Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "The Institute of Art and Ideas" channel.

  1. Please just go and watch Gary's speech at the Cambridge Student Union. Read his blog. And the issue is that Economics says nothing about Distribution. It is silent on the matter, and that is a choice. Ask yourself why is that the case, when the discipline claims to be about efficient distribution of resources. Also, economics is the least scientific of the social sciences, in that it hasn't followed the scientific method. It's a model, in a world where all models are wrong, but some are useful. That's orthodox economics. Luckily, heterodox economists are starting to make economics more of a science and less of an ideology. Also, don't conflate Finance with Economics. Finance is all about money, whereas monetary economics has things to say about money, but it's more political than applied.
    3
  2. Lol. The Central Bank does not control markets. The markets control central banks, and the economics is dogma to justify favouring a form of Capitalism that uses finance to facilitate asset wealth transfers from the assetless poor and the asset-limited workers. The economics used was bollocks, because it took zero account of human greed, nor the structural inequalities that prevent the majority being subject to those with market power. Instead of the market being Democratic-adjacent institution, it has become an engine of oppression and inequality which is making very few people more money they could spend in a lifetime, whilst impoverishing everyone else over time. Human nature drives the market, and as well as useful and constructive traits, there are also traits that have to monitored and controlled for the safety of every society. So, no; the economics was naively dangerous. Hayek et al. were ideological ldealists of the most naive kind. They hadn't even read economic or financial history, or they would have realised that their framework was old wine in new bottles which would turn sour, as it did centuries beforehand in Rome, Greece, and elsewhere, repeated the very same fundamental mistakes. Now Capitalism has turned to a new feudalism, with a new feudal class preferring to speculate and grift, rather than invest productively. And they have neutered the state, and thus, it will need a huge concerted effort to pull their claws. But, the pushback will come.
    2
  3. I disagree. Capitalism and democracy can reinforce each other, but tensions arise when economic power overshadows political equality. The balance depends on regulations, civic engagement, and institutional safeguards. But capitalism does not need democracy to exist, and vice versa. Democracy existed for over a thousand years before Capitalism. We see this in authoritarian regimes. And the UK is a democratic society, but it's democracy is undeveloped in practice, which is not abnormal. It literally is the longest running political experiment on our history. And that is the same for every society that claims to be democratic. The model is being refined across history. Show me a perfect democracy, and you will have found heaven on earth. But you can't as it is a work in progress. It's another evolution in human societal organisation, and its the best scheme, when allowed to be fully developed. But it exists of course in a state of tension, because it is less dynamic and responsive than it should be. But our democracy can be reformed to perform better, but it needs to be protected from those who would wish to undermine it. Including those, who for their own reasons, are sceptical about democracy. Too much water can drown us, but we need water to drink and quench our thirst. We have to find an optimal balance. That we try means we can improve if we promote democratic values. The alternatives are not healthy.
    1
  4. Gary must be gaining some traction because opponents stop playing the ball and play the man instead. This interwiew was client media personified. Ah well, it comes with the territory.
    1
  5. Neoliberalism is an economic failure, because it is inefficient, because it's theories ignored the dark triad traits in some human beings. Socialism in the British, and not the slogan-like American sense, seeks to balance the two, to be pragmatic. Neoliberalism is neither balanced or pragmatic. It was bringing the incentives that drove colonisation and economic imperialism home to the West. Thus, income and wealth inequality was inevitable under neoliberalism. And technoneoliberalism is worse, because it seeks only to optimise and protect the wealth extraction of a few, whilst impoverishing the rest using AI and other technologies.
    1