asserts that the relationship between Puritan
theology and the economic and social context of the time led to the promotion
of a religion of despair (1991). Indeed, it is with the economic considerations, as
opposed to the atmosphere of asceticism, that it becomes easier to understand
the all-prevailing presence of thrift in Puritan thinking and living.
Puritan economic ethics were born of a powerful combination of individual
moral striving and a collective project of mutual aid and social reform, backed
by a robust religious and civil institutional context –not least
quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. (CWII: 6–7)
With hindsight, it is easy to see that this order was already disintegrating. A process of relative economic decline had set in. The dynamism of Britain’s mid-nineteenth-century industrial revolution had given way to much slower growth, even between 1873 and 1896 to what was known at the time as the ‘Great Depression’ (before this term later came to be more
’s conservative conclusions, it does so at the cost of amplifying an idealist elitism.
Re-reading Moore’s Principia Ethica in 1906 ‘convinced Maynard all over again that it was “the greatest work on philosophy ever written”’ (Skidelsky 1983 : 173). In 1938 Keynes reaffirms his mature adherence to it ‘fundamental intuitions’ (CWX: 444). His early ‘religion … remains nearer the truth than any other that I know … It was a purer, sweeter air by far than Freud cum Marx. It is still my religion under the surface’ (CWX: 442). This memoir has been questioned as an accurate
protecting –by political means –an infrastructure in which technology and tools
are useful first and foremost to create practical values’ (Illich, 1977:87–88).
Interestingly, Latouche makes the argument that the economy is a religion,
saying ‘when we say that … one should speak about a-growth the same way that
one speaks about atheism, it means precisely that; to become atheists of growth
and the economy’ (2010a:521). This is particularly interesting in historical context.
Worship of the economy now can usefully be compared to worship of God in
show up. Structural inequalities need systemic
change, change that filters through every level of the system,
otherwise we risk reproducing and deepening them. White and male
supremacy are not the only hierarchies embedded in our economies,
many of which are stratified along lines which include caste,
religion, tribe or nationality.
This structural focus does not absolve us of
child raising, or from dealing with crime, or from supporting
art or religion, or from political campaigning, for that matter. Rather, economics should be viewed as an aspect of any activity. From that point of view,
it should be clear that the problem of economic organisation and governance
is not simply about the production and distribution of commodities like
In any case, under standard circumstances, child care is presumed to be the
province of the child’s parents or extended family. At the same time, parents
or those in a parental role are presumed
terms of its affront to the king and established religion, a language uncongenial to Keynes. There is, however, a more serious argument about action and its consequences which Keynes would consistently endorse. Burke ( 1955 ) argues that current suffering cannot be justified by uncertain future gains. Contrasting the horrors of the French Revolution with Greek tragedy, Burke writes of ‘a principal actor weighing … in the scales hung in a shop of horrors – so much actual crime against so much contingent advantage’ (Burke 1955 : 92). Anticipating the arguments of
religions, and they sit in certain areas and they hold certain world views, and it's quite interesting how rigidly people stick to those … for example we have youth rates and we have a consultation every year with different organisations. And the National Union of Students are very critical of the youth rates, as a number of youth groups are. They say they're unfair and they say there's no evidence that young people are less productive and that this is just bias and prejudices against young people. So … our chief economist will just say; ‘this is absolute nonsense!’ And
Ariane Agunsoye, Michelle Groenewald, Danielle Guizzo, and Bruno Roberts- Dear
deprivation is correlated with a
racialised identity, caste, tribe or religion then certain groups in
society will be more excluded from accessing higher education.
In some countries, governments have increased fees
and/or reduced the level of financial support they offer in recent
years, making it more difficult for young people from historically
excluded backgrounds to attend