Monday, 4 April 2016, 08:30-11:00
Notes by Jan-Peter Onstwedder & Michael Mainelli
Professor Sir Geoffrey Nice opened the Mythologue with an excellent introduction, covering the timetable and objectives for the workshop and noting his personal interest, after a life in law and international tribunals, of discovering an alternative method to the adversarial approach for discovering facts and opinions. He summarised the four possible narratives for the audience.
On a first audience vote, there were no votes for ‘Monster’, three votes for ‘Lone conquest’, four votes for ‘Group conquest’ and seven votes for ‘Group quest’.
Professor Doug McWilliams introduced various aspects of the question ‘Is wealth inequality essential’ from an economics perspective. He noted that inequality of income inevitably leads to inequality of wealth and considered the former the more essential issue. The case for inequality was about incentives, with market price signals being a necessity; the alternative was a command and control economy which was inefficient, required a great degree of centralisation of power and put politicians in charge. The case against inequality was about social cohesion. He reviewed briefly the central analysis of Thomas Piketty, and stated a better explanation for inequality might be the rise of technology and globalisation. As a case study he looked at compensation of the top footballer in the English league: in 1968 Bobby Charlton’s income was about 4x the average player’s income whereas in 2015 Wayne Rooney’s income was about 500x the average. The reasons were in the increase in income for the league from global broadcasting rights and the development of an efficient global labour market for players. Doug closed by noting that better corporate governance was key to reducing excessive executive compensation, and that inequality mattered as misunderstanding the causes could lead to populist politics which ultimately could pose a threat to society.
Karina Robinson contrasted the prospects of two young men she knew. Both went to good schools and could be said to enjoy opportunities, but she noted the different peer pressure they experienced. In one case, that was about grades and prospects, but for the other it was more about it being ‘not cool’ to be seen to work hard. In addition, one family situation (both parents having lost their jobs and having found only much lower quality employment) led to lower expectations. She noted how it was morally wrong that such inequality of opportunity existed, and how it affects all of us, with our economy based on consumption by the masses and not solely by a wealthier elite. She noted how this inequality was perpetuated by social factors such as marriage within classes, and a failure by government to provide opportunities through investment in infrastructure. She closed by noting that the debate had to be about people rather than abstract economic metrics.
The interviews by Barbara Ridpath as storyteller, Michael Mainelli as bard, and Ian Angell as kynic expanded to include audience participation, exploring aspects of the central question ranging from the importance of hidden factors (externalities being ignored in prices, intergenerational inequality) to the question of happiness and its relationship with wealth and inequality.
Rohan Narse led the entire group in a 15 minute mindfulness break.
Barbara then took on the storyteller role. For the first twenty years after WWII the current economic system performed better than any other, but in part as consequence of the achievements large numbers of people withdrew from active participation in the governance of the system. Unnoticed at first this led to an increased dominance by an elite with the rich securing an ever greater share of increased wealth, and leading to an effective segregation of communities both in a physical sense and through the formation of identity politics. There was a need to recognise the existence and importance of a collective long term interest, and as the story was still unfolding, there was as yet no ending.
Michael in his role as bard noted that the globalisation and rise of technology was an appealing explanation. He summarised the advocate’s view as ‘the system was basically ok but more effective intervention by governments was required’ and the provocateur’s view as ‘world inequality is increasingly morally wrong’. He noted the lack of support for a ‘Monster’ narrative, but wondered if the tale might be more ‘Hansel & Gretel’ following the breadcrumbs and conquering the ‘Witch’/Monster. Although the problem seemed intractable and greater than any single person, why couldn’t an ‘Elon Musk or Bill Gates’ type character emerge to change the system radically. Technology, in the form of the industrial revolution, automation and globalisation, got us here; perhaps technology would get us out.
Professor Ian Angell in his role as cynic noted that all arguments reduce to power, and that the debate about inequality was really about pity and fear. He questioned whether the debate showed that society had become degenerate, and whether this implied ‘nature’ would sweep it aside. He closed by noting that ‘leaders just manage decline’ and didn’t provide solutions, as there were no solutions.
On a final vote, ‘Monster’ received support from three audience members, ‘Lone quest’ six, ‘Group conquest’ three and ‘Group quest’, eight, with several people supporting multiple narratives as fundamentally suitable.
Michael closed the workshop with a short discussion and thanks to the participants.
Feedback received after the workshop:
We enjoyed the mythologue and felt it was worthwhile. Our view is that future mythologies need to be yet simpler. Perhaps don’t explain the four possible narratives, just have the storyteller and bard choose one. Perhaps spend more time with ‘experts’ being interviewed to establish a set of facts that all could agree on, and to highlight the key areas of differences, then have the storyteller and bard use different narratives that incorporate those. We did like the kynic’s contribution as it stops participants making exaggerated claims or submitting questionable facts. The mindfulness break helped recharge the energy levels and reduce the emotional elements, which is good in discussing complex topics.