We're all in this together

You are reading a single comment by @branwen and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

Oliver Schick

A good article on the silly bollocks that brought about the status quo:

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2019/jun/06/socialism-for-the-rich-the-evils-of-bad-economics

The familiar political explanation for this rising inequality is the huge shift in mainstream economic and political thinking, in favour of free markets, triggered by the elections of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Its fit with the facts is undeniable. Across developed economies, the biggest rise in inequality since 1945 occurred in the US and UK from 1980 onwards.

The power of a grand political transformation seems persuasive. But it cannot be the whole explanation. It is too top-down: it is all about what politicians and other elites do to us. The idea that rising inequality is inevitable begins to look like a convenient myth, one that allows us to avoid thinking about another possibility: that through our electoral choices and decisions in daily life we have supported rising inequality, or at least acquiesced in it. Admittedly, that assumes we know about it. Surveys in the UK and US consistently suggest that we underestimate both the level of current inequality and how much it has recently increased. But ignorance cannot be a complete excuse, because surveys also reveal a change in attitudes: rising inequality has become more acceptable – or at least, less unacceptable – especially if you are not on the wrong end of it.

•

branwen in reply to @Oliver Schick

is inevitable begins to look like a convenient myth, one that allows us to avoid thinking about another possibility: that through our electoral choices and decisions in daily life we have supported rising inequality, or at least acquiesced in it

Seeing how much the media has come to define conversations in modern society, and how it has been entirely captured by the rich status quo, this quote reeks of punching downwards.

Also, it implies that "maybe if just a few more people had been engaged in politics things might be different", which again in a FTP system which heavily favours the status quo is kinda misleading. Thatcher won her first election with less votes than Labour/Liberals combined, so even then the majority was not supporting a rise in inequality

•

Oliver Schick in reply to @branwen

Sorry, forgot to reply. I didn't read it like that. I don't think his argument depends on claiming that majorities voted for 'bad economics'. I obviously haven't read the book yet (are you on it, Will?), but I expect that would be spelled out more in it. It's long been known that much of the potential left-wing electorate doesn't turn out (and the Tories are presently trying to gerrymander and adopt US-style voter suppression tactics with 'Voter ID'), in an electoral system that, as you say, is additionally biased towards vested interests.

The article is obviously focused most on the UK and US, but you have similar developments in countries like Germany, where despite the myths of a strong economy, millions of people live in poverty. Germany has PR.

About

Avatar for branwen @branwen started