 |
| J K Rowling |
It has been a good year for billionaires. Amidst the economic gloom, the annual list by Forbes Magazine shows that the wealth of the world's billionaires jumped 25% to $4.5 trillion and an average net worth of $3.5 billion. With 1210 people listed, Forbes described it as a 'record year for numbers, money and impact.' The UK has 32 billionaires on the list including the Queen and JK Rowling. Remarkably, that is three more than last year. The property empire of the Cavendish and Grosvenor family continues to top the domestic league with a value of $13 billion - some way short of the $74 billion of Carlos Slim Helu, the Mexican telecom magnate, who topped the list for the second year.
The Forbes list, however, was not the main story in the UK. At home, millions of public sector workers have been warned that they will have to work for longer, pay higher contributions and receive lower pensions. Lord Hutton's independent review concluded that by 2015 pensions should be related to average salaries over a career rather than final salaries. Hutton's recommendations will affect millions of people in the civil service, the NHS, teaching, local government, the police, armed forces and the fire service already dealing with large job cuts, reorganisations and a pay freeze. Lord Hutton described the changes as a "comprehensive reform" that would "strike a balanced deal between public service workers and the taxpayer."
The BBC news website led with the pension announcement while the Forbes list was relegated to a far less prominent position. Yet, both stories are equally significant. Last night, Noam Chomsky, an 82 year old Professor of Linguistics at MIT, was in town to deliver a speech at UCL. Academic speeches are rarely sell-outs, yet, not only was this the hottest ticket in town but it was broadcast live to thousands. Why? Chomsky is not only the foremost academic in his field but, whilst largely working outside the usual channels of political debate, he has become known as 'America's leading dissident' and has been dubbed by the New York Times as 'the world's greatest thinker'. For five decades he has been a highly influential critic of the US government and more recently global neo-liberalism. He is a profound thinker, a public intellectual - unafraid to confront controversial issues - and a beacon for change across the world.
I first read Chomsky during my History BA. After Thatcherism and the fall of communism he was regarded as a marginal figure by many commentators and not in-tune with the 'new world order.' Capitalism, after all, had won. However, even at the high water mark of US authority, his fierce logic and presentation of evidence was extremely influential on me. His work provided an analytical framework with which to view political events. It is heartening to see his ideas have, once again, found a broad audience. This visit, in the context of our current political upheaval, seems particularly timely and the clamour for tickets reflects the widespread disenchantment that many people feel with the political mainstream.
Why the disenchantment? Why the sense of unease? In our lifetime we have seen a move from a relatively even distribution of wealth to a country with an increasing divergence in wealth. The rich are getting much richer, while there is less opportunity for everyone else. This outcome has been achieved through free-market reforms, introduced by all parties, that have been sold to us by a promise of choice, efficiency, greater opportunity and greater affluence. In a properly regulated economy it is possible that all these things could be true, but the latest economic crisis has cracked the veneer of credibility of the present system and we are all confronted with the stark facts. Banker's bonuses and high student fees are the obvious symbols of the injustice laid bare. Billionaires 25% richer and public servants losing pension entitlements. Are we all feeling the 'pain' equally?
Sounds like 'commie' talk, I can hear you cry. Try and rein in that impulse and consider who is providing us with the messages? Where have our basic assumptions come from? Much has been made of Murdoch's control over the media but as I pointed out yesterday - how much freedom of maneuver does the BBC really have? Manufacturing Consent is one of Chomsky's most important works and demonstrates how our media actually limits the scope of political debate. As with any worthwhile intellectual work, Chomsky, does not lend himself particularly well to soundbites. His books are fully researched and tightly argued. Read them or catch his film Manufacturing Consent on YouTube (http://bit.ly/FeHLG).
As Chomsky notes in his book, New World Orders, Adam Smith the 18th Century philosopher and pioneer of economic theory argued in his influential book The Wealth of Nations that the rich follow, 'the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. All for ourselves, and nothing for the people.' Smith warned that merchants not governments 'were the principal architects' of policies designed to advance their own interests, however 'grievous the impact on their own populations'. It is perhaps evidence of the 'market's' control of the debate that Adam Smith is generally regarded as a founding figure of unrestrained capitalism rather than someone cautioning against its excesses.
Why the disenchantment? Why the sense of unease? In our lifetime we have seen a move from a relatively even distribution of wealth to a country with an increasing divergence in wealth. The rich are getting much richer, while there is less opportunity for everyone else. This outcome has been achieved through free-market reforms, introduced by all parties, that have been sold to us by a promise of choice, efficiency, greater opportunity and greater affluence. In a properly regulated economy it is possible that all these things could be true, but the latest economic crisis has cracked the veneer of credibility of the present system and we are all confronted with the stark facts. Banker's bonuses and high student fees are the obvious symbols of the injustice laid bare. Billionaires 25% richer and public servants losing pension entitlements. Are we all feeling the 'pain' equally?
 |
| Chomsky |
As Chomsky notes in his book, New World Orders, Adam Smith the 18th Century philosopher and pioneer of economic theory argued in his influential book The Wealth of Nations that the rich follow, 'the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. All for ourselves, and nothing for the people.' Smith warned that merchants not governments 'were the principal architects' of policies designed to advance their own interests, however 'grievous the impact on their own populations'. It is perhaps evidence of the 'market's' control of the debate that Adam Smith is generally regarded as a founding figure of unrestrained capitalism rather than someone cautioning against its excesses.
What has brought Chomsky to such a wide audience? The cataclysmic failure of our financial system and the political and economic choices being made by our politicians make his central assumptions seem self-evident. Nowadays, it is much easier to conceive a situation in which: rich men rule the world, competing among themselves for a greater share of the wealth and power, using governments as agents of their policy and suppressing dissent either through violence (in poorer states) or through media control (in countries like the UK). The idea is not so outlandish as it once may have seemed? If you are not from a 'left-wing' political background it may sound like a grand conspiracy, but if you consider our present situation, the assumptions underpinning political action are clear. 'Follow the money' is a good rule when it comes to finding who pulls the strings. It will probably lead to those billionaires.
Well, perhaps not J K Rowling...but then again....
0 comments:
Post a Comment