navy. The Royal Airforce, the Royal Marines, the city government’s various departments, major airports, and search and rescue. Grade schools. The list goes on. These are all social programmes. They are not expected to make a profit. Can you imagine if the Navy was handled by a private contractor? Would they place their ships in harm’s way risking their investments? See what I mean? You would never sell the Navy to a capitalistic contractor.
There are many forms of socialism. Try this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I prefer the Nortic Model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
The problem is poor management and oversite. Fix that, and the system works
Merci.

Last edited 1 year ago by Fred Paul
Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
1 year ago
Reply to  Fred Paul

Dear Mr Paul,

National Armed Forces are not a form or an indicator of Socialism. Furthermore being socially aware and engaged does not equate to Socialism. Your health system in the States is far from perfect and could be greatly improved but it delivers much better overall health outcomes than our nationalised system in the U.K. does. It is not possible to choose your doctor, surgeon or anaesthetist under the U.K. NHS, which currently has waiting lists of a year and more for numerous types of serious surgical procedures.

Socialism is most certainly a form of government and in whatever form it is tried it produces awful results, especially for the the weak and the vulnerable. See the outcomes of Hitlers National Socialism, Lenin’s International/ Marxist Socialism , Mao Zedung’s Chinese Socialism and the other forms of Socialism currently practiced in Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba. Also consider the plight of those formerly free countries of Europe whilst trapped behind the Iron Curtain and in the Soviet Socialist embrace after World War Two – and how they have flourished and prospered since being released from it – for which the USA deserves much praise.

Could I urge you to read Friederich Hayek’s great work “ The Road to Serfdom” for a searingly insightful and compelling view of just how dangerous Socialism in all its forms truly is – and especially for the weak, the poor and the sick. It’s available on Amazon and has never been out of print since it was first published in the late 1940s. It is one of the most important books of our time.

Best regards

Malcolm Webb

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

A balance with good legislation.

Stephen Simpson
Stephen Simpson
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

>>What’s left? Does anyone know?
A few rules that are well-written and strongly enforced.
The antithesis of this is state-encouraged rent-seeking behaviour (i.e. manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than creating new wealth).

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

“What’s left? Does anyone know?”
Everyone appears to know.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

What are the rules? And how should they be enforced?

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

If capitalism is broken, don’t switch to socialism – fix capitalism. We all know we want free trade, competition and incentives for innovation. Following the theory, monopolies ensue. Only a handful of people want that. Follow the thread and find the point of metamorphosis and either clamp it or redirect it. Intervention may be a dirty word but every rule and law we live under is an intervention. Boundaries must be re established and not just on our shores.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

We don’t have ‘Capitalism’ we have Central Bank Planned Capitalism sometimes referred to as Crony Capitalism because when all is said and done, the ‘Independence of Central Banks depends upon the Central Banker and in the UK I can’t remember ever having one who was ‘independent’ of Government influence.

Sean Booth
Sean Booth
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

A sensible combination of the two rather than sweeping changes from left to right and back again?

Ian Cooper
Ian Cooper
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Is there a way of having private companies of major utilities publicly accountable, where directors have to be grilled by parliament annually and shamed where necessary?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Cooper

i don’t think many directors would be prepared to work under those conditions. I certainly wouldn’t accept a grilling by the members of many parliaments. There doesn’t seem to be a solution in balancing the two interests. Politicians are so removed from the realities of peoples lifes because the problem is bigger than they can handle, or comprehend, so they play politics. Directors expect to operate freely in a competitive market, setting prices and planning for the future. That seems at least realistic. But they must always grow. If government steps in and sets prices and policies then it fails. The great thing about government owned resources and services was that a profit wasn’t required. But then people at all levels became complacent about their job and just turned up for their pay. We all remember that: how long it took to get a phone installed, the attitude of frontline staff, the dismissal of complaints and the huge waste that went with it. The two, government and business, just do not work well together.
We’ve tried both, a centralised economy and a free market. They both, obviously, had a limited lifetime.

Matty James
Matty James
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Brett – I think what is left is Co-operatives. When the state runs something it usually fails. When private companies run monopolies they exploit the consumer. But if the consumer owns the business and gets a share of the profits, that is different – you combine free market discipline with a pro-consumer outcome e.g. consider the water companies. Privatisation of the water companies has been a disaster with prices rising, quality falling and our rivers full of sewage. But the answer is not for the state to take over, it’s for them to be turned into consumer co-ops owned by their customers and then the incentive becomes doing whats best for the consumer not the shareholders or bureaucrats.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Privatisation isn’t working because the government sold the golden shares (under pressure from the EU, I believe) and this allowed the aggressive takeover bids that resulted in foreign ownership. In addition, the government has introduced regulation that has given them more control than they had in the grim days of nationalisation. At least the nationalised industries believed in keeping the light on. Now with the crony capitalism that has taken over with these industries, they don’t even care about customers because all competition has been removed by our own government, which doesn’t even care about the people it is supposed to serve. It serves the rich elites.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

That is very true but there are government jobs like policing the nation, fighting crime coming from the immigration boats (mainly from Albania), making sure rules are in place for privatisation so that we do not suffer from greed and lies from it etc etc.. We need privatisation as well as good government. Look at Big Pharma. They rule the roost whilst government stands by. There is a balance to be struck. With schools, government should leave the things which are not broke in the private sector and fix the state school sector which is in a bit of a mess through woke policies. I wouldn’t let drag queens read to my children for instance. I don’t believe the leftwing marxist parties have any solutions but the deception continues.

Nick Leaton
Nick Leaton
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

Far simpler. Where are the trillions the workers have paid the socialist welfare state?

Rob J
Rob J
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

I think the word is: triggered.

António Silva
António Silva
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

I live in Portugal and there’s a joke people say about the Portuguese Comunist Party: “here they come again with the same old cassette tape”, meaning they keep repeating themselves over and over again. Tatcherites and free market ideologues are just like the PCP: they’ve been telling and imposing on the rest of us the same failed policies for the last 40 years, just like mindless robots, with zero self-reflection and imagination. Even admitting that at some point in time Tatcherism did work (and in a way it did: for the wealthy and corporations, it screwed everyone else), there comes a time when circumstances change so radically (which is the case today) that only radically new and different policies will save the day. I wouldn’t mind waiting until the rotting corpse of Tatcherism is burned by reality, but the sad thing is that millions can’t afford to wait that long.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  António Silva

You clearly do not understand why people repeatedly re-elected Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in the UK – perhaps excusable as it appears you do not live in the UK. It simply isn’t good enough to perpetuate this fiction – actually a lie – that only the rich benefited from her policies. Tell that to all the below average income voters who repeatedly voted Conservative and were able to buy their own houses and build some independent wealth.
And the funny thing is, her policies really were so dreadful that they were immediately reversed by the three Labour governments that followed. Except they weren’t.
So I’m afraid your comment is simply misguided (to be polite).

António Silva
António Silva
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Well, after 40 years of free market dogmatism, the UK (a second or third rate power) is definitely prepared for the times ahead. And by the way, thanks for your politeness.

Last edited 1 year ago by António Silva
Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

What Liz Truss has to do, and most likely won’t, is legalize fracking in Britain. Domestic production of natural gas and oil would go a long way toward fixing the energy mess, restoring Britain’s economy. Drilling activity itself would boost jobs and investment. The expectation of increased production would lower prices.

Unfortunately, climate change is an all party orthodoxy in Britain. There’s no way common sense will break out in the Conservative Party, or any other party. While it’s obvious that wind and solar are incapable of running a modern economy, it’s impolite in the extreme to notice. Rather than say the economy has no clothes, all political parties will continue their energy suicide pact. It’s a big missed opportunity.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

And a belief that socialism works. Unherd seems to have no point anymore.

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago

Cutting red (and green) tape helps small business compete with corporations who can more easily carry the burden of regulations.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

Ha! Ha!. New word. Green Tape. Very true.

andrew harman
andrew harman
1 year ago

Mr Fazi fails to realise that ” creating the money out of thin air” is one of the major reasons for the pickle we now find ourselves in. Classic failed etatist thinking and the idea that bigger, in terms of the state, is always better.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  andrew harman

I got the impression Fazi was making the point that it’s too easy for the government to create money as a way of getting out of a predicament, not that he was for it.

andrew harman
andrew harman
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

he is a bit opaque on it, I inferred he was not against it at all but you may be right. However, he certainly seems to like outsized government.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  andrew harman

Let’s see what others think.
Though I do think, apart from creating jobs, that he’s right about government role in the economy.
“ Guaranteeing the country’s energy security, providing well-paying jobs, maintaining an efficient infrastructure, reaching a certain degree of national self-sufficiency, caring for an ageing population, and solving the numerous environmental crises that we are facing — all these things require an expansion of the state’s role in the economy, … “
Though not in the way they’ve done it so far.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

You don’t have to expand government to do those things. Just stop fixing things which are not broke. Green tape is also destroying our economy.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

“Green tape is also destroying our economy.”
What exactly is the economy? Do we know anymore? Is it something separate from everything else, or is it in every action we take? It’s like a river that changes with the seasons. Still a river but not the river.

Nicola Farey
Nicola Farey
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Judging by the state of our rivers and seas, “green tape” exists only in far-right soundbites. The majority of the country strongly supports environmental protection. Interestingly, China has come a long way, realising that the destruction of the environment is too high a price to pay for unbridled profit. This country seems to be going in the opposite direction.

Zak Orn
Zak Orn
1 year ago
Reply to  Nicola Farey

Back in the real world… China is now using more energy per capita than the UK, and has no sign of slowing down. It also uses significantly dirtier sources of energy (52%+ coal).
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-cons?tab=chart&time=1990..latest&country=CHN~GBR
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&time=1990..latest&country=CHN~GBR
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom?country=GBR~CHN
Per-capita CO2 emissions since 1990 the UK is down 60%, China is up 250%.
The UK has committed economic suicide and are barely a blip on the radar compared to China in total emissions. The coming winter we’ll see how much support remains for arbitrary net zero goals when people can’t afford to heat their homes. It might not effect the people in your little bubble but the consequences for the poorer parts of the UK are going to be dire.

Last edited 1 year ago by Zak Orn
Nicola Farey
Nicola Farey
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

I’m not sure how you know who is in my “bubble”, but, unlike Liz Truss, I’ve always thought the government needed to intervene in the cost of living crisis, which is going to be ruinous for huge swathes of the public and small businesses. Renewables are now cheaper to generate than fossil fuels. That’s without even factoring in climate change, which has already cost the world billions — and set to increase at an exponential rate, hitting the world’s poorest people hardest (in both the developed and developing worlds). If solar and onshore wind development hadn’t been continually blocked, and if David Cameron hadn’t cut “green crap” like home insulation, the country would be in a lot better position now.

China will be producing enough renewable energy to power the United States by 2030. It has enormous power demands, partly because it is home to one fifth of the world’s population and partly because it manufactures most of the world’s goods. I lived in China for 12 years and, for the last few of those, saw air quality and water quality improve steadily. I was quite horrified to discover the reverse happening here. But everything is falling apart in this country now.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nicola Farey
hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

You appear to be conflating NIcola’s concern for the environment with a simple single-factor assumption that carbon emissions are the only environmental problem that exists (or, as you posit, imagined to exist).
There is more at stake than carbon emissions.
What, in your view, is wrong with legislation that, for example, stops people dumping raw sewage into rivers? Is this the kind of green tape you think is green madness?
Are you in favour of cutting departments that counter dumping of waste in the countryside by illegal rubbish collectors?
What about legislation around protecting consumers from banned agri chemicals believed to cause cancer and/or neurological defects? Is that also green tape worth cutting?
The trouble with this debate on environmental issues is that it is governed by two sets of loons. The first comprises carbon fundamentalists, who imagine that all the world’s problems will be fixed once we stop burning fossil fuels.
The second comprises people who oppose the first group, but they, likewise, have no nuance in looking at the problem and merely react with the predictability of pigeons.
These are problems which require nuance and consideration of complex interacting systems with complex trade-offs. They won’t be solved by binary tribal thinking.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago
Reply to  Nicola Farey

China still prefers coal power to windmills.

Ben J
Ben J
1 year ago

Mr. Fazi seems pleased at the forthcoming apocalypse, but he’s of the Left and it’s an article of their faith that you never let a crisis go to waste. As for the rest of it, I’d ask him this: have you ever run a small company or business? Have you ever felt the pain of pettifogging regulations and salami-slicing taxes on growth?
No, I thought not.
Left wing economists, commentators, wonks, journos and hangers-on eh? They couldn’t run a whelk stall.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben J

There is still the problem, though, of why things are as they are, the apocalypse, when Privatisation has had a good run for some time. It’s not just Covid. This has been coming for some time.

andy young
andy young
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

I would argue that one of the reasons is because Labour governments buy votes by giving away free money (i.e. borrowed money). Tories end up doing the same or they won’t get elected, but their instincts are agin it.
This of course has a long term pernicious effect on the economy & social attitudes towards borrowing (“I’ll just put it on the house…”).
Like it or not, the central principles of capitalism (which has only ever existed as a concept dreamed up by socialists trying to put a name to what has evolved in the west) produce more material prosperity for everyone than any other system. As an evolved system it doesn’t really have any unbreakable rules, but follows the pragmatic necessities of the day – which include regulation & legislation.
Piecemeal progress. Popper was bang right.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

The solution could be Righteousness exalts a nation?

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

He told you the answer. Privatisation is nothing IF you tie it up with regulations. You don’t have ‘freedom’ even if you are in the middle of an open space if you are shackled.
Here is one of the effects of the Carbon Tax shackles on the Private Oil Companies.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Oil-And-Gas-Industry-Is-Facing-A-33-Trillion-Stranded-Asset-Nightmare.html

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Why outlaw fracking? Why import natural gas when you can produce your own domestically?

Tilston Dangleberries
Tilston Dangleberries
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben J

I absolutely love this site. Whoever runs it invites intelligent people to write intelligent things and the discrepancy between the intelligence of the articles and the ball-watering stupidity of the comments section could not be greater. You lot with your quasi-religious ideological delusions emind me of the last days of the USSR* – ‘THE REASON WHY CAPITALISM IS NOT WORKJNG IS BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT BEEN CAPITALIST ENOUGH !!!!’ Fortunately, there are only about a dozen of you posting the same tired drivel in response to every article, which hopefully indicates how representative your crap ideas are among the population as a whole.

*with obvious Honourable exceptions, such as the obnoxious ‘ex-communist’ shill for the fossil fuel industry O’Leary – imagine the Alan Pattridge-like fall from appearing on ‘Question Time’ to relying on stuff like this as your only way of getting that fix of attention that all narcissists require.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

If you wanted to moan about the stupidity of the commenters on this site it wasn’t a smart idea to call yourself ‘Tilston Dangleberries’

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Written like a true attention seeker …

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

But not without merit. After reading through the comments I come out of it feeling like I’ve just walked through a park where they exercise all those lap-top yapping dogs. .

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago

The reason socialism has never worked anywhere is that it wasn’t tried in a pure enough form.

Capitalism was the invention that lifted billions of humans from poverty to wealth. The living standard of welfare recipients in the US today is superior to that of earls in England in 1265.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

I sometimes make the similar point that street drinkers have access to better health care than Queen Victoria.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

Quiet when the grown-ups are talking, boy.

David George
David George
1 year ago

Thomas Fazi: “the lowering of high-income and corporate taxes, the deregulation of business, and the lowering of trade barriers. This, supposedly, will benefit society as a whole” 

Well yes Thomas, it certainly does look like that supposition is correct. Putting aside the envy for a moment and looking at the statistics it appears that the economic liberal counties have the best median incomes. Not only that but since economic liberalism was introduced in the late 80’s inflation adjusted median incomes have approximately doubled.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?country=OWID_WRL~ESP~KOR~MDG~GBR

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  David George

Oh dear! I thought the state would keep me without working.

odd taff
odd taff
1 year ago

Any government is going to fail to prevent widespread economic hardship in the next few years. It’s a consequence of the misguided measures put in place globally against the Chinese virus. Collectively national governments have broken the delicate balance of trading which has evolved over the seven decades since the end of the Second World War. It’ll take a long time to fix and we will just have to muddle though.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  odd taff

Yes, I think you’re right about muddling through, and a lot of pain and tears before we get there.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago
Reply to  odd taff

Not altogether. There are currently 2 inflation crises that are destroying the global economy. The first is a Net Zero energy crisis. It first appeared in 2021 when both wind and hydro power failed to deliver (who’d have thought Hydro power wouldn’t deliver? Not Brazil, that’s for sure) The result was a ‘dash for gas’ to replace the missing power. However, thanks to the Green Agenda, amongst other things, the ‘supply’ of gas has been reduced and the resultant demand drove a spike in prices pre-Xmas (and Pre Ukraine). That was when the UK saw many energy resellers going to the wall. That one came as a bigger suprise than the one you are talking of, which is a lockdown inflation effect meeting the 2007/08 Can Kicking QE/Low interest rate environment. That is going to be catastrophic, but marry it up with the Net Zero inflation and we get the extreme. The Energy crisis was taken to an extreme when Putin saw the opportunity the Green Agenda had presented to him pre Xmas, and his exploitation of it starting February means it is even worse than expected. I believe that Elon Musk’s recent observation on the subject can be summed up as
“No Fossil Fuels = Collapse of Civilisation”
I believe he is right, Net Zero is going to take a century at least, though it can come very quickly if we let the Green nutcases carry on, and the cost will be the collapse of civilisation and the deaths of billions.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  odd taff

Don’t forget the climate change hoax. Important, rather than fracking, natural gas and oil is economic suicide. There’s no way intermittent energy from wind and solar can power a modern economy.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

can one burn eco sandaloids twice, like a form of charcoal to provide energy?

Sisyphus Jones
Sisyphus Jones
1 year ago

Have you ever encountered a serious economics pundit who uses the pejorative “trickle-down”? Me neither. The good thing is, I’m never surprised (or, for that matter, enlightened) by what comes after.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sisyphus Jones
Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Sisyphus Jones

The irony is that the “trickle down” image best describes government funding, since they can’t create wealth, only appropriate it and distribute it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brendan O'Leary
Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago

Even the communists in china have discovered that the only way to create wealth is privatisation.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

we’ll see.

Arnold Grutt
Arnold Grutt
1 year ago
Reply to  Sisyphus Jones

Some decades ago the economist Thomas Sowell offered a $1000 reward for anyone who could produce evidence that any economist anywhere had ever recommended ‘trickle-down economics’. Apparently the reward remained unclaimed. The alleged ‘movement’ was solely a creation of the socialist press and commentariat, for propaganda reasons.

Vyomesh Thanki
Vyomesh Thanki
1 year ago
Reply to  Arnold Grutt
Bill Steigerwald
Bill Steigerwald
1 year ago
Reply to  Vyomesh Thanki

Sorry. Not explained at all. Misleading and badly copyedited jibberish. It’s not Laffer’s idea.

Sisyphus Jones
Sisyphus Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  Vyomesh Thanki

Vyomesh.

This idea from Arthur Laffer [the Laffer Curve] was termed trickle-down as it suggested that tax cuts will boost economic growth and returns from tax.

“This idea” was termed trickle-down by whom? I’ll tell you, it was given that name by pundits who were only willing to debate straw men. Read Thomas Sowell’s Trickle Down Theory and “TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH” before you use the term again. It’s a short piece. Explains your and Fazi’s error succinctly.

Vyomesh Thanki
Vyomesh Thanki
1 year ago
Reply to  Sisyphus Jones

An entertaining read: ‘Trickle down economics’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

Nick Leaton
Nick Leaton
1 year ago
Reply to  Sisyphus Jones

Far simpler. Where are the trillions the workers have paid the socialist welfare state?
In the context of trickle down, the core problem is the state is committing fraud on the public by taking their money saying we will give you a pension.
They then hide the debts.
Now it comes time to make good on that promise and the state can’t because it cannot impose sufficient austerity on people to pay its debt.
What’s needed is trickle up, where people invest their 20% of their earnings that is NI

Will Will
Will Will
1 year ago

Thatcher was PM from 1979 till 1990 so she couldn’t have overseen the privatisation of the rail industry which was in 1997 (I remember it well as I worked for a firm involved in it and thought the new structure was sub-optimal), I vaguely remember someone saying she was opposed to its privatisation but do not know for sure if that was the case.

I believe the electricity generating companies also were sold off after she left office as PM.

For what it is worth, I do not think Thatcher would have approved of all of the privatisations that followed her premiership or the way that the privatised companies have performed and been regulated.

Last edited 1 year ago by Will Will
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Will Will

Interesting. What makes you think that?

Will Will
Will Will
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Because she was patriotic and believed in the national interest. And she wasn’t stupid. Regulation has been sloppy. Companies have been sold off to foreign and state owned entities. The post Thatcher Tories gave the impression that if it wasn’t nailed down, sell it. I worked in corporate finance and was gobsmacked how things evolved under the Tories and Labour.

Last edited 1 year ago by Will Will
Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Will Will

I hope we can learn by our mistakes. It remains to be seen.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Will Will

There is obviously a balance to be struck between privatisation and nationalisation. If it becomes a dogma on either side then many mistakes will be made. If it is discussed intelligently with the pros and cons it will be better.

Sisyphus Jones
Sisyphus Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

The balance between privatization and nationalization should look something like the total absence of nationalization. If someday someone discovers a method by which the state can allocate anything without massive waste and prodigious inefficiency, then I say, yeah, slightly more nationalization.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

 it simply creates the money it needs out of thin air, and has no need to raise taxes or cut spending to “pay back” the public debt

Yes, it uses inflation to devalue the currency. This shrinks the value of both savings and debt. It rewards debtors and punishes savers to wriggle out of the hole it is in.

rk syrus
rk syrus
1 year ago

Here’s a question, how does a tiny open economy with a freely trading currency, pitifully small industrial base, and dependency on the City’s financial firms for all its NET state revenue, pay for this wish list?
“Guaranteeing the country’s energy security, providing well-paying jobs, maintaining an efficient infrastructure, reaching a certain degree of national self-sufficiency, caring for an ageing population, and solving the numerous environmental crises that we are facing”
Prediction: hyper-socialist nationalizing failure, money printing followed by 50% inflation, crash of the pound, then austerity and stagflation. Scotland has the highest illegal drug overdose deaths among all civilized European countries, maybe those highland addicts have the right idea!
Good luck, UK

Nick Faulks
Nick Faulks
1 year ago
Reply to  rk syrus

If Scotland is a civilised European country, which would be the uncivilised ones?

Bo Komonytsky
Bo Komonytsky
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Faulks

Russia!

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  rk syrus

Pinting money will catch up with everyone eventually. What a mess.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

It already is.

Nick Leaton
Nick Leaton
1 year ago
Reply to  rk syrus

It pays with austerity.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago
Reply to  rk syrus

IF the UK, the 9th largest manufacturer on the planet is ‘pitiful’ then the globe has no chance.

Nick Faulks
Nick Faulks
1 year ago

Would it not be reasonable to wait and see which policies she implements before launching such broad brush criticism? This piece is worthy of the BBC.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Faulks

That’s what I think.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

to say that wealth does not trickle down is frankly crass: and what is the definition that you use for ” wealth” and ” rich”?

The more income and assets an individual has, the more they spend in the economy by buying goods and services, and investment/ savings in institutions that in turn invest in public and private businesses, and provide jobs and pay. Your so called ” private shareholders” manage the savings and pensions and life assurance of millions of individuals.

I respect free speech and opinion, but embarrassingly ill -researched mantra that is simply, as a matter of fact wrong, does no credit to this medium.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago

IF there was no trickle down, my working class neighbourhood wouldn’t be full of 2 and 3 car households with some of the newest and latest spec vehicles around. Curiously, however, No Teslas!

Perry de Havilland
Perry de Havilland
1 year ago

A left wing statist critique of a PM who has not yet enacted a single policy. More fool me for wasting my time reading it 😀

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago

I confess that after watching part of his interview I am not sure it is Truss who deals with zombie politics.
He is a good zerocalcare (go to Netflix for further info on who that is) impersonator, though.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

I agree about the interview. We can all have an off day, but not that off. I too shut down part way through and I am disinclined to bother with him in future.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Yep, same here.

Sean Booth
Sean Booth
1 year ago

Oh dear, oh dear, whatever else the writer asserts he demonstrates an appalling lack of awareness when he states “allowing the deficit to rise significantly during the pandemic — which was a good thing”. It was a terrible thing. Every last member of parliament that waved through the disastrous lockdowns, wfh free for all and fraud inducing furloughs should hang their heads in shame as they have directly precipitated the mess we are in now.
I would however add that successive inept governments of all hues have wasted two decades with indecision followed by incorrect decisions around nuclear energy and fracking, whilst simultaneously being in total thrall to the ‘environmental catastrophe” lunatics.
So let us hope at the very least Liz Truss reverses the lunacy and supports immediate commencement of fracking and building nuclear power stations owned by the people and operated by British companies?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean Booth

You mentioned “fraud inducing furloughs” but omitted the billions paid to fraudulent PPE providers, idiotic test and trace slush fund and other similar grabs.. all legal of course unlike those nasty furlough frauds!

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago

I think it is bad taste predicting the outcome of a leaders tenure before they have even started. Words can kill good outcomes. Just because one differs from a leader on policy doesn’t mean we are always right in predicting outcomes.

Philip Buscombe
Philip Buscombe
1 year ago

Thomas Farzi is yet another academic that doesn’t live in the real world — UK State Ownership was a disaster back in the day and the lack of delivery of public services in the Uk despite huge spending makes his arguments irrelevant. Public Private partnership is the key. Also, seemingly he hasn’t worked in the SME or private sector much — if he did he would realise that more regulation, a bigger state funded by higher taxes will have the opposite effect to that which he desires.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago

The author repeats the myth that “trickle down economics” is a fiction. But is it really? Does the author really understand anything about economics at the micro level? The people who spend the most are the well-off with disposal income. The more disposable income they have the more they spend. The more they spend, the more they support small business who in turn employ more people at higher wages.
As a simple example, consider a local bicycle shop catering to cycling enthusiasts. Good quality bikes these days are expensive (a top end road bike is over 10,000 pounds sterling). So if you want people to buy these, they have to have disposable income to spare. The owner’s of the bicycle shop are not rich, but probably reasonably well off. The people working in the shop are certainly not wealthy. But if the well-off don’t have the required disposable income, they won’t frequent the bike shop to buy bikes and associated accessories (bike clothes, bike shoes, etc. etc…). The result: the shop will lose money and either have to close down completely or let =a significant number of its employees go to make ends meet.
As for Liz Truss, I will make a far out prediction. I suspect that not only will she be the heir to Thatcher but she will surpass Thatcher. The reason she won over Sunak is really obvious. Sunak is super smart but talks and acts like the privileged individual he is (Winchester public school and Oxford, posh upper class accent, super fluent delivery, polished and incredibly rich having not only made a fortune but on top of that married a billionairess who kept her US Green Card permanent residency so as not to have to pay UK taxes). Truss may have gone to Oxford, but she spent K through 12 in a Comprehensive school, comes from the North of England and has retained her Yorkshire accent, at least in part (i.e. she doesn’t sound like a stuck up, know-it-all upper class snob in the way that Sunak and Johnson do, but Penny Mordaunt, for example, does not). On top of that Liz Truss has made the transition from the left to the right, following Churchill’s dictum that “if one is not a liberal when young one has no heart, but if one is not a conservative when one gets older one has no brain.” Truss is not smooth – she’s rough round the edges, and her delivery is somewhat halting to say the least but will no doubt improve. I predict she will do fantastically well and trounce Sir Keir and his Labor party woke, virtue signaling acolytes in the next general election.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

I’m afraid I stopped reading your piece after the first sentence: sorry but the rich save, invest in art and gold, buy foreign yachts and villas etc.
The poor spend ALL their money, LOCALLY and quickly. Of you want to stimulate the economy money given to the poor will boost ot immediately! Okay I s’pose I’d better hold my nose and read the rest of your contribution as I’ve had the temerity to comment on your piece so negatively.. here goes:

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

..oh dear! Now I wish I’d stuck to my original choice! On yer £10,000 bike mate! You’re so far off the truth I don’t know where to start! So I won’t…

Dustin Needle
Dustin Needle
1 year ago

If I want to read a patronising, sexist piece on how a young girl tried to emulate the first female prime minister in British history I will subscribe to the Guardian, not Unherd. Try similar with an ethnic or left-wing young politician and just watch your timeline explode with hate. I’m being polite in comparison.
Very bored with this ridiculous stereo-typing and presumptive mind-reading of a politician’s apocalyptical intentions by regressive left-wing journalists in the 21st century. She was accused of being a clone of Boris in another article.
Just write an article critiquing her policies; this is 80% “Fatcha!” rant and a word salad about how we can fix the energy market by attempting political and financial gyrations, via a political class that can’t even agree after 6 years to deliver a democratic referendum vote.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dustin Needle
Richard Stainton
Richard Stainton
1 year ago

Governing for the poorest section of society makes even less sense than governing for the richest. More state handouts will reinforce the culture of dependency the welfare state has already created, and the mega-rich have plenty of means at their disposal to avoid footing the bill. As always the tax burden will fall on the squeezed middle and small businesses.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

A simple wealth tax would sort out the problem. Taxing work and enterprise success may be essential to swell the coffers but it is certainly not the best kind of tax.
Wealth (not invested in enterprise or spent on UK goods and services) in itself is ‘dead’ money and needs to be brought to ‘life’ via proper wealth tax..
‘National income’ payable to all will sort out the work shy issue… please don’t ask how that will be paid for: it’s ALREADY paid out in a different way: no extra money is needed. It will encourage employenent, reduce illness (with resultant cost savings) and improve morale.
Liz Truss et al are rearranging deckchairs on Brittania’s sister ship.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Btw: a wealth tax of 1% would bring in well in excess of £100 billion pa.. ‘wouldn’t pay all the bills but would make a hell of a dent in rhe deficit!

Chris Hume
Chris Hume
1 year ago

This, supposedly, will benefit society as a whole, since the increased gains of the wealthy will then “trickle down” to the poorer members of society. It was one of the pillars of Thatcherism.

‘Trickle down’ is a perfect example of the strawman fallacy. Nobody advocated this, it is a caricature of supply-side economics. The idea is that lowering tax and easing regulations helps the economy grow which increases wealth and economic opportunity for everyone. Whether or not it’s effective is a different argument, but it’s hard to effectively make an argument when basic positions are wilfully misinterpreted.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Hume

I think Thatcher meant that rich entreprieneurs create lots of jobs and wealth by their activities.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Hume

I don’t think that’s really what “trickle down” means. You’re creating your own straw man.

Peter Wren
Peter Wren
1 year ago

Thatcher did not privatise the rail industry; famously she was against it “a privatisation too far”.
As for “energy companies” Bulb is effectively nationalised and forecast to lose £420m up to October, and £1.6bn over the winter.

Katy Hibbert
Katy Hibbert
1 year ago

Like most lefties, the author assumes that money is the government’s by default, and that a tax cut “gives” money to people, rich or not. Wrong. A tax cut involves not confiscating the money in the first place. Taxes take money from those who earn it and give it to those who don’t.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Katy Hibbert

That is one of THE most important functions: redistribution! Of course it has to be! Otherwise the greedy powerful and pitless rich would allow the poor to starve and freeze to death. Govt is supposed to reflect a more moral approach: the success or failure if a real govt is shown by how it cares for the least fortunate.
A bit old fashioned these days I suppose? I’m so out of date with my silly Christian morality.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago

Fazi is an eejit. If he thinks privatisation has led to underinvestment he’s clearly too young to remember British Rail.
He’s also wrong about the energy market – not about its disfunctionality but in his apparent belief that it’s in any way a free market. In fact, it’s regulated to death by numbskulls. The recent Commons committee hearing into Ofgem concluded that, had he still been in post, it would have recommended the previous CEO be sacked.
Life is too short to list all the other errors and false conclusions in this Socialist drivel I’m afraid.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

That’s it: the energy companies are over regulated! Why didn’t the rest of us spot that! And probably the water companies as well? Not nearly enough shyte in the rivers and on the beaches.. deregulate now! Let’s privatise air and sell ot to the French, fully deregulated of course!

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

“In other words, domestic consumers, reeling from doubling and tripling energy bills, don’t know the half of it. They’re actually being shielded from the true costs which are being borne by businesses, who have to either pass the costs on or go broke.”
Do you mean they’re being shielded from the true cost of produce at the expense of small business? So small business either increases prices but loses customers, or absorbs the cost and loses profit.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

The true cost of energy, which affects everything, of course.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

I don’t understand how it shields consumers from the true cost of energy. Or do you mean part of the cost is buried in the price of goods?

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Every business I know at the moment, including my employer, is absorbing costs rather than pass on. In many cases, we can’t, due to contract terms. So we’re making economies elsewhere. This is not sustainable for very long.

John 0
John 0
1 year ago

“Despite allowing the deficit to rise significantly during the pandemic — which was a good thing” – I’m not sure that inflation, which IS a consequence of printing money to cover the costs of lockdown, is a good thing. Further, the government’s interest payments are now equal to our entire education spending. So why the author believes borrowing more will help is bewildering.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago
Reply to  John 0

One of life’s little Ironies is that former KGB man, Putin presides over a state with one of the lowest Debts around. Maybe we should invite him to sort us out?

Jeanie K
Jeanie K
1 year ago

“As Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang puts it: “making rich people richer doesn’t make the rest of us richer”. Even the IMF, the bastion of economic orthodoxy, now recognises this”.
But also, , making rich people poorer doesn’t make any one else richer.

Patricia Wong
Patricia Wong
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeanie K

It’s simple, you know: the middle class, when it has money, spends it directly into the immediate economy, which spending has the virtue of creating immediate jobs, whose generates more spending, more tax revenue, etc. The multi millionaiire in contrast can spend only so much – the rest, they will spend on things that will appreciate over time (art, gold, etc.), put the money in off shore accounts, pays expensive lawyers to shelter such money etc. None of that is going to the immediate economy that generates jobs. So, yes, getting as much money as possible from the rich and enabling that money to ciculate among those who will spend it on food, clothes, housing, entertainment, services (fixing their car, their house), is the absolutely make other people richer. I don’t know why Labor is not spending every single marketing dollar it has on delivering this message as neatly and cleanly possible over and over again.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Patricia Wong

If you apply the same logic to money in the hands of the poor the argument is even stronger. The poor spend ALL their money, locally and quickly! ..few if any foreign holidays, so mostly on UK generated energy, UK grown food, UK brewed beer (not French Champagne) and UK based services.. It’s so obvious the rich have to make up all kinds of lies to deflect us away from this simple truth.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeanie K

I disagree: it all depends on what you do with the tax thereby extracted.. I suggesr you re-read your junior maths book… It is axiomatic that if you take £1 from Peter’s £40 and give it to Paul who only has £1.. Peter is fractionally poorer but Paul is twice as well off!

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago

Yes, because fracking, or syphoning off a tiny proportion of the bloated NHS managerial oligopoly to give to local authorities to spend on old people who are blocking beds, can only help the rich.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago

Against Thomas Fazi I propose my Four Laws.
Socialism cannot work because it cannot compute prices.
Admininstrative state cannot work because, Sir Humphrey, it does not have the bandwidth.
Regulation cannot work because “regulatory capture.”
Government programs cannot work because you cannot reduce their handouts.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Is there a name for the countermeasures implied in your comments? Is it something like Authoritarianism. I almost said Fascism but you can’t be proposing that are you?

Michael North
Michael North
1 year ago

What rubbish.
Three signs that working people have been impoverished over the last 40 years:
Increasing numbers of cars on the roads creating parking problems in many suburban areas.
Chaos at airports as people try and get a holiday abroad after covid restrictions.
Pollution problems with “fast fashion” as people are buying more and more clothes and throwing them away after a few outings.
And trickle down economics is a fantasy of the left. Supply side is not about social equality it is about wealth of the society as a whole. Welfare is a separate issue, and well provided in all modern industrial societies.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael North

Of course you’re quite right but only if you ignore the bottom 25%.. and let’s face it: most of Unherd’s commentators do ignore the bottom 25%, all the time. You also need to ignore most of the relevant facts, again you’ve managed that admirably.
Many of the extra cars are owned by 4 or 5 car rich families: and of course those who follow fashion and discard clothing readily include especially the rich. Airport chaos was caused by staff shortages and Brexit queues.
I note you don’t mention reducing incomes (in real terms), spiraling cost of living, unaffordable gas and elwctricity prices, huge increase in food bank use, hunger and cold. But I suppose all those things are irrelevant as well are they?

Andy Shaw
Andy Shaw
1 year ago

If the energy sector was a free market, we would have plentiful cheap gas and reducing electricity costs.
Policies designed to control the weather (keep fossil fuels in the ground) have created a shortage of gas and dedicated infrastructure and investment to unreliable ‘renewables’ at massive cost.
Remember the ‘dash for gas’ in the 90s? It was killed off by state regulation.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

This winter will tell us who to watch, as we go into our summer, what the future holds for you and then for us. And how will the people respond? Will they leave their cold homes and take to the streets, or slowly give in. And if they take to the streets what can they ask for, who can give it to them? And anyway what is that will help? When the people push the powers push back harder. Only desperation can motivate people but they will still lose.
I should add that people rioting in the streets has happened before. But this time there are a lot more people all sharing the pain, not just the likes of miners or the unemployed who have taken to the streets in the past

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago

The big state only likes big business.

It always goes that way, despite the rhetoric about “the rich”. Despite all the renewed socialist fervour for nationalisation and money printing, somehow small businesses still survive and employ about half the workforce.

More price controls and caps means more small businesses going broke. If you haven’t noticed, (and it seems the writer hasn’t) that’s happening already, since business energy prices aren’t capped . In other words, domestic consumers, reeling from doubling and tripling energy bills, don’t know the half of it. They’re actually being shielded from the true costs which are being borne by businesses, who have to either pass the costs on or go broke. This disproportionately affects smaller businesses.

Thus the truism:
“Complexity of regulation is a subsidy from small business to big business.”

But really, with the unfolding economic disaster that’s coming anyway, the best thing for UK would be to get a Labour government now and let them deal with it. Things always have to get worse, much worse, before people wake up.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

I don’t understand your unshakable faith in the Labour Party. How will they “deal with it”, whatever that is? Or are you saying it’s their problem let them deal with it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Yes, the latter – this winter’s not gonna be good for whoever’s in government, so it would be Labour’s chance to shine or get off the pot, and the Tories chance to find a good leader in opposition who actually wants the job. If such a person exists. Maybe Kemi.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

Well, I’m in Australia and we’re in that exact position with a new Labour government talking about an Indigenous Voice in Parliament, after just finishing up a “Jobs Summit”. So, yes, let them show their colours.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago

A bit of a drastic solution getting in the left. Would we still have democracy after that?

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

As I’ve said before, every permutation of Lab/LibDem/SNP will favour lowering the voting age to 16. After that is accomplished there’s no way back for the Tories.

Michael S.
Michael S.
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

I hope so!

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

They’ll make it so worse that we might actually realise that the difference between the Ukraine and Russia is that the US supports one of the corrupt oligarchies. Curiously the most corrupt one.

Michael Furse
Michael Furse
1 year ago

The issue for me is not Thatcher angst but whether or not a Truss premiership would deliver on all the things she promises. Cameron promised many of the same things and delivered little if not nothing.

Patricia Wong
Patricia Wong
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael Furse

The likelihood that Truss would survive as prime minister for more than 1 year is nil. Boris will be roaring back and God help us when he is back at No. 10.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

Donald Trump’s corporate tax cuts brought about the biggest rise in working class wages in decades. We know it works.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

You are completely wrong! The US minimum wage is quite literally, at starvation level. I suggest you check out Robert Reich ..but only of you’re interested in facts, figures and truth. As a Trump supporter you’re probably interested in none of those silly, old fashioned concepts!

Dominic S
Dominic S
1 year ago

That “trickle-down” economics do not work is both true and untrue, after a fashion. Yes, it can lead to the rich getting richer. However, if wealthy people do not run big companies using that wealth other people will have no jobs to go to. If wealthy people do not run big companies using that wealth much of the tax take from PAYE, business rates, VAT from the products, etcetera, simply won’t go into the government coffers – and so cannot enable the government to assist the poorest in society.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic S

That indeed is the “system” as it is supposed to work (not my favourite).. but when the filthy rich choose instead to invest in foreign enterprises, buy foreign built yachts, Masserati cars and Mediterranean villas the system doesn’t work that so well.

Antony Hirst
Antony Hirst
1 year ago

Her plan for Britain will only benefit the rich”
I’ll be honest, I could not be bothered reading the piece. With a title like that, I know it is already going to be a waste of time. The whole fundamental basis of our tax system and political system is to help the rich. I mean who do you think pushed this thick bimbo up into the ‘top’ (yeah right) job?

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Antony Hirst

Who else was there?

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
Reply to  Antony Hirst

The only sustainable way to help the poor is to equip them with the skills and motivation to get a better paid job.

Patrick Turner
Patrick Turner
1 year ago

Thomas Fazi writes: “The real reason for the spike in energy prices is that the latter are linked to the price at which gas is traded on virtual trading markets such as the TTF in Amsterdam or the NBP in the UK — which has increased by a staggering 1,000% over the past year, as energy traders, most of whom work for the world’s largest oil companies, saw the conflict in Ukraine as a perfect opportunity to hike up prices. This is why, as more and more people struggle to make ends meet, global energy giants such as Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Chevron have raked in record profits in the first quarter of 2022, far exceeding their revenue during the same quarter in 2021 — all because they are passing on ridiculous mark-up prices to consumers.”
Would one of you valiant defenders of free market orthodoxy care to explain and justify this?

Michael S.
Michael S.
1 year ago
Reply to  Patrick Turner

I would be interested to hear how that is explained as well…..

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
1 year ago

Thatcher did what the EU competition rules demanded. Germany did not, nor France. Of the 3 of them UK and Germany went Green, France went Nuclear. The current cost of living crisis is an energy crisis due to Net Zero and the Green Agenda. The ‘economic inflation crisis’ which is coming along in parallel, due to 2007/08 can kicking QE/Low interest rates (I save the World with that claimed Gordon!) meeting lockdown (That was the Tories but Labour & Lib-Dems ranted and raged for lockdown to be longer and harder!) inflation is on its way & with the Energy inflation is what is about to trash, as the Yanks would say, the global economy. We don’t have Capitalism, we have Central Bank Planning, and the Soviet Union collapsed thanks to Central Planning.
Here’s 3 articles that explain why energy prices spiked last year. Admittedly Putin has now upped the ante, but he only saw the opportunity Net Zero insanity provided, and Net Zero is driven by
“Government inspired interference to ensure renewables could compete on price with fossil fuels.”
https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/brazil_needs_more_lng_amid_worst_drought_in_decades-03-jun-2021-165594-article/
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/08/25/europes-gas-prices-have-broken-a-new-record-how-high-can-they-go
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Europes-Energy-Crisis-Worsens-As-Wind-Stops-Blowing.html
Then we have lockdown/QE inflation. It isn’t at its peak yet, what we are seeing is the Energy inflation, BUT the other is coming and soon will simply make all the current political policies redundant. IF anyone thinks ‘More of the same’ isn’t going to stuff the UK they need their head examining. Central Bankers are the problem with the QE/interest rate regime, they’ve stuffed us all.
The EU may already have had its fate sealed with Putin not restarting what little gas did come through Nordstream 1. The only way to have a quick fix re energy is to placate Putin and get him pumping gas to capacity by both Nordstreams. That mean accepting he was right about NATO and the West AND the Ukraine.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
I doubt in the current political climate any reality about the fact Russia has valid interests and the Ukraine’s neutrality is one of them, or that the Ukraine isn’t home to all sanctity but houses some very nasty Nazi sympathisers is going to be easy to proclaim. But then when was the Truth ever easy to proclaim? It needs proclaiming however along with the Truth about the Green insanity and the Malthusian Greens who would see humanity die out for a world that never stops changing with or without humanity.
I can’t say Elon Musk is a particular favourite on mine, but he does speak the truth when he basically says
“No fossil fuels = Collapse of Civilisation”
That fact is something a Government needs to address ,and privatisation or Thatcherism is not the reason we face that problem.

Patricia Wong
Patricia Wong
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Ledodger

Yes it is. Thatcher and Reagan can be thanked for detroying sustainable capitalism.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

A period of great prosperity for most countries has ended. It couldn’t go on forever. Because of that our whole idea of how societies should work has come under stress. Nothing we know is going to help. What counts is how we respond. We don’t know how to. Expect to see tired old ideas fired up only to crash soon after and what is essentially performative politics.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

We are the first generation in history to see our children less well off than ourselves. That was not inevitable as you suggest. It was caused simply and solely by greed! And it is greed that cannot continue: “Earth prvides for every man’s need but not for every mans greed” ..Gandhi.

Maureen Finucane
Maureen Finucane
1 year ago

The unacceptable face of capitalism.

Doug Sterling
Doug Sterling
1 year ago

This article is just leftist partisan nonsense, without a shred of logic to it.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug Sterling

Why? Take it item by item please.. some of us are not as smart as you are.

Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr
1 year ago

I have scanned the document cited regarding privatisation and this appears to be a highly unbalanced and biaised view of privatisation. I cannot comment in detail on any countries other than UK. In the UK, the only privatisation cited is Royal Mail and the comment is with respect to the share price increase after the opening day which increased above the offer price. This is not unusual as privatisation offers are frequently oversubscribed. The offer price was 330p and the price touched 455p and then traded between 400p and 500p and it is currently trading at a discount to the offer price at 255p.
There is no mention of any other UK privatisations, successful or not.
The paper is produced by TNI – The Transnational Institute, whose mission is to strengthen international social movements with rigorous research, reliable information, sound analysis and constructive proposals that advance progressive, democratic policy change and common solutions to global problems.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Carr

The TNI sounds like a dangerous, subversive organisation ..if you’re a bloated plutocrat that is.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago

Thomas Fazi is yet another of those clever, but infuriating Marxists you end up arguing with, who never once questioning their own orthodoxies despite the endless failure of every attempt to run a socialist society. Some of course argue that it has never been tried, to do so would require the abolition of money which even the Soviet Union did not achieve. But to say, this or that aspect of a very imperfect capitalist system does not work is an argument for a cavalier attitude to debt or inflation, or the state to attempt to run an ever increasing list of (strategic – what are they, precisely? is a massive step too far and completely contrary to all experience. Did China become much wealthier by becoming more socialist? Is once fashionable Venezuela actually one of the richest countries in the world? And we hardly live in a small ‘ night watchman’ state in the UK in any case!

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

China did take a billion of its people out of poverty: ‘not sure if that counts? During that same period capitalist states, especially the US plunged its middle income people INTO poverty while enriching its already filthy rich into obscene wealth: ‘not sure if that counts either?

Ken Huls
Ken Huls
1 year ago

Two groups will be very happy with this plan: the rich who know where their bread is buttered and the poor who have been convinced that if we give more tax cuts to the rich, they will get rich too.

George Parr
George Parr
1 year ago

Trickle down economics is a leftist myth, and nobody of any good economic understanding (Hayek, Sowell, Friedman) ever claimed that it existed.
Thats just one thing that is wrong with this article.

Last edited 1 year ago by George Parr
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parr

Surely you mean a right-wing myth? ..or perhaps an anti-leftist myth. I know of no leftist view that believes in trickle down economics? Have I ended up in a parallel universe as I feared?

Mr Kaneda
Mr Kaneda
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

“Trickle down economics” was a canard devised by the left due to their misunderstanding of tax cuts.

David Adams
David Adams
1 year ago

As other people have said, this is an interesting article but one with huge gaps in understanding. ‘Supply-side economics’ is just the process of promoting economic growth by policies which increase supply of goods or services, based on the assumption that inadequate supply rather than demand is the main problem.

Surely it is obvious that the main problems we face in the short term-term are not caused by insufficient demand for, say, energy, housing, or healthcare!

At least in the UK, the problem has been that policies which would increase supply (intelligently relaxing planning rules, subsidising nuclear power stations 10 years ago, or focus on efficiency in the NHS) are opposed by powerful vested interests such as NIMBYs in desirable areas and the elite managerial classes.

Everyone knows this, but committed or opportunistic media supporters of the vested interest groups are figuratively circling ready to tear apart any politician who talks too loudly about it.

Mr Fazi, right now supply-side inertia favours the powerful, not the weak, and certainly not the population as a whole.

James Jenkin
James Jenkin
1 year ago

Advocates for a free market have never once mentioned ‘trickle down’. No-one suggests rich people should become richer in the hope that will help less well-off. No serious economist says we should give money to one group because we want them to give it to another group – that’s absurdly inefficient.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

Quite right: let the strong and powerful acquire all the wealth and let the 90% become serfs! There’s a system that worked flawlessly for hundreds of years: Selfdom. Clearly the most “efficient” option. You’re not related to that Stalin chap are you by any chance?

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago

Horns of dilemma. On the one hand we (most people I imagine) want to see an end to pollution, habitat destruction and accelerated climate change – but how to achieve it without the hand of government?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

Indeed. The fox is in charge of the hen house!

Rachel Taylor
Rachel Taylor
1 year ago

Dear Lord! I scanned the article for some factual or analytical content, and found none. The guardians seem to comfort themselves by repeating their dogma, like a massage with scented candles at a health spa.

Rachel Taylor
Rachel Taylor
1 year ago

Where do you start with such banal, misinformed and logically weak opinion? If the author were a teenager, he could be forgiven for youthful idealism. Just one example: “as energy traders, most of whom work for the world’s largest oil companies, saw the conflict in Ukraine as a perfect opportunity to hike up prices”. Here’s a tip. If you want to make a few billion very quickly, go into trading commodities. It’s easy! You just charge a higher price than you paid for it!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Rachel Taylor

There was a time when progiteering on this scale was considered morally reprehensible and was even illegal during wartime! After all, extracting, refining and delivery of fues have NOT increased at all, have they? What has happened is that greedy degenerates have spotting an opportunity to gouge consumers.
All else is commentary.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

Hey Tom, why don’t you pick up a copy of ”The Uncommunist Manifesto”? Millennials Mark Moss and Aleks Svetski explain that Henry Ford quote you’ve used but seem not to understand.

Last edited 1 year ago by Allison Barrows
Nigel Clarke
Nigel Clarke
1 year ago

Haha…the haters are out already…

Patricia Wong
Patricia Wong
1 year ago

Why do liberals continue to insist on using facts, when it is clear that myths are a much, much more effective tool of persuasion? Trickle down economics is a great myth and a neat story. People want neat stories and something that would wonderful if it were true. The ones who deliver it as cleanly as possible, always win.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Patricia Wong

Indeed. They do win. Sadly, everyone else loses!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Any of you pro Truss commentators change your mind? ..or do we assume you’re all ‘earning’ over £155,000 pa?

Patricia Wong
Patricia Wong
1 year ago

How it shall unfold with the certitude of one of the laws of thermodynamics: Things get worse – much worse — over the next 12 months, Liz Truss‘s insipidity becomes glaring (she has the flaws of Boris but none of his charisma), the people will clammer for Boris, and Boris gets back in. As he takes over, things will start getting better, no thanks to anything he does, really, and there we have Boris: enscounced for as long as he wants the job. It is indeed a play in three acts.

Last edited 1 year ago by Patricia Wong
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Patricia Wong

OMG as Shakespeare might say: Historical, comical, farcical AND tragical! Interesting times – the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum!

Richard Barrett
Richard Barrett
1 year ago

Yes, the original wave of Thatcherism was a tragedy and this second wave looks like being a farce. The only question is whether Starmer, representing a second wave of Blairism, has the will or ability to counteract it.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

That about sums it up. The farce, sadly will also be tragic ..perhaps even more so!

Jacques Rossat
Jacques Rossat
1 year ago

Warm congratulations for this article. No, no, no it’s not old fashioned socialism it’ pure reality. The myth of wealth trickling down, the total failure of privatisation to improve service, lower prices and favor investment is perfectly described here. The challenge of the present years will be to combine the best of two worlds : great level and red-tapeless playing ground for the economy while helping large swaths of the population to improve its living conditions, restore job motivation thanks to a decent and equitable fiscal system. Quite a feat indeed but not pure fancy either.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacques Rossat

Of course you are quite correct! Hence the unpopularity of your comment. I’ve come to welcome the downticks as they seem confirm accuracy. My contributions seem to annoy the many doctrinaire, deluded, gullible right-wing commentators on Unherd much to my delight.

Tim Beard
Tim Beard
1 year ago

What Like Margaret Thatcher ???
Who gave opportunity to working class people

RIGHT ….. HAHAHa

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim Beard

She did actually. We went from the sick man of Europe to a good stadard of economy.

Graffiti Avenue
Graffiti Avenue
1 year ago

Of course Liz Truss won’t save Britain she can’t even get people real down too earth people too listen to her or love her.We did not even get a vote the Tories are changing the rules just as much as Labour are both are horrible party’s,The path they choose now is very similar too what we see in China the people do not elect the leader they wan’t. Uneleted members of Parliament do that for you or the Tories them self no matter how horrible they are.Do you think Liz Truss cares if a family goes cold this year,No her house will be big warm and cosy in the country lane were her & her alike friends & family will go fox hunting,She will get to fly all a round the world for free at the tax payers expenses like a VIP that would make people want too burn down Westminster and watch it burn.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

I’ve seen graffiti that was better punctuated than that.
Please provide evidence that Ms. Truss has ever been fox hunting.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

I wish she had, riding to hounds at speed over fences and hedges takes guts, courage, skill, determination and and honesty of ones own limitations, and gives one a day free of the type of people who write drivel like this piece.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

What if she has. It wouldn’t bother me. It would show she has some s***k.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago

Yes but you will get a chance to vote at the next election which in part will be a judgement on the leadership.