Comments on: The Archbishop alters terms of debate http://www.debtonation.org/2009/03/the-archbishop-alters-terms-of-debate/ Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:13:52 +0100 hourly 1 By: ann http://www.debtonation.org/2009/03/the-archbishop-alters-terms-of-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-771 ann Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:15:19 +0000 http://debtonation.org/?p=2014#comment-771 Thank you both Dr. Brownstein and Charles Wheeler...I think that you are right Charles about the '97 election....but many Tories voted for Tony Blair because he appeared to be offering more of the same...and indeed he pointedly, as did Gordon Brown, endorsed both Margarte Thatcher herself, and the transformation of the British economy. Thank you both Dr. Brownstein and Charles Wheeler…I think that you are right Charles about the ‘97 election….but many

Tories voted for Tony Blair because he appeared to be offering more of the same…and indeed he pointedly, as did Gordon Brown, endorsed both

Margarte Thatcher herself, and the transformation of the British economy.

]]> By: Dr L Brownstein http://www.debtonation.org/2009/03/the-archbishop-alters-terms-of-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-758 Dr L Brownstein Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:53:50 +0000 http://debtonation.org/?p=2014#comment-758 The Archbishop is quite right to add a cultural dimension to the financial crisis debate, but he is wrong to exonerate bankers and focus exclusively on the system. There is an an interdependent reflexivity between a system and the members who operate within it. They can not be separated other than for analytical purposes. Analogously, there is a quite close relationship between poverty and crime, but no one argues that, as a result, criminals should avoid punishment. Where the Archbishop's argument has force is its focus on how to prevent future Goodwins. We can only effectively do this by changing the system. Analogously, in the same way, we can effectively reduce crime by reducing poverty. Simply punishing Goodwin et al. will not prevent the emergence of future Goodwins. A change in the operation of the system will help to bring about a change in the culture, including the values brought by Thatcherism, which is the only way to initiate and sustain long term changes in behavior. This, however, does not entail that they should not either be blamed or punished for their perfidy. The Archbishop is quite right to add a cultural dimension to the financial crisis debate, but he is wrong to exonerate bankers and

focus exclusively on the system. There is an an interdependent reflexivity between a system and the members who operate within it. They can not be

separated other than for analytical purposes. Analogously, there is a quite close relationship between poverty and crime, but no one argues that,

as a result, criminals should avoid punishment.

Where the Archbishop’s argument has force is its focus on how to prevent future Goodwins.

We can only effectively do this by changing the system. Analogously, in the same way, we can effectively reduce crime by reducing poverty.

Simply punishing Goodwin et al. will not prevent the emergence of future Goodwins. A change in the operation of the system will help to bring

about a change in the culture, including the values brought by Thatcherism, which is the only way to initiate and sustain long term changes in

behavior. This, however, does not entail that they should not either be blamed or punished for their perfidy.

]]> By: Charles Wheeler http://www.debtonation.org/2009/03/the-archbishop-alters-terms-of-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-764 Charles Wheeler Thu, 01 Jan 1970 01:00:00 +0000 http://debtonation.org/?p=2014#comment-764 The section of the speech I balk at is the assertion that, in essence, we get the economic policy we deserve by voting for neoliberal parties. I would contend that the elctorate didn't boot out the Tories in '97 because they wantedc more of the same (deregulation/laissez faire/rising inequality/etc.), but were connedc into elieving Blair's rhetoric about change/greater equality/and end to 'fat cat' culture/etc. The fact that millions have given up voting since - with just 1 in 5 voting New Labour last time out would seem to bear out the idea that the popularity of neoliberalism, if not its infleunce, has been in decline for a very long time (even in her heyday Thatcher was the leaderc of a minority party - it just hapoens that our electoral system hands fake parliamentary majorities to minority parties). Add the that the incessant propaganda of neoliberal-based news media and the billions (estimated at $50bn in the US) spent in lobbying politicians who covet sinecures in the finance sector and who will happily decouple economic decision-making from the democratic process as a consequence, and it becomes much harder to argue that the electorate have brought this crisis on themselves. The section of the speech I balk at is the assertion that, in essence, we get the economic policy we deserve by voting for

neoliberal parties. I would contend that the elctorate didn’t boot out the Tories in ‘97 because they wantedc more of the same

(deregulation/laissez faire/rising inequality/etc.), but were connedc into elieving Blair’s rhetoric about change/greater equality/and end to

‘fat cat’ culture/etc.

The fact that millions have given up voting since – with just 1 in 5 voting New Labour last time out would seem to

bear out the idea that the popularity of neoliberalism, if not its infleunce, has been in decline for a very long time (even in her heyday Thatcher

was the leaderc of a minority party – it just hapoens that our electoral system hands fake parliamentary majorities to minority parties).

Add the that the incessant propaganda of neoliberal-based news media and the billions (estimated at $50bn in the US) spent in lobbying

politicians who covet sinecures in the finance sector and who will happily decouple economic decision-making from the democratic process as a

consequence, and it becomes much harder to argue that the electorate have brought this crisis on themselves.

]]>