Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Caroline Lucas

Quote by Caroline Lucas

“Ultimately, the most powerful way to rebalance the interests of private owners and the common good is by shifting the focus towards taxes on wealth - that is, asking those who have accummulated substantial assets down the years (or with inherited wealth, down the centuries) to make a fairer contribution. The case is indisputable: since 2008, average earnings have hardly risen, while the amount of wealth held by the better-off has sky-rocketed. Clearly paying for shocks such as the 2008 crash or the Covid-19 pandemic should not fall solely on those dependent on their immediate income. A Land Value Tax could also play an important role: a policy that would be difficult to evade, and would tackle the vast windfall profits that come from the development of land. It's an idea that has long enjoyed support from all sides of the political spectrum, including Winston Churchill, as well as from economists as divergent as Milton Friedman, Adam Smith and J.K. Galbraith. Given its elegant simplicity and essential fairness, the fact that it has not been introduced in England is a case-book example of the landowners' ability to block reform.”

Quote by Caroline Lucas

Work

Another England: How to Reclaim Our National Story

Browse quotes and source details for this work. more

Author

Caroline Lucas
Caroline Lucas

Caroline Lucas is a British politician who served as a Member of the European Parliament. Born on December 9, 1960, she has dedicated her political career to environmental protection and social justice issues. more

You May Also Like

“Samuel Gregg: Smith’s experiments have also provided considerable evidence that, as he wrote in a 1994 paper, “economic agents can achieve efficient outcomes which are not part of their intention.” Many will recognize this as one of the central claims of The Wealth of Nations, the book written by Smith’s famous namesake two and a half centuries ago. Interestingly, Adam Smith’s argument was not one that Vernon Smith had been inclined to accept before beginning his experimental research. As the latter went on to say in his 1994 paper, fey outside of the Austrian and Chicago traditions believed it, circa 1956. Certainly, I was not primed to believe it, having been raised by a socialist mother, and further handicapped (in this regard) by a Harvard education.” Given, however, what his experiments revealed about what he called “the error in my thinking,” Smith changed his mind. Truth was what mattered—not ego or preexisting ideological commitments.”

“In his 2001 book, Economics as Religion, economist Robert Nelson recounted the ways in which economics came to operate in society with its own religion-like structure. Nelson argues that modern economics has operated in many ways as a secularized version of Protestant theology in which the primary evil is economics scarcity and in which deliverance from this evil (and the attainment of heaven on earth) will come through application of economic science to promote efficiency (and fairness) in production and distribution. In this worldview, economists, as technical advisors to governmental managers, serve as a new “scientific” priesthood effecting a secular salvation of human society through the application of constructivist reason, the sort of reasoning that seeks to deliberately design choices and institutions to generate what are perceived as “optimal” outcomes. Here, then, within the very discipline to which Vernon Smith has devoted his life’s work, there seems to be a persistent tendency if not to outright materialism then to a reduction of human rationality within constructivist constraints. As Smith acknowledges, “predominantly, both economists and psychologists are reluctant to allow that naive and unsophisticated agents can achieve socially optimal ends without a comprehensive understanding of the whole, as well as their individual parts, implemented by deliberate action. There is no magic.”

“Gregg: I notice you did not use the word greed in that answer. When many people hear “self-interest,” they think “greed”. So are you suggesting that a Smithian approach actually has nothing to do with greed at all when it comes to self-interest properly understood? Smith: It’s not a matter of greed. It’s a matter of, as Smith says, the individual being fitter than anyone else to take care of himself or herself in terms of knowing what he or she wants and in making judgments about that. And so, knowing that other people are also self-interested, I know what action I take would be hurtful to them. And then I take that into account. In other words, being self-interested is an input to our socializing process. There are many experimental economists and behavioral economists who want to explain that with a utility function so that if I am other-regarding, it’s because I am taking into account your reward as well as mine. Adam Smith says no. Adam Smith is right. It is not in the utility function. That’s the difference between an emphasis on outcomes and process.”

“The best guide I know of is political economist Thomas Ferguson’s “investment theory of politics,” mentioned above, the thesis that to a good first approximation, we can understand elections to be occasions in which groups of investors coalesce to control the state, a very good predictor of policy over a long period, as he shows. For 2008, we would therefore anticipate that the interests of the financial industries, the major funders (who preferred Obama to McCain), would be “most peculiarly attended to” by government policy, in accord with Adam Smith’s maxim. And so we find.”