A tweet from Ezra Klein, co-founder of Vox Media:

The debate over "neoliberalism" would be a lot clearer if the word chosen for the tendency was "marketism."

— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) October 15, 2019

No, sir, it would not. ‘Neoliberalism’ is not the loveliest of words, but it is a useful one — referring to a particular era of capitalism, i.e. the one we’re living through now.

One can debate precise definitions, but neoliberalism is what replaced the post-war model of capitalism — in which government was heavily involved in the productive side of the economy. In the 1980s and 90s, a wave of privatisation and deregulation rolled back the frontiers of the state — but not all the way. The welfare state, despite some reforms, stayed very much in place. ...  Continue reading

Late capitalism? Don’t you believe it. A timely blogpost from Branko Milanovic reminds us that the capitalist system, love it or hate it, is far from on its way out:

Furthermore, he says, capitalism (especially the tech sector) is creating new markets (and thus turning non-capital into capital) all the time – “a huge market for personal data, rental markets for own cars and homes… market for housing of self-employed individuals.” ...  Continue reading

In August, I wrote about negative yield bonds. A bond is a tradable IOU – in which the issuer (typically a government or a big business) promises to repay a specified amount (basically the bond purchase price) at a specified point in the future plus a bit extra – i.e. the interest on the loan, which is also referred to as the coupon or the yield. Bonds, therefore, are a means by which governments and other organisations can borrow from the money markets.

A negative yield bond is a strange beast that promises to repay the holder less than the original purchase price. It is therefore an investment guaranteed to lose you money. Nevertheless, governments have been selling these by the bucket load. At one point over the summer the money markets had $17 trillion invested in these seemingly unattractive pieces of paper. ...  Continue reading

Well, it’s finally happened – America now has a regressive tax system in which the 400 richest families pay a lower effective rate than the poorest 50% of Americans.

That’s according to Christopher Ingraham in the Washington Post, who reports on the latest research into what different income groups actually pay in terms of all taxes, not just income tax :

The following graph shows that the super-rich used to pay a lot more but that the gap has now not only disappeared but gone negative for the first time:

Presidential contender Elizabeth Warren has a plan to put that right. This is her “Ultra Millionaire Tax“, which happens to quote the economists who produced the above research: ...  Continue reading

A thought provoking tweet from Maajid Nawaz:

Please stop using “liberal” to describe socialist ideologues. This is semantic infiltration, borne of socialist ‘longmarch’ entryism. It undermines liberalism,which has its own distinct history. Liberalism is for individual autonomy. Socialism is for collectivism& group identity

— أبو عمّار (@MaajidNawaz) October 7, 2019

While this used to be true, I’m not sure it is anymore – in fact I’d argue that most of the contemporary Left, including the self-declared socialist component, is liberal though-and-through.

Classical socialism – whether of the democratic Old Labour variety or the totalitarian Soviet kind – really was about collectivism and group identity, especially class identity. It did not prioritise the maximisation of individual liberty – and, in many cases, sought to minimise it. It was therefore non-liberal or downright anti-liberal. ...  Continue reading

In the New Statesman, George Eaton examines an enduring paradox:

It doesn’t affect most people, so why the widespread hostility?

It’s a phenomenon that doesn’t just drive the Left round the bend, but a lot of liberals and quite a few free-marketeers too. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to tax unearned wealth rather than earned income? Why should people inherit things they’ve never had to work for? Isn’t taxing people post-mortem the least painful way?

The case for inheritance tax is a supremely rational one – but that’s precisely the problem. By-and-large people don’t see themselves as autonomous work units to be optimised for maximum productivity. Rather, most of us see ourselves as part of a family – whose possessions aren’t mere ‘assets’, but homes and the objects that help make a home. ...  Continue reading

It must have seemed like a good idea at the time. The issue was British Government backing for fossil fuel projects around the world – in support of UK exports, but grossly inconsistent with the fight against climate change. How to draw attention to this outrage?

A group of Extinction Rebellion protestors hatched a cunning plan: get hold of a fire engine, load it up with 1,800 litres of fake blood and spray it all over the front of the Treasury building. All went well until they lost control of the fire hose, which spat and thrashed about like a mad snake, leaving the protesters literally red faced. Oops. ...  Continue reading

In June, UnHerd ran a series of articles called Riven Britain, which looked beyond disparities of income to look at the other inequalities that divide us. For instance inequalities of accumulated wealth, wellbeing and the beauty of one’s surroundings. We also looked at geographical inequality and the profoundly unequal way in which people with learning disabilities are treated.

One inequality we didn’t mention, however, was what one might call existential inequality – between those who believe their lives have meaning and purpose and those who don’t.

A YouGov survey commissioned for a report by the libertarian Cato Institute reveals significant existential inequalities between Americans. ...  Continue reading