Towards an Alternative Narrative

While it may not be easy to forecast the precise tweaking of taxes and government expenditure that will be announced at the next budget, the reporting of it is almost certainly will concentrate in these general areas (if past reporting is anything to go by):

1. The recent growth in the country's economy expressed in terms of GDP

2. How the budget will affect the individual as seen from the perspective of that individual. (The shopkeeper, the pensioner, the taxi driver, the small business person or the employee in a large exporting sector are all likely candidates to be interviewed)

3. The expected changes in growth as a result of the tweaking made in the budget.

There are assumptions made, and hidden messages that when revealed, explain our collective thinking, acceptance and maintenance of an economic system that needs further examination.

This in essence is (or should be) a time to consider how well our country is progressing and to re-evaluate this progress in terms of our goals, values and priorities expressed by the political system the country has chosen. The way the budget is reported gives us good insight into how our economic system works or is perceived to work.  The adequacy and rationality of this needs to be considered. There are assumptions made, and hidden messages that when revealed, explain our collective thinking, acceptance and maintenance of flaws in the system.

1 The recent growth:

It goes without saying that if GDP is not rising adequately or is falling, then this would be considered bad news, and if the economy is growing it would be good news.

However when this apparently obvious assumption is made, that doesn’t need to be explicitly stated, we need to look deeper.

1. The assumption of whether or not this growth is beneficial has generally been made indiscriminately. It implies we accept our economy to grow without the need to prioritize our goals. Generally we do not know if this growth has come from building adequate housing, providing enough food and water supplies, exporting weapons, production of throwaway goods, increased excessive purchasing of food etc.

b). Through compartmentalized thinking it assumes that issues such as reducing food waste or individual’s reducing their carbon footprint has not been taking too seriously by too many people. The previous or the next topic that is reported is just as easy to consider these issues without any connection or contradiction being made apparent.

c). It implies we will all be better off if GDP grows. In some countries that have good governance this may be the case, but to assume this is the case in general is over-optimistic.

d). It assumes that we have an economic system that must grow indefinitely; that we must produce more goods indiscriminately; throwaway, wasteful, destructive or otherwise, than we did the previous year and that this will continually year on year indefinitely. It is assumed that it is reasonable for each country in the world to have this aim forever.

It is hard to imagine that we have come to accept these hidden messages without the need to be stated. If they were stated explicitly perhaps more of us would stop and question this irrationality.

2. Assessing policy from the viewpoint of the individual.

It is assumed, at an individual level, we all consider how good or otherwise policies are in terms of our own short term financial gain or loss.

It seems in every case the shopkeeper will describe how it will financially affect the shopkeeper. The pensioner will describe how it will financially affect the pensioner etc. Perhaps this was the way questions were asked pre-recording, or the interviews were selected post-recording. The messages however are what we have come to expect without question:

a) It is assumed, at an individual level, we all consider how good or otherwise policies are in terms of our own short term financial gain or loss

b) It is assumed, at a country level, we can evaluate policies by adding up or averaging these individual assessments.

This in effect implies we don’t not function as a society and is an example of a more general fallacy: - The fallacy of composition. “when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).” A tragedy of the commons type of situation is sometimes regarded as inevitable. It is of course not inevitable in any specific case but it can be if one makes this fallacy (of composition) as in the hidden messages on this aspect of budget reporting.  Thankfully, for example, many fishermen are aware of the need for regulation to prevent collapse of the fish stocks. Unfortunately some are naive enough to believe that it would be a good thing if catches were not to be regulated because then they alone would reap the benefits. In the case of the budget we need also to consider the social and environmental consequences that are not apparent in the sum of everyone’s perceived individual gain.

3. The expected effect on growth as a result of the budget.

This will be stated with confidence but yet it is not based on hard science; neither is it necessarily based on mathematical certainty. This is based on economics that is a social science that involves how it is perceived that people will respond to price or tax changes. A less rational society may respond more dramatically to price changes but also a more enlightened society may respond quite differently.

The method by which the budget is reported with its hidden messages assumes a society with a narrow set of values and hence believes confident predictions can be made on how the economy will change.

An alternative narrative.

We fear that economic systems may collapse but yet we prolong a system that will lead to its ultimate collapse unless, of course, it is changed.(A future post will develop this).

We need to face up to the fact that we need prioritized beneficial growth. (A future post will develop this).

Next: Speeding up the Transition to Electric Vehicles.