When it comes to the end of work as we know it, ableism is surely at the core of this flawed perspective, writes Bella Milroy. Plus Patrick O’Sullivan says local communities must become self-reliant
Want to radically rethink the concept of work? Start talking to disabled people. As vitally important as the case for a universal basic income is, as Larry Elliott observes (Robots will take our jobs. We’d better plan now, before it’s too late, 1 February), a debate that focuses solely on the concept of paid work will only take us so far, and fails to acknowledge the millions of disabled people, as well as millions of carers, who go unpaid for the work they do every day.
When it comes to the end of work as we know it, ableism is surely at the core of this flawed perspective. Disabled people have been redefining the idea of what it means to work, to create, to find purpose and to contribute to society since the dawn of time, the majority of which goes unpaid.
Democracies will fall under the spell of populists like Donald Trump if they fail to deal with the fallout of globalisation
The rich, as F Scott Fitzgerald noted, “are different from you and me”. Their wealth, he wrote, makes them “cynical where we are trustful” and their affluence makes them think they are “better than we are”. These words ring truest among the billionaires and corporate executives flocking to the Swiss ski resort of Davos this week. The highs recorded by stockmarkets, the tremendous monopoly power of tech titans and spikes in commodity prices reassure the rich cosmocratic class that they have weathered the storm of the financial crisis. The moguls can talk safely about inequality and poverty. But they will do little about it because they do not think their best interests are aligned with citizens. This is a mistake of historic proportions.
Since 2015, Oxfam calculates, the richest 1% have owned more wealth than the rest of the planet. The very wealthy think they no longer share a common fate with the poor. Whatever the warm words at Davos, no company bosses will put their hands up to the fact they play one country against another in order to avoid taxes; no firm will be honest about their attempts to stymie trade unions or about how they lobby against government regulation on labour, environment or privacy that tilts the balance of power away from them and towards the public. The largest western corporations and banks now roam the globe freely. As memories of the financial crisis recede, they are going back to the myth that they are no longer dependent on national publics or governments. Lobbyists for the corporate world claim that markets are on autopilot, that government is a nuisance best avoided.
A conciliatory speech would alienate his base; a repudiation of Nafta would create shockwaves. Either way, this is a significant moment
The annual meeting of the World Economic Forum will come to a climax on Friday when Donald Trump becomes the first US president since Bill Clinton to address the Davos talkfest.
To say that Trump’s lunchtime speech is eagerly awaited is an understatement. Excitement has been building ever since the White House announced that the president would join Emmanuel Macron, Theresa May and Narendra Modi at this year’s event.
Tom Kibasi on proposals for a ‘digital commons’ and increasing worker ownership, Andy Chapman on Common Good Balance Sheets, and Peter Taylor-Gooby on better education, more training and decent cheap childcare
In introducing his welcome new series on economic alternatives, Aditya Chakrabortty rightly castigates those who continue to promote the failed economic ideas of the past (It’s time to take on the zombies, 17 January). But he underestimates the extent to which a vibrant network of thinktanks, academics, campaigning and community organisations are now “rethinking capitalism” in pursuit of a society fit for the future.
Here at IPPR we are working on everything from new approaches to macroeconomic policy to the proper taxation of wealth, from proposals for a “digital commons” to devolved economic governance, from increasing worker ownership to a new framework for environmental policy.
An idea whose time has come: Over the holiday season the Guardian is examining themes that have emerged to give shape to 2018. Today we look at intangible economies
No country is governed by a Capitalist party, although there is no shortage of capitalism on the planet. There have been Socialist parties for socialism, Liberal parties for liberalism and Communist parties for communism. Yet acolytes of the most powerful model of all are reluctant to brand themselves with its name. One reason is that the word “capitalism” was popularised by its critics. The most common usage is pejorative, denoting a system characterised by exploitation of workers by bosses. Another reason is that there are too many kinds of capitalism in practice for any single party to claim ownership of the idea. In the west the pendulum swung between more liberal and dirigiste modes, while the underlying structure stayed remarkably stable. But that doesn’t make it permanent. Already a digital revolution has transformed the way business is done. What if it is changing the nature of capitalism itself?
The rise of a handful of vast corporate powerhouses whose business models have no instructive precedent from the analogue-era forces a reappraisal of the way capitalist economies work. The top seven highest valued companies in the world are all in the technology sector. Titans such as Alphabet (which owns Google) and Facebook specialise in products that do not exist in three-dimensional space. Apple and Amazon sell real-world objects as well as concepts, but their fortunes and market dominance have been built on nebulous concepts – models, brands and algorithms.
Trade deals were hammered out in secret by multinationals at the expense of workers and citizens. Benefits must be shared if the global economy is to work
Fifteen years ago, I published Globalisation and Its Discontents, a book that sought to explain why there was so much dissatisfaction with globalisation within the developing countries. Quite simply, many believed that the system was rigged against them, and global trade agreements were singled out for being particularly unfair.
Now discontent with globalisation has fuelled a wave of populism in the US and other advanced economies, led by politicians who claim that the system is unfair to their countries. In the US, President Donald Trump insists that America’s trade negotiators were snookered by those from Mexico and China.
Related: Globalisation is dented but not doomed
Related: Business Today: sign up for a morning shot of financial news
Related: Joseph Stiglitz: ‘Trump has fascist tendencies’
Social protections can best be upheld through international cooperation. Labour should clearly back the single market and the customs union
British politics is polarised on nearly every axis, so it is strange how little conflict there is between Labour and the Conservatives on the biggest issue: the terms of departure from the EU. Jeremy Corbyn’s challenges to Theresa May over Brexit negotiations at prime minister’s questions last week felt remarkable because he so rarely opens battle on that front. Labour has not obstructed Tory legislation enabling the very hardest of Brexits. The frontbench say they would pursue a different model, putting “jobs first”. But whips have instructed Labour MPs to sit on their hands as the Tory agenda is enacted.
Mr Corbyn’s views in the area are vague, except to insist that for democracy’s sake, the referendum verdict must be honoured. That is a sensible starting point for the leader of a national party, especially one that represents many areas that voted leave. But ending EU membership leaves a spectrum of options, notably in the question of the single market and customs union. The Tories are dedicated to rupture from both; Labour equivocates.
The economist and and author of Globalisation and its Discontents talks to the Guardian’s Larry Elliott about why he considers Donald Trump unfit to be US president. He says stagnant incomes, the opioid crisis and falling life expectancies all pointed towards a political problem in the US but no one imagined it leading to a Trump presidency