Few writers have impacted me as much as Tony Judt in his recent book “Ill Fares the Land“. He died last Friday, and I mourn his loss.
Ill Fares The Land picks up where The Spirit Level leaves off: asking why equality and social democracy have declined as drivers of political change.
Judt suffered from the rare Lou Gehrig’s disease, and Ill Fares the Land was dictated literally from his sick bed. It is not a robust peer reviewed academic treatise, but in places it is pure inspiration. Read it. Buy it.
He traces the crises of the early 20th century – two world wars and Great Depression. he charts the rise of post-war Keynesian economics and the politics of social democracy that were determined famine and war should not again stalk the earth.
He notes the rise of Hayek’s Austrian economics – and its Western political manifestations in Reagan and Thatcher’s administrations.
He notes the rise of the Third Way under Blair (and by another name under Clinton, and could we add locally Clark/Cullen?) as a triangulated response against the rise of right wing political hegemony.
He argues that with the end of those administrations the ideas of the Right once again hold sway. He asks what is worth saving of the social democratic project, and what is now to be done.
He concludes that nothing short of a strong and clear reclaiming of the values of equality, community and social democracy will equip the Left for the fight it must now win.
He notes that genuine politics must take place alongside those it seeks to serve, and I am sure that he is right about that.
Ill Fares the Land is far from a perfect work. (And for the trolls out there, I did not agree with every word). But it is a poignant lament for the decline of values most Kiwis treasure, and a challenge to us all to fight for a better future.
RIP Tony Judt.
Jeremy – I have no idea what your first statement means but a negative income tax is a good idea that must first overcome the complexity of the system that exists now. When you look at the actual numbers it is difficult to balance an affordable system with sound incentives and equity for those reliant on the system now. Not impossible, but requiring political will and more time and resource than I have to do the analysis.
The Reserve Bank Act which sets up how the Bank works virtually guarantees a minimum of 3% unemployment, it is immoral, IMO, to take away a benefit system when the banking system ensures unemployment… A change to the benefit system must take this into account or you have to change the banking system (which I’m not completely against)…
Jeremy – Now I am with you, sorry. I agree with the assessment that the Act assumes a 3% NAIRU. Unfortunately we have some basic rules of economics to deal with. After the high inflation seventies New Zealand needed an extended period of price stability. Given that we still appear to be paying 2% Treasury bond yield or higher versus the rest of the world I am not sure that the current system works economically.
What I do know is that appeals to morality in the area of complex monetary policy are going to be neither sensible nor successful. Politicians are too weak to be trusted. the short term gains will be more than outweighed by the long term pain as many countries have found out when inflation gets out of control.
@Phil Sage: banks have suffered from the ‘DFC disease’ for the best part of 20 years, especially after the BNZ bailout debacle. They’re quite happy to lend for quarter-acre McMansions, but those who want to be the next Sam Morgan usually get fobbed off. The VIF has been a good start, but is fundamentally a clayton’s DFC.
If Rob Muldoon hadn’t invoked the dancing Cossacks, we’d have had a sovereign fund as big as Norway’s. The NZSF and KiwiSaver go to show it’s not to late to rebuild one, if we can all learn from the lessons of Muldoon and Nigel Lawson.
DR – I completely agree. From an obituary to here has been quite a big stretch already so I will refrain from extending into a criticism of New Zealand Corporate Governance other than to suggest that the best option would be to change the law to ensure that New Zealand corporates comply 100% with SEC submission requirements. Outsource our legislative and enforcement structure as it were, to a system that is proven to work.
As long as you also have better and more independent enforcement of said system than the SEC actually applied in real life (e.g. Madoff), a staff with more forensic accountants and fewer lawyers.
haha – good point. Madoff had connections.
@loota – good one. RIP Tony Judt. Thanks David for your post.