(Posted similar question yesterday but somehow it has disappeared.) Seeking your perspective on the refugee issue - everywhere it has been prominent in shifting politics to the Right, as visceral identity politics in a fearful world favour comfort, stability, certainty, personal safety and national security. The advocacy orgs stress the moral aspect of refugee support (Rawlsian and elevation of kindness), good news stories and macro-economic growth outcomes (though threats from locale or class position may be more salient to public opinion), and avoiding an embedded degradation of social norms passed on to future generations. So what can be done? There are many unfavourable influences.
In addition to "populism", much of the opinion-leading elites are on board with this. The emotional comfort and nostalgia of atheist Richard Dawkins - now a "cultural Christian" who wants cathedrals and carols and fewer mosques - will validate the dominance of West over East, and prioritise white comfort over brown and black lives, literally in some cases.
Economists such as Betts and Collier say growth (not love) conquers all, yet the promises of their 2017 book Refuge got wrecked by pol and econ turmoil in the M E. Possible labour shortages in much of the world may permit enlightened self-interest to overcome resentment and exclusion from entrenchment as dominant values, but change influences seem decades away from being effective.
The moral absolutism of international refugee law - the obligation to accept every justified claimant at a national border without regard to local circumstances is hard to accept for many citizens, with the "social cohesion" argument (receiving capacity however that may be defined) not permitted.In this harsh global environment, any govt which breaks ranks and softens their policies will likely be punished by "pull-effects" which stop others from a follow-on. The UN's ICJ and international refugee treaties are increasingly fudged by signatories, with no repercussions or enforcement, and their integrity compromised by the ICJ's reluctance to sanction, even call out, powerful interests which tolerate or enact the Palestine genocide happening in plain sight.
The masses in Western countries seem more cynical towards the aspirational "Wir schiffen das" of Merkel in 2015, and increasingly sceptical of the "persecution" status of claimants, now often replaced by perceptions of "mixed migration" and confected asylum claims. Admitting shades of grey does not mean denial of significant discrimination and threats.
The emotional comfort and nostalgia of atheist Richard Dawkins - now a "cultural Christian" who wants cathedrals and carols and fewer mosques - will validate the dominance of West over East, and prioritise white interests over brown and black humanity.
These negatives are embedded, fostered but not created by the Right, and how to neutralise, or flip them to advantage, needs discussion. The advocates, hanging on for dear life until the policy environment changes (somehow), will not be keen to admit the weak aspects of the institutional and legal supports which still remain. But the 1938 Evian Conference, supposedly aimed at protecting the Jews, did not lead to committed and successful outcomes; without discussion and strategies to address the above weaknesses, are we destined to see a repeat?
I don't have a good answer to this one. Rejection of refugees has been the common response in almost all times and places, despite religious injunctions to comfort the afflicted stranger and the obligations of international law. I keep meaning to write something about this, but can't quite get on top of it.
Thanks John. Walls and borders define the insider/outsider status, but I forgot to mention the interesting work by Joseph Carens, and Peter Mares in Australia, relating to widening the scope for official status, and participation in decisionmaking, by longterm residents without full citizenship. Mares said in his 2016 book there's a million temp migrants in Australia with reduced voice and rights. Raising their status seems politically acceptable as well as rational and equitable. Over time it could incrementally change the "Other" to just "An other", and reduce the fear factor. Another relevant factor will be the aftermath of the war in Palestine, with its televised barbarism (for those game to watch the excellent work by alternative media), echoing the one-sided intolerable destruction in the Vietnam war 60 years ago. It was a different time then and other factors were in play, but it did provide moral clarity and cultural insights which stepped up action and aspirations for a better world. A win for the Palestinian cause is what the rest of the world needs too, with a ripple effect of catalysing progressive outcomes for other deserving people.
Jared Diamond in "Collapse" wrote that civilisations collapse for various reasons, but throughout history, two preconditions recur time and again and make societal collapse more or less inevitable. One is exceeding the sustainable carrying capacity of the natural environment; the other being the propensity of the wealthy elite to advance their own economic interests and ignore the suffering of the masses. The masses don't tolerate inequality and injustice indefinitely, eventually there is an uprising of some kind.
Focusing on the second of those criteria, it seems to me that we are now on a trajectory of collapse, with the USA being at the forefront, with strong parallels to 1930s Germany. Pot-stirring by Russia or China through trolling social media are the modern equivalent of the barbarians who defeated Rome, but Rome was crumbling from the inside. Given the 40 years of entrenchment of neoliberal policy, feeding rising inequality and economic struggle, it is difficult to see a happy ending.
The US does indeed seem to be on the verge of collapse, but the explanation doesn't seem to be related to economics or the environment. On standard measures, the economy is doing fine, with full employment, moderate inflation and rising wages. And while the world is still on an unsustainable path with emissions, Americans seem to care less about this than most.
Rather the causes seem to be embedded much more deeply in American history, with the aftermath of slavery playing a crucial role.
A follow-up question. The USA has always been a source of religious hotheads, with a large portion of the sects and cults within Christianity tracing an origin to there. While religious fervour in Australia on the other hand is declining, it seems to be building in the USA. We know that religious persecution was a factor in the original settlement of America, but that doesn't explain why uncompromising theology still has such a hold on the population or why it has so infused politics. Perhaps religious energy has been co-opted by cunning strategists within the Republican Party to suit political ends, or is there a more philosophical or historical reason why religious fervour seems to be on track to deliver Trump a second presidency?
Thank you for the opportunity to ask questions. I have two.
First, a year or more ago, I saw that you were under contract to write a book about economics after COVID, but now the book is no longer forthcoming. Zombie Economics and Economics in Two Lessons are both on my bookshelf, and I enjoyed them a lot. Any plans to restart the post-COVID economics book?
My second question is how your views on financial regulation have changed, or not, in light of the 2007/08 financial crisis and the growth of non-bank financial intermediaries since then. I read your 2006 paper with Stephen Bell on financial liberalization and policy responses with interest and am curious about what you think now.
Thanks, Ron. The post-COVID economy has moved faster than I could write, so I abandoned that book. I have three book projects at or near completion now: lecture notes from my Politics, Philosophy and Economics courses, a collection of articles on microeconomic policy, called After Neoliberalism, and a comic book presentation of my views on privatisation.
I'm going to take a break from books for a while after that lot, but I have plans to write one more big one, on the future of work, socialism and everything.
My views on the financial liberalisation were mostly vindicated by the GFC, I think. And the risk of a financial crisis generated by shadow banks, or more accurately, the links between shadow banks and the regulated sector, are ever-present
Thanks for the "Ask me anything" opportunity. I appreciate that this maybe not quite in your area of expertise but what approach do you recommend for the average punter to counteract the lies so prevalent in public discourse. eg. Dutton and the LNP are running around saying how Nuclear power will be cheaper!! I am aware of AEMO and the ISP but the response at a recent social event was "we need independent expertise". Maybe they just do not want inconvenient facts and in most cases giving up on them is more rational.
It brings back the nightmare of Abbott claiming the Carbon tax wrecked the economy and had no impact on emissions.
Thanks Paul, you can quote Lazard Freres and other international financial institutions on relative costs. Or you can look at the recent Czech deal to buy two nuclear power stations at a price 50 per cent higher than the one used by CSIRO. I'll have an article on this in RenewEconomy next week.
(Posted similar question yesterday but somehow it has disappeared.) Seeking your perspective on the refugee issue - everywhere it has been prominent in shifting politics to the Right, as visceral identity politics in a fearful world favour comfort, stability, certainty, personal safety and national security. The advocacy orgs stress the moral aspect of refugee support (Rawlsian and elevation of kindness), good news stories and macro-economic growth outcomes (though threats from locale or class position may be more salient to public opinion), and avoiding an embedded degradation of social norms passed on to future generations. So what can be done? There are many unfavourable influences.
In addition to "populism", much of the opinion-leading elites are on board with this. The emotional comfort and nostalgia of atheist Richard Dawkins - now a "cultural Christian" who wants cathedrals and carols and fewer mosques - will validate the dominance of West over East, and prioritise white comfort over brown and black lives, literally in some cases.
Economists such as Betts and Collier say growth (not love) conquers all, yet the promises of their 2017 book Refuge got wrecked by pol and econ turmoil in the M E. Possible labour shortages in much of the world may permit enlightened self-interest to overcome resentment and exclusion from entrenchment as dominant values, but change influences seem decades away from being effective.
The moral absolutism of international refugee law - the obligation to accept every justified claimant at a national border without regard to local circumstances is hard to accept for many citizens, with the "social cohesion" argument (receiving capacity however that may be defined) not permitted.In this harsh global environment, any govt which breaks ranks and softens their policies will likely be punished by "pull-effects" which stop others from a follow-on. The UN's ICJ and international refugee treaties are increasingly fudged by signatories, with no repercussions or enforcement, and their integrity compromised by the ICJ's reluctance to sanction, even call out, powerful interests which tolerate or enact the Palestine genocide happening in plain sight.
The masses in Western countries seem more cynical towards the aspirational "Wir schiffen das" of Merkel in 2015, and increasingly sceptical of the "persecution" status of claimants, now often replaced by perceptions of "mixed migration" and confected asylum claims. Admitting shades of grey does not mean denial of significant discrimination and threats.
The emotional comfort and nostalgia of atheist Richard Dawkins - now a "cultural Christian" who wants cathedrals and carols and fewer mosques - will validate the dominance of West over East, and prioritise white interests over brown and black humanity.
These negatives are embedded, fostered but not created by the Right, and how to neutralise, or flip them to advantage, needs discussion. The advocates, hanging on for dear life until the policy environment changes (somehow), will not be keen to admit the weak aspects of the institutional and legal supports which still remain. But the 1938 Evian Conference, supposedly aimed at protecting the Jews, did not lead to committed and successful outcomes; without discussion and strategies to address the above weaknesses, are we destined to see a repeat?
I don't have a good answer to this one. Rejection of refugees has been the common response in almost all times and places, despite religious injunctions to comfort the afflicted stranger and the obligations of international law. I keep meaning to write something about this, but can't quite get on top of it.
Thanks John. Walls and borders define the insider/outsider status, but I forgot to mention the interesting work by Joseph Carens, and Peter Mares in Australia, relating to widening the scope for official status, and participation in decisionmaking, by longterm residents without full citizenship. Mares said in his 2016 book there's a million temp migrants in Australia with reduced voice and rights. Raising their status seems politically acceptable as well as rational and equitable. Over time it could incrementally change the "Other" to just "An other", and reduce the fear factor. Another relevant factor will be the aftermath of the war in Palestine, with its televised barbarism (for those game to watch the excellent work by alternative media), echoing the one-sided intolerable destruction in the Vietnam war 60 years ago. It was a different time then and other factors were in play, but it did provide moral clarity and cultural insights which stepped up action and aspirations for a better world. A win for the Palestinian cause is what the rest of the world needs too, with a ripple effect of catalysing progressive outcomes for other deserving people.
Thanks for the opportunity, Prof John.
Jared Diamond in "Collapse" wrote that civilisations collapse for various reasons, but throughout history, two preconditions recur time and again and make societal collapse more or less inevitable. One is exceeding the sustainable carrying capacity of the natural environment; the other being the propensity of the wealthy elite to advance their own economic interests and ignore the suffering of the masses. The masses don't tolerate inequality and injustice indefinitely, eventually there is an uprising of some kind.
Focusing on the second of those criteria, it seems to me that we are now on a trajectory of collapse, with the USA being at the forefront, with strong parallels to 1930s Germany. Pot-stirring by Russia or China through trolling social media are the modern equivalent of the barbarians who defeated Rome, but Rome was crumbling from the inside. Given the 40 years of entrenchment of neoliberal policy, feeding rising inequality and economic struggle, it is difficult to see a happy ending.
Your views on the above please?
The US does indeed seem to be on the verge of collapse, but the explanation doesn't seem to be related to economics or the environment. On standard measures, the economy is doing fine, with full employment, moderate inflation and rising wages. And while the world is still on an unsustainable path with emissions, Americans seem to care less about this than most.
Rather the causes seem to be embedded much more deeply in American history, with the aftermath of slavery playing a crucial role.
Thanks, that's very interesting.
A follow-up question. The USA has always been a source of religious hotheads, with a large portion of the sects and cults within Christianity tracing an origin to there. While religious fervour in Australia on the other hand is declining, it seems to be building in the USA. We know that religious persecution was a factor in the original settlement of America, but that doesn't explain why uncompromising theology still has such a hold on the population or why it has so infused politics. Perhaps religious energy has been co-opted by cunning strategists within the Republican Party to suit political ends, or is there a more philosophical or historical reason why religious fervour seems to be on track to deliver Trump a second presidency?
Thank you for the opportunity to ask questions. I have two.
First, a year or more ago, I saw that you were under contract to write a book about economics after COVID, but now the book is no longer forthcoming. Zombie Economics and Economics in Two Lessons are both on my bookshelf, and I enjoyed them a lot. Any plans to restart the post-COVID economics book?
My second question is how your views on financial regulation have changed, or not, in light of the 2007/08 financial crisis and the growth of non-bank financial intermediaries since then. I read your 2006 paper with Stephen Bell on financial liberalization and policy responses with interest and am curious about what you think now.
Thanks, Ron. The post-COVID economy has moved faster than I could write, so I abandoned that book. I have three book projects at or near completion now: lecture notes from my Politics, Philosophy and Economics courses, a collection of articles on microeconomic policy, called After Neoliberalism, and a comic book presentation of my views on privatisation.
I'm going to take a break from books for a while after that lot, but I have plans to write one more big one, on the future of work, socialism and everything.
My views on the financial liberalisation were mostly vindicated by the GFC, I think. And the risk of a financial crisis generated by shadow banks, or more accurately, the links between shadow banks and the regulated sector, are ever-present
Thanks for the "Ask me anything" opportunity. I appreciate that this maybe not quite in your area of expertise but what approach do you recommend for the average punter to counteract the lies so prevalent in public discourse. eg. Dutton and the LNP are running around saying how Nuclear power will be cheaper!! I am aware of AEMO and the ISP but the response at a recent social event was "we need independent expertise". Maybe they just do not want inconvenient facts and in most cases giving up on them is more rational.
It brings back the nightmare of Abbott claiming the Carbon tax wrecked the economy and had no impact on emissions.
Thanks Paul, you can quote Lazard Freres and other international financial institutions on relative costs. Or you can look at the recent Czech deal to buy two nuclear power stations at a price 50 per cent higher than the one used by CSIRO. I'll have an article on this in RenewEconomy next week.
Thank you.
Now for me to think of a good question. :)