0 We ignore the absolute basics at our peril.

• Society
• by Adrian Mark Dore
• 21-03-2024

Most people realise there is something wrong with our economy but aren’t sure what. This analogy will help you realise how simple and basic the problem is and how we can rectify it.  Joe and his wife have four children. One they lavish with love, care, attention, and money. The other three they ignore, mistreat and spend little on.  Yet, today, Joe has the ignorance and audacity to tell me he is worried and concerned for his family, which is utterly dysfunctional.  The problem is blindingly obvious to the rest of us, except Joe and his wife.  When you have four equally important members of a family, and you don’t treat them equally with love and attention – expect problems.  This is a basic understanding most of us seem to appreciate – it’s not rocket science.  So, with this innate understanding of the basics of life, why then are we surprised that the most influential aspect affecting our lives – the economy, is as dysfunctional as Joe’s family?  It’s dysfunctional for exactly the same reasons. The economy has four children (or Primary Capitals), namely, Financial, Human, Environmental and Common Capital. All equal contributors to a successful economy.  Like Joe, the economy only looks after one of its children – Financial Capital. The other three are ignored and mistreated in favour of Financial Capital. Their welfare is of little concern to the economy.  As a result, like Joe’s family, our economy is utterly dysfunctional. And like Joe, the remedy is the same. Treat all members of your family with the same care and attention.  Our economy only measures and manages Financial Capital. The other three primary capitals that contribute equally to our economic success are ignored. Human, Environmental and Common Capital (investment in shared infrastructure and services) are ignored.  Until this is fixed – roll on the bad times and the increased dominance of Financial Capital.  The first and most important step in this journey is to replace free market economic policies with social market policies in an attempt to restore some semblance of balance in the care of all Primary Capitals. Free market policies are central to our economic problems as they unashamedly only serve Financial Capital needs. As far as they are concerned, the other primary capitals are irrelevant, and that’s a massive problem for us. You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/

0 Bad economic policies are an enemy of the state.

• Society
• by Adrian Mark Dore
• 06-12-2023

An enemy of the state is a person who commits a political crime against the state, but it can also be a philosophy which directly or indirectly advocates the committing of a political crime. It would also encompass those who execute or adhere to the philosophy.  Such a philosophy could include economic policies like free market policies.  For free market policies to be found guilty of committing a political crime, and thus being an enemy of the state, it has to be proved that it deliberately attempts to pervert the course of democracy.  In a democracy, the economy is supposed to serve majority needs. So, if the policy does not do this, serving other needs instead, it has perverted the course of democracy. It has committed a political crime.  Some may argue that although it may appear to serve other interests, its results prove the opposite, that it does serve majority needs, and thus, it has not perverted the course of democracy.  Therefore, we need to look at the policy's intent and outcomes to see if this is true or if it is really an enemy of the state by working against majority interests.  This article will prove how free market policies have failed in both intent and outcomes to serve majority needs.  No intent to serve majority needs. Milton Friedman is the father of free market policies. He is also the person who proposed Shareholder Theory, which suggests that in business, the interests of shareholders be placed above all others. So, as far as Milton Friedman was concerned, only financial capital is important. The other three primary capitals, namely, human, natural and common capital, are of no concern or interest to him.  Now, if you consider that businesses form the basic building blocks of our economy and that every business follows Shareholder Theory, then businesses and Milton Friedman’s ideologies never had any intention of serving anybody other than financial capital -  the rich.  We know that every business follows Shareholder Theory because every business uses the same measurement standard, which only measures and manages financial capital.  At a business (or micro level), Milton Friedman cared only for the interests of financial capital and continued to apply these beliefs at a macro or economic level. These beliefs are reflected in his free market economic policies.  They involve reducing taxes (particularly) on the rich and corporations, reducing business regulations and the size of government.   How can a reduction in taxes, regulations and the size of government serve the majority's needs? They don’t, they harm them.  Taxes fund common capital, which leads to a higher quality of life for all, including businesses, as it funds infrastructure and services everybody uses and depends upon. It is the foundation stone for a strong and resilient economy. Weaken it, and you weaken your economy over the long term.  Regulations protect the weak from the powerful, leading to a strong economy built on strong foundations and not a weak economy based on exploitation and neglect.  Large governments allow the government to be more proactive in establishing and enforcing appropriate regulations, leading to a balanced, thriving economy where all interests are treated fairly. Without this oversight, exploitation soon creeps in.    The logic screams at you. The reduction of taxes (particularly on the rich and corporations, those who benefit the most and can pay the most), together with the reduction of regulations and a small government, are counterintuitive in serving the majority. It can’t be done.  All these actions favour financial capital (the rich) at the expense of the majority. None of these ideas serve the other three primary capitals; they cause them serious harm.  Human capital: Real decline in incomes, work conditions, job security. Natural capital: Massive environmental degradation, pollution, global warming. Common capital:  Huge reduction in common capital investment resulting in a steep decline in the quality of life for the average person and making trading conditions less favourable for businesses.  Clearly, there was never any intention to serve the majority. The promise they made about favourable outcomes was to hoodwink the majority into believing that it was possible to deliver for all when, in reality, the odds were unfavourably stacked against them.   If a different outcome was difficult to predict at the time (which it was not), it’s certainly not difficult to identify now, after forty years of atrocious economic results.  Outcomes prove free market policies to be a fraud. So, let’s be clear: the genesis of Friedman’s suggestion was that all other capitals forgo any benefits to allow financial capital to grow the economy, from which all will be repaid with interest. Really – how remarkable. If this were the case, I would not be writing this article; we would all be far better off, but the reality is entirely different.  The rich used the benefits of free market policies to make themselves richer and have repeated the process yearly for over forty years.  Look at the state of our three other primary capitals – all, without exception, considerably worse off over the past four decades. This cannot be denied unless you live under a rock in some remote desert.  So, neither in intent nor action has free markets proved that it is remotely capable of performing in the interest of the majority. It is fundamentally inept for the job. Therefore, those who follow and promote this economic policy can be classified as ENEMIES OF THE STATE committing a political crime against the state.  That includes most of our politicians. When they claim cutting taxes (particularly on the rich and corporations) and reducing government spending is in your interests, they are either delusional or an enemy of the state by serving their rich masters instead of the majority.   I appreciate that this simplifies a complex issue, but unless the fundamentals of an economic policy can prove that it serves the majority, what are we doing in following it?   You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/

0 Think the economy is working for you?

• Society
• by Adrian Mark Dore
• 19-11-2023

I’m sure you are under no misapprehension that the economy is working for you.  Like so many, you’re feeling the squeeze and watching your quality of life tumble. You are probably equally concerned about our deteriorating environment.  If these socioeconomic and environmental problems concern you, read this article; otherwise, don’t bother.  Is there a common denominator underlying the cause of these problems, and if so, what?  Man’s economic activities are directly linked to our economic, social, and environmental outcomes. That means economic activity, or our economy, lies at the heart of our problems.  However, in a democracy, the economy is supposed to serve the majority, which by inference means it must also serve the environment upon which our survival depends.  Therefore, theoretically, in a democracy, the economy should not lead to socioeconomic or environmental problems. However, as these socioeconomic and environmental problems are a reality, we can conclude our economy is dysfunctional. The economy is not working as it should.  But how in a democracy can this happen, as the economy is an instrument of government intended to serve majority needs?  Because the government has been corrupted by a tiny wealthy minority, leading to our economy's corruption.  So, our socioeconomic and environmental problems are a democratic problem.  This makes it your problem because a democratic problem requires a democratic response. It needs your voice and vote to reverse this corruption.  So, what do you need to do?  The extent of economic corruption is vast, covering the entire economy. However, the biggest change we can make is to change our economic policies from supporting free markets to implementing social market policies.  Social market policies recognise the importance of balancing market (business) and social needs. Free market policies believe in supporting markets over society.  Stop and consider just how fundamentally stupid such an approach is. How can you grow an economy by weakening the society which supports it? Neither can you grow business (the economy), which is necessary to support society, without considering business interests. Thus, a balanced approach is needed, not an imbalanced one-sided policy.  So, free market policies are fundamentally bereft of any logic.  These are the policies they espouse: - 1. Reduce taxes, particularly on the rich and corporations. 2. Reduce government regulations and oversight. 3. Reduce the size of government and services offered, privatising most.  Consider this to understand how these principles are fundamentally wrong and go against all we know and understand about business and society.  To run a business successfully requires four primary capitals (or resources.) They are financial, human, natural and common capital. Three of these capitals are self-explanatory. Only common capital needs a little clarification.  Common capital represents the resources the government has invested on our behalf in infrastructure and services. These resources enrich and make our lives easier. Common capital investment is what distinguishes a developed from a developing economy. Living in a developing economy is harder for individuals and businesses.  The money to invest in common capital comes from taxes. So, reducing taxes on the wealthy and corporations, those who benefit the most from our society and who can contribute the most, makes no sense as we are directly weakening common capital, which makes us strong.  Reducing government regulations and oversight leaves people vulnerable to exploitation by the rich and powerful. Look at what deregulation did in the banking sector. It led to the 2008 financial crisis. We need regulation and oversight for a fair and balanced society.  Reducing the services governments provide to their citizens, such as health, education, unemployment benefits, social services, policing, and more, leaves a weaker society and, thus, a weaker economy.  There is no logical reason to implement any of the aforementioned free market policies. In fact, we should be doing the complete opposite.  Furthermore, neoliberals fight to weaken (or destroy) labour unions so they can keep wages low, maintain unfavourable work conditions and offer poor job security. So, human capital suffers under free market policies but no better than natural capital. Ask yourself – are we facing an environmental crisis or not? All thanks to poor economic choices (namely, the adverse effects of free market policies on the environment.)  Free market policies harm three of our four primary capitals, namely - human, natural and common capital. It only serves financial capital needs, which is absurd. Over four decades ago, we were told that by leaving more money in the hands of the rich (through the aforementioned absurd free market policies), they would invest it wisely. This would benefit us all. Well – the proof of the pudding is in the eating; we haven’t benefited in the slightest. In fact, the quality of life for the majority has seriously declined because this is all a lie. Only the rich have benefited. Have we not learnt a thing over the past four decades – free market policies are bereft of all logic.  It's time to kick free markets out of the field of play so we will never be plagued by it in the future.  Unfortunately, proof that we have learnt nothing over the past four decades comes from delusional people like Liz Truss (Britain’s most spectacular failure as a Prime Minister, lasting only 47 days on the job), who is still pushing failed free market policies. Regrettably, she remains (for the time being) as a  Member of Parliament.  She had a “Growth Commission” set up to investigate how they could improve Britain’s growth potential. These are some of the brain-dead suggestions they came up with in November 2023. Ripping up red tape. (Fewer regulations.) Reducing corporation tax from 25% to 15%. Limiting top income tax rates but adjusting rates to bring more mid-range earners into the top brackets. Effectively shifting the tax burden onto the middle class. Reducing paid annual leave. Reducing the notice period for redundancy dismissal. Reducing severance pay for redundancy dismissal. Reducing restrictions on overtime work. Freezing and limiting the growth of the minimum wage. Limiting sick pay.  This is just more of the same free market bullshit intended to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Yet this is what is promised.  “The Commission insisted implementing all its measures would deliver 23% more growth by 2043 - handing every Briton £11,300 or each household £26,000. Failing to follow its plan would, the Commission suggested, mean GDP will hover at 1% for the next 20 years.”  This is the same bullshit fed us four decades ago and where has it got us. We are all worse off. How can they be so audacious as to sprout such outdated, ridiculous rubbish and claim it’s the only solution?  How can you grow an economy by weakening three of our four primary capitals? You can't. You weaken it as they have proved year on year over four decades. They overlook simple logic. When you pay decent wages and look after society, you have a strong, vibrant economy from which we all benefit.  Remember, free market policies are known by two other synonyms – Economic Apartheid and Neo-feudalism – for good reason. It also leads to the growth of the rentier economy and globalisation, both unfavourable outcomes for the majority. So, if you want to change things, demand we scrap free market policies and replace them with social market policies, and do it now. Remove politicians of the same ilk as Liz Truss at your earliest opportunity. You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/

0 Our enemy targets five areas of our economy.

• Society
• by Adrian Mark Dore
• 13-11-2023

In my previous article, we saw how a tiny minority is capable of corrupting our democracy.  How this corruption involves a three-pronged attack on government, business, and civil society.  How they have effectively silenced all logical and legitimate protest, labelling it as  “absurd nonsense and ignorance.” How people fear challenging the establishment for the sake of their careers, despite knowing things are wrong.  How they have hidden what they have done so nobody blames them, accepting the growth in economic and social inequality and environmental degradation as normal or the "inevitabilities of modern life." All grossly wrong and nothing more than blatant lies.  In my first article, we looked at how they have been able to corrupt our democracy. In this article, we look at what they have corrupted.  In truth, they have corrupted every facet of the economy, but to simplify things, we will look at the five major components affected, not the minutiae of their vast corruption: that’s material enough for many books.  ECONOMIC POLICY.  Their first task or objective is to control the government's economic policy. This enables them to control the broad framework of the economy. To answer critical issues like who the economy should serve. Should it serve society or markets? This, in turn, allows them to answer other critical questions, such as levels of taxation, regulations and the extent to which the government plays a role in supporting their citizens.  A democratically responsible government would try to balance the needs of society and markets. The pendulum may swing either way, depending on current circumstances. However, there would be limits as to how far it swings and for how long, always returning to a point of equilibrium where both parties are treated equally. As we do not have a democratically responsible government, but rather one that has been corrupted by the wealthy minority, they implement policies which serve the wealthy. They implement free market policies which favour markets exclusively at the expense of society and the environment.  The idea behind free market economics is to:- 1)  Lower taxes, particularly on corporations and the rich. 2)  Have fewer business regulations and less oversight. 3)  Run small governments, privatising most of their services.  The purported logic behind these ideas is that businesses will make greater profits and have more freedom to operate, which will grow the economy for all.  Such hare-brained logic may work in Utopia, where everybody is perfect, but unfortunately, in the real world, this is nothing but gobbledygook stupidity. The only thing they got right is that businesses make more profit, but to assume this will lead to economic growth, which benefits all, has no foundation whatsoever. In fact, it has led to the growth of two undesirable facets of our economy, which directly hurt the majority - the Rentier Economy and Globalisation.  So, free market economic policies on their own weaken the majority, let alone give rise to two other obnoxious phenomena harmful to the majority. We should be clear on why free markets are harmful to the majority as well as businesses.  Businesses form the basic building blocks of our economy. They are run in accordance with Milton Friedman's “Shareholder Theory”, which clearly states the purpose of business is to serve shareholder (financial) interests exclusively. How profoundly ignorant is such a belief? It's as stupid as saying man needs only air to survive, ignoring all the other critical things needed. Businesses need more than just financial capital to survive. They need four primary capitals or resources. These are financial, human, natural and common capital. Common capital is the most overlooked because acknowledging it runs contrary to free market (neoliberal) dogma. It destroys their claims that low taxes, small government, and few regulations benefit the economy.  Common capital is what the government invests on our behalf in common assets, such as infrastructure and services. We all use them, including business. Without these investments or limited investments, makes life much harder for you and me, as well as for business. The higher these investments, the easier everybody’s life becomes. The stronger our society and economy. This investment in common capital distinguishes developed from developing economies. Developing economies have low common capital investment, and life for citizens and businesses is much tougher.  So, given this simple fact, how can lower taxes on the highest earners, fewer regulations, and smaller governments, all of which go towards destroying common capital, benefit anybody over the long term? They don’t.  Free markets directly and adversely affect three of our four primary capitals, namely human, natural, and common capital. It’s a shameful disgrace. For this reason, free markets (aka economic apartheid or neo-feudalism) and their two offspring, the Rentier Economy (aka Bloodsucker Economy) and Globalisation (aka Gobbelisation,) gobbling up domestic manufacturing in favour of foreign manufacturers are collectively referred to as THE TRIAD OF EVIL.  MEASUREMENT STANDARDS. The next important thing for them to control is our measurement standards.  What we measure is what we manage. What we don't measure, we don't manage.  A democratically responsible government would measure and manage what is important to its citizens - their quality of life.  A corrupted government serving the needs of the wealthy only focuses on financial capital. Our micro, or business measurement standard and macro, or economic measures, are based on financial measures alone.  To say they are inappropriate and inadequate is wrong - they are highly misleading.  Profits do not indicate a business’s well-being, nor are GDP figures an indication of a citizen's well-being. In fact, they are highly misleading. The economy has grown over the past few decades, yet the quality of life for the average person has been in rapid decline.  Of course, changing our measurement standards to reflect the interests of all stakeholders would weaken the interests of financial capital and thus be rejected by the rich.  However, a democratically responsible government needs these measures to hold businesses and themselves accountable for how they use precious resources. The rich are only interested in extracting optimum benefits for themselves, nothing else. Consequently, we are led by the nose through these meaningless measurement standards, which hide the horrible truth of serious damage to three of our four primary capitals - human, natural and common capital.  BANKING SECTOR.  Bankers used to be revered stalwarts of society. Honest, trustworthy doyens of society. Not anymore. Today, they epitomise the worst in society - greedy, selfish people above the law because of their wealth and influence. They commit crimes on a gigantic scale yet are not held to account. Petty criminals face more censure than they do.  What has caused them to transition from good to bad so quickly? The corrupting influence of neoliberalism. The removal of regulations, restrictions and oversight has turned the good into the bad and ugly overnight.  By manipulating banking rules and regulations, they have ensured capital flows easily, opening up great opportunities for them across the economy. Fewer regulations and oversight allow them to act more recklessly and dishonestly. The banking sector is already the supremo in the renter economy, but further relaxation of regulations and the adverse effects of free market policies on the majority (i.e. a real decline in incomes and job security) has enabled them to create and exploit even more despicable opportunities, ensuring they vacuum up every crumb from the hard-pressed majority.  Allowing capital to flow freely has been critically important to the wealthy in optimising globalisation opportunities. Without this financial liberalisation, globalisation would still be a dream for them, rather than the nightmare it is for the majority.  INVESTMENT SECTOR.  I recently wrote an article titled A bad investment culture just got worse. | by Adrian Mark Dore | Oct, 2023 | Medium. This article shows how the wealthy have changed the investment sector. How it has been corrupted to serve them and not the majority. It has been so badly corrupted it no longer resembles any of the fundamentals of investment. Again, they have corrupted an entire sector of the economy to serve their needs rather than those of the majority, contrary to the dictates of democracy, just as they have corrupted the banking sector.  DRIVING CONSUMERISM.  We overconsume, living in a throwaway society. This is by design. We are encouraged and urged to consume as much as we can. We could live differently and comfortably, where we consume far less without adversely affecting our quality of life. It would be far more sustainable and less environmentally harmful. However, such an approach would mean the wealthy make far less profit from us, and that’s not part of their plan.  Money and profit for the wealthy over sustainability, pollution, and environmental degradation are the choices made for us by the wealthy because that makes them the most money. And you thought you lived in a democracy where the majority decide what's best. I’m afraid not.  They corrupt society through the media they own. They create a society of self-interest and overindulgence. More lies and deceit to mislead us and put us on a path of self-destruction so they can make an extra buck from us. Disgusting.  In my next article in this series, I look at what we must do to reverse the harmful corruption inflicted upon us. You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/

0 Examining the tactics of our enemy.

• Society
• by Adrian Mark Dore
• 07-11-2023

What enemy and what tactics? Our enemy is an internal one. One hellbent on destroying our democracy. Returning us to a life of serfdom and misery. A feudal system where a few masters own all, including you and all your possessions.  In a democracy, the economy is supposed to serve the needs of the majority.  This includes all policies, practices, procedures, and systems.  This objective is clear enough, but not everybody agrees with it.  Those who disagree wish to pursue their own self-interests.  Interests which do not align with those of the majority.  But how in a democracy do people go about implementing policies, practices, procedures, and systems which do not serve majority needs?  Let’s be clear: focusing on majority needs does not mean neglecting the minority. However, there is a big difference when those minority needs are contrary to those of the majority, weakening them in favour of a tiny minority.  So, how in a democracy does a tiny minority implement policies detrimental to the majority?  It can only be done in an underhand way through manipulation, exploitation, extortion, and other criminal activities. These activities fall under the heading of Any action which deliberately and knowingly corrupts the course of democracy by implementing policies, practices, procedures, and systems contrary to the interests of the majority is a form of corruption.  This is a new form of economic corruption. To change policies, practices, procedures, and systems across the entire economy to serve the needs of a tiny minority, contrary to democratic objectives.  This goes well beyond our current narrow definition of economic corruption, which is defined as the misuse of public resources for personal gain by individuals or groups. It typically involves illegal or unethical behaviour. This type of economic corruption is small and inconsequential when compared to the scale and extent of this new economic corruption.  For this new economic corruption to be successful, it needs to extend beyond government corruption to include the world of business and civil society.  This is necessary to limit enquiring minds from challenging the changes being introduced, which don’t make any democratic sense. To help them support and promote their lies, misleading information, and obfuscation necessary to implement blatantly anti-democratic policies, practices, procedures, and systems.  To get anti-democratic policies implemented in a democracy means they have to hide what they are doing from the majority in a clever but deceitful way. To lie to us, telling us what they are doing is in our best interests when it's not. To mislead us, provide partial information and hide critical facts. To make things appear complex and difficult when they are not. In other words, to apply every dirty trick in the book to deceive us.  They have done this so cleverly that many practices, procedures, and systems masquerade as “good business practice” while many others remain unobtrusive and unchallenged, yet deeply anti-social and undemocratic.  Let’s start by looking at how the rich have been able to corrupt our democracy and get our economy to work for them when they only represent a tiny percentage of the electorate.  They employ the following techniques/methods to influence government decisions unfairly and undemocratically. These are the corrupting influencers. 1. Lobbying. 2. Political Funding. 3. Revolving Door. 4. Revolving Door variants. 5. Cronyism. 6. Media. 7. Corruption. 8. Unfair Tax System. 9. Lack of Transparency. 10. Political Polarisation. 11. Biased Guidance. 12. Think Tanks / Campaign Groups. 13. Poor Oversight. 14. Poor Public Awareness. 15. Capture of regulatory bodies. 16. Capture of associations and institutes.  All of the above are used extensively and are highly effective in changing policies.  To implement them at scale requires great resources, which the rich have an abundant supply of. Their financial muscle overcompensates their tiny number. The problem with these corrupting influencers is that they are not illegal, but they can be used undemocratically. When deliberately used in an undemocratic manner to serve self-interests rather than those of the majority, they become illegal. However, it is extremely difficult to distinguish and prove the difference between legal and illegal intent. The dividing line is fine, like separating hero and coward or genius and fool. This provides the rich with the ideal cover. They can operate under the banner of legitimacy while acting illegally. As mentioned briefly earlier, these corrupting influencers are directed at government, business, and civil society.  The objectives for their three-pronged attack on democracy are as follows: - Government and quasi-government bodies - to influence policies and regulations and gain control over regulatory bodies. Business world – to control professional bodies, their associations, and institutions. This includes all professions associated with business, together with organisations like the Chamber of Business and other organisations representing business interests. Civil Society – to control academia and technical colleges, to influence future generations and indoctrinate them. They also establish pseudo “Think Tanks” supposedly dedicated to improving life for the majority but do nothing of the sort other than propagate neoliberal dogma. They should more correctly be referred to as warped “Propaganda Pods.” They want to eliminate all intelligent thought as their dogma is established on a shaky, unfounded hypothesis. Furthermore, the results of mismanaging our economy are becoming more apparent, and, therefore, it’s more difficult to hide and bullshit people. They need people to unwaveringly believe in their system – to see it as if it were a religious truth, not to be questioned. Take Margaret Thatcher's lack of wisdom – TINA (There is No Alternative) when much better alternatives were available. She lacked the capacity to see them, as do most politicians today who suffer from the same incapacity. Much of this is due to their myopic understanding, thanks to the corrupting influencers described above. Take recent comments made by Rishi Sunak (UK’s PM) – “Of course, I’m a conservative and want to cut taxes.”  Oh no - heaven forbid.  Let's be clear: in the post-World War II period, neoliberal “fathers” like Hayek, Friedman and other backward-looking neoliberals were thought of as ideological pariahs. They were regarded, quite simply, as ‘cranks’. Blamed for causing the Great Depression in the 1930s and the global conflict that followed. The success of state wartime planning further undermined them. Laissez-faire economics appeared to be ideologically bankrupt (which it is.)  Across Western Europe, millions of workers radicalised by the experience of total war demanded far-reaching social reforms in peacetime at the expense of big business and the wealthy. Socialist and Social Democratic parties swept to power as part of coalition governments or – as in Britain, Sweden, and Norway – as governments in their own right.  Threatened by powerful left-wing forces, the right had little choice but to abandon its traditional embrace of laissez-faire economics – which it did until, nearly three decades later, when a small group of ideologues seized an unmissable opportunity in the 1970s.  This opportunity was discontent with the current economic and political situation, which created a conducive environment for neoliberal ideas to gain traction. So, a small group of economists and policymakers associated with neoliberalism, including Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, formed the Mont Pélérin Society to promote neoliberalism. They seized upon what they saw as an unmissable opportunity to promote their economic and political ideology.  Since then, things have changed radically, and now, social market thinkers are seen as ‘cranks’. They are ostracised as backward Luddites. Laughed at for having outrageously stupid ideas such as increasing taxes on the rich and increasing the size of government. However, the last laugh will be with stupid fools like me.  In simple terms, social market policies are based on striking a balance between social and market needs, whereas free markets only consider the needs of the market (the rich.) What do you think works best for all - a balanced or imbalanced system? All natural systems work best when balanced. Imbalanced systems cause harm before crashing, taking most with them. Now, we have seen how a tiny minority can corrupt the course of democracy and get the economy to serve them; in Part II, I will explain what they have corrupted and how it’s hurting us all. You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/