Podcast appearances and mentions of edward skidelsky

My guest today is Rowena Birch, an Olympic and European judo champion. Rowena is also the current president of the British Judo Association. Outside of judo, Rowena has coached at elite levels across many sporting disciplines and corporate leadership. She has retrained as a financial advisor and now runs her own business. Rowena talks about how she coped with not being selected for the Barcelona Olympic games by prioritising her training and reorganising her life to maximise her focus. Self Belief and reflective self-discovery. Being in the right place and loving the sport is vitally important, as is knowing that just because you don't get instant results doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong.  The mindset of enjoying the journey. The danger of over-focusing on results instead of the process. Keeping going relies on finding ways to enjoy what you are doing. After Competition. Using the skills learned from the experience of competitive sport and applying them to coaching and revelling in an environment of learning - creating and developing new skills. Letting go of an elite sporting persona and finding a new place in the world of judo after the elite competitions. - Adjusting techniques to a new reality and accepting that your body and circumstances have changed.   Core Identity - The importance of being part of the judo community, how the core values  of honesty, integrity, courage and respect have shaped Rowena's identity embuing a passion for learning and self-development. Starting new challenges   Using the tools of being an athlete to embrace new challenges and learn new skills. Breaking new tasks into logical, systematic pieces.   References You can find out about Rowena's business here: https://partnership.sjp.co.uk/partner/goldenbirchesfinancialplanning.I chose Rowena's book: How Much is Enough: Money and the Good Life by Edward Skidelsky and Robert Skidelsky.

Show notes:In this episode I pose the question: “How Much is Enough?”  I don't believe anyone could answer the question for you so today I will pose other questions that help to clarify what's important to you and to know what you really want. Sources and Citations: ( 3 Quarks Daily. The Conflict Between Competition And LeisurePOSTED ON MONDAY, APR 14, 2014 1:10AM BY EMRYS WESTACOTT by Emrys WestacottThe social-competition treadmill…the hedonic treadmill  are discussed on p. 102 of Jon Rausch,  The Happiness Curve. “How Much Is Enough?” Money and the Good Life (Other Press, 2012), Robert and Edward Skidelsky 

Saya membahas buku How Much is Enough karya Robert dan Edward Skidelsky. Buku ini membahas soal berapa banyak yang harus kita miliki untuk merasa cukup? Apa sih tujuan kita mencari uang? Tentu saja, setiap orang punya tujuan yang berbeda. Namun, mayoritas dari kita pasti sepakat kalau tujuan utamanya adalah untuk menjalani hidup yang baik. Hidup ini hanya bisa dicapai apabila kita tahu rasanya cukup, berhenti melakukan pengejaran keinginan yang tiada habisnya, dan mulai menikmati hidup.

While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. PS: If you enjoy listening instead of reading, we have this edition available as an audio narration on all podcasting platforms courtesy the good folks at Ad-Auris. If you have any feedback, please send it to us.📣📣📣 Announcement: Admissions are now open for the summer cohort of Takshashila Institution’s 12-week Graduate Certificate Programme in Public Policy. Visit takshashila.org.in/courses to find out more.  Global Policy Watch: A Short History Of The Breitbart DoctrineBringing an Indian perspective to burning global issues- RSJIn edition #117 where we covered the resignation of Pratap Bhanu Mehta, we had a polemic by Edward Skidelsky as suggested reading in our homework section. We specifically quoted this line:“The ‘woke’ left is currently pursuing this goal by way of a Gramscian “long march through the institutions” — a progressive co-option of the schools, universities, state bureaucracies and big corporations.”  What’s this ‘Gramscian long march’ that’s mentioned here? That’s the first question for this post.Separately, I was drawn to a U.S. national survey done by Cato Institute last year on freedom of expression. The results weren’t surprising to me (including the stupid graph that I have copied below from their site):“Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves. Nearly 6 in 10 (58%) of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe. However, centrist liberals feel differently. A slim majority (52%) of liberals feel they have to self‐​censor, as do 64% of moderates, and 77% of conservatives. This demonstrates that political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank.”I take the ‘strong liberal’ in the US to be the progressive wing of the Democratic party. They are the ‘woke’ Skidelsky was referring to in his article. There’s no equivalent survey of this kind in India. But I would venture to suggest the “strong liberals” in India might not poll as well on speaking their minds nor would the Indian conservatives be as reticent as their American counterparts in today’s times. Based on incidents like P.B. Mehta’s resignation that seem to have become more frequent in recent years and the ‘chilling effect’ that follows, I would guess these percentages might just flip in India. Anyway, the percentages aren’t of interest to me. My interest is in the phenomenon. This dominance of one side that makes the other side self-censor themselves. What explains this? That’s the second question for this post.That Old Chestnut: The Breitbart DoctrineBoth these questions - on Gramscian long march and on self-censorship - bring me to the oft-repeated Breitbart doctrine:“Politics is downstream of culture.”That is, change the culture and sooner, politics will change. Now you’d think this was an insight that galvanised the American conservative right following the Obama takeover of the establishment. It was what got Trump into the White House with Steve Bannon in tow. That this was part of the right-wing toolkit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The left was likely the originator of the idea that culture influences politics. To understand this better, we will go through a short history of ‘manufacture of consent’ and ‘cultural hegemony’. Knowing it will help address the two questions raised at the start of this post as well. Manufacture Of ConsentThe term ‘manufacture of consent’ first appeared in Walter Lippman’s book ‘Public Opinion’ (1922). For Lippman, the world was too complex for an ordinary individual to comprehend. In order to make sense of it, people carried a mental image of the world inside their heads. These pictures were what drove groups or individuals to act in society in the name of Public Opinion. A strong democracy, therefore, needs institutions and media that help in creating the most accurate interpretations of the world in the minds of the people. But this isn’t easy. Lippman was worried democracy relied on something so irrational as a public opinion that takes shape in the minds of poorly informed and easily manipulated people. For Lippman, policymakers and experts should use narratives for ‘manufacture of consent’ among people which enables public opinion to be channelled in a manner that’s consistent with what’s good for society. Lippman believed persuasion and the knowledge of how to create consent through ‘propaganda’ will change politics in the age of mass media. As he wrote:“A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power. Within the life of the generation now in control of affairs, persuasion has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government. None of us begins to understand the consequences, but it is no daring prophecy to say that the knowledge of how to create consent will alter every political calculation and modify every political premise. Under the impact of propaganda, not necessarily in the sinister meaning of the word alone, the old constants of our thinking have become variables.” Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in their book ‘Manufacturing Consent’ (1988) picked up this idea to argue media outlets are “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function.” Market forces and an entrenched establishment control the mass media which manipulates public opinion by revealing only half-truths and distorted facts that serve their interests. It manufactures consent through propaganda while keeping the ill-informed public in thrall with distractions and entertainment. Chomsky has since argued this control of mass culture through media and institutions and the ‘manufacture of consent’ is essential to the survival of capitalism.Gramsci And Cultural HegemonyWhile Lippman was writing about the need for the ‘manufacture of consent’ using culture in a capitalist democracy like America, Antonio Gramsci, an Italian neo-Marxist was thinking on similar lines in a prison in Mussolini’s Italy. Gramsci started with a simple question. Why didn’t the working class living in an oppressive regime (anything that’s non-Marxist was oppressive in his view) revolt more often when they could see clearly how badly the economic balance was tilted against them? Why didn’t the exploited rise in revolt more often?Gramsci argued a capitalist state had two overlapping spheres that helped it to thrive. There was the ‘political society’ that ruled through coercion and control of means of production which was visible to all. But there was also the ‘civil society’ that ruled through consent and control of minds. The civil society was the public sphere of ideas and beliefs that were shaped through the church, media or universities. To him, the capitalist state was successful in ‘manufacturing consent’ among people through the ‘cultural hegemony’ it set up through its control of the public sphere. People living in such societies didn’t question their position or their exploitation because they thought this was the ‘natural state’ of existence. The cultural hegemony was so complete and overpowering that there could hardly be any mobilisation of people against the ‘political society’ which ruled through coercion. The minds of the people were brainwashed through propaganda. Gramsci, therefore, concluded that for the struggle (or revolution) to take over means of production to even begin, the people will have to win the war over cultural hegemony. He used the WW1 terms that were in vogue then. For the war of manoeuvre (that is a direct attack over the enemy) to be successful, it has to be preceded by the war of position (digging trenches and cutting off enemy lines etc). The people will have to win the war of ideas and beliefs by creating their own cultural hegemony and taking over the public sphere through control of religious institutions, media and universities. This is the ‘Gramscian march’ that Skidelsky referred to in his article.This was a far-reaching idea about how the nature of power had changed in a world where universities and mass media shaped people’s thinking. The power of engineering consent using culture is the first step to launch a successful attack over an existing power structure. While Garmsci used neo-Marxian terms to expound his ideas, the broader implications of his argument were clear. In short: establishing cultural hegemony is the first step to winning the minds and eventually, the votes of people (we are talking of democracy here). Over time, this hegemony in the public sphere will earn you the long-term consent of the people who will consider it their ‘natural state’. Self-censorship will follow as an outcome of this hegemony. That addresses the second question on why people self-censor themselves.Over a hundred years since Lippman first wrote about ‘manufacture of consent’, the idea that politics is downstream of culture has only acquired greater currency in a saturated media space that all of us inhabit now. The left and the right have both acquired the toolkits to fight this ‘war of position’ in various democracies around the world. In the US, it is ‘woke left’ on a supposed Gramscian march today. In India, I suspect, the shoe is on the other foot. But the march is definitely on.India Policy Watch: Mandal AgainInsights on burning policy issues in India- Pranay KotasthaneA Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is set to announce its judgment on the Maratha quota case. Amongst other issues, the court will decide on the question if state governments can breach the 50 per cent reservation ceiling. This 50 per cent limit comes from the Indra Sawhney judgment of 1993, which legally upheld the recommendations of the Mandal Committee Report. Legal issues aside, today’s political reality makes this judgment even more riveting. Perhaps all political parties appear to be in favour of going beyond this 50 per cent limit, although in different ways. The NDA government has already increased reservations to ~60 per cent in central-government jobs, central-government educational institutions, and private educational institutions through the 103rd constitutional amendment in 2019. The additional 10 per cent seats are now meant to be reserved for economically weaker sections (EWS) of citizens not already benefiting from reservation. In other words, this quota is for persons from non-SC, non-ST, non-OBC classes, as long as their earning is below a defined income threshold. On the other hand, many caste-based and one-caste-dominated political parties are in favour of breaching the 50 per cent ceiling in order to extend or increase quotas for their caste base. The gap between the court-prescribed ceiling and the political reality has become unsustainable. To use a Ravi Shastri phrase, “something’s gotta give”. Not to forget, that 50 per cent ceiling number itself is quite contrived. Read what the Indra Sawhney case judgment says:Just as every power must be exercised reasonably and fairly, the power conferred by Clause (4) of Article 16 should also be exercised in a fair manner and within reasonably limits - and what is more reasonable than to say that reservation under Clause (4) shall not exceed 50% of the appointments or posts, barring certain extra-ordinary situations as explained hereinafter. From this point of view, the 27% reservation provided by the impugned Memorandums in favour of backward classes is well within the reasonable limits. Together with reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it comes to a total of 49.5%. Beneath the legalese, observe the narrative power of numbers at play. Any measured phenomenon creates implicit norms of what is “too high” or “too low”. The 50 per cent limit seems intuitively “just right” or “balanced” — half of the seats have quotas while the other half doesn’t. This powerful narrative largely survived for over 25 years but seems to be falling apart now. And so it appears that reservations have ceased to be a means to correct for inadequate representation of certain disadvantaged sections. Instead, reservations have become springboards for all groups to demand proportional representation. The implicit norm now is that the State needs to enable representation of groups in educational institutions and government jobs according to their proportion in the population; the question of historical disadvantage has been relegated to an incidental criterion. Moreover, the general equilibrium effect of quotas is that group identities have become sharper and more powerful. Is there another way out?There is no doubt that a republic founded in a society with a long history of systematic discrimination will inevitably resort to some affirmative action. But is there a way out beyond caste-based reservations? Nitin Pai and I had proposed one such alternative a couple of years ago in FirstPost:Consider this thought experiment. There are no predetermined quotas for any posts. Positions are filled only based on a composite score of all applicants. The composite score is a combination of two measures. The first is an inequityscore — calculated to compensate for the relative disadvantage faced by an applicant.The second measure strictly represents an applicant’s ability to be effective for the position they are applying for. Selection is on the basis of the composite score. No seats are reserved and yet the score allows for addressing multidimensional inequity much better than current methods.The inequity score can be used to indicate relative disadvantage along several dimensions: individual, social and geographic. Different factors can be assigned different weightages. For instance, given the salience of caste in the Indian social context, the greater the disadvantage a community faces, the higher the weightage.In addition, we can incorporate other parameters into the inequity score — parents’ level of education, income levels, rural upbringing, or even childhood nutritional deficiencies. Currently, our system of quota-based allocations does not account for non-caste disadvantages that have a disproportionate impact on life outcomes.A national commission for equity can be formed to propose and review parameters and their weightages within a cooperative federal framework. It doesn’t have to be one-size-fits-all solution. States can assign their own factors and weightages according to the local conditions.The second measure — an effectiveness score — can then be kept completely independent of equity considerations. It can take the form of a test, an interview or any other indicator to assess candidates’ ability to perform the job they have applied for. Information about the inequity scores can be masked from evaluators of the effectiveness score.By filling positions based on a sum of the two scores, it becomes possible to be more comprehensive in addressing social inequities while also creating stronger incentives for an individual pursuit of excellence.Satish Deshpande and Yogendra Yadav had proposed a similar model for higher education way back in 2006:An evidenced-based model addressing multiple sources of group and individual disadvantages helps to de-essentialise identity markers such as caste or religion; that is, it provides a rational explanation why specific castes or communities are entitled to compensatory discrimination and undermines attitudes that treat such entitlements as a “birth right”.In essence, this solution tries to solve for both “merit” and “disadvantage”. The opponents of reservation claim that quotas directly undermine efficiency and merit. The proponents of quotas on the other hand find the notion of merit completely odious. They argue on these lines: Efficiency of administration in the affairs of the Union or of a State must be defined in an inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society find representation as a true aspiration of governance by and for the people. In contrast to quotas, the composite score solution acknowledges that some assessment of “merit” is inescapable, even desirable. But it also doesn't ignore the problem that disadvantaged individuals face. Hence, we believe it is a better solution than quotas.In edition#72, we discussed a framework on “nine competing visions of equality” only to reiterate Deborah Stone’s insightful conclusion:“equality often means inequality, and equal treatment often means unequal treatment. The same distribution may look equal or unequal, depending on where you focus.”Essentially, any distribution, however equalising it is in one respect, can be charged as being unequal on another parameter. What matters far more is whether a distribution is perceived as being fair or not. As Starmans et al write:… humans naturally favour fair distributions, not equal ones, and that when fairness and equality clash, people prefer fair inequality over unfair equality In the Indian context, quotas come with charges of unfairness. It is time to look beyond them. PS: A commonplace assertion that “the constitution imagined reservations to last only for ten years at the outset” is a myth. This 10-year clause was meant to apply to reservations of seats for SC/ST groups in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies. There was no such 10-year limit on reservations in jobs and educational institutions under articles 15(4) and 16(4). I too believed in this urban myth having read it being regurgitated in countless opinion pieces. Hat-tip to an alert Puliyabaazi listener for updating my priors. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Video] "The Big Idea" - a half-hour interview between Noam Chomsky and British journalist Andrew Marr, first aired by the BBC in February 1996. A great interview where Andrew Marr is completely convinced he’s not taken in by the propaganda while Chomsky is sure he is! [Podcast] A Puliyabaazi episode discussing the nine competing visions of equality[Article] Alexander Lee on redesigning India’s reservation system[Article] Satish Deshpande traces the history of reservation policies[Article] Pratap Bhanu Mehta on how the open category is slowly becoming a reserved category through other means Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

This newsletter is really a public policy thought-letter. While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought-letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. It seeks to answer just one question: how do I think about a particular public policy problem/solution?PS: If you enjoy listening instead of reading, we have this edition available as an audio narration on all podcasting platforms courtesy the good folks at Ad-Auris. If you have any feedback, please send it to us.- RSJA short mid-week note on some points that have emerged from the Pratap Bhanu Mehta resignation issue. Let’s take the issue of ‘shrinking liberal space’ in the public discourse and how this is another example of it. All politics is a contestation of narratives. The primary motive is to have your narrative dominate while diminishing the rest. So, from a realist lens, this is what every political party aspires to while few achieve. Therefore to expect any different from any dominant political grouping is to live under a delusion. You might desire a secure and self-assured dispensation that lets a thousand different and often dissenting ideas bloom. But that ideal state of affairs is rare anywhere in the world and in history. India is no stranger to a narrative dominating its body politic for decades. Good or bad is beside the point here. There’s another narrative in town now and, naturally, it wants to dominate forever. QuestionsThat brings us to a couple of questions. Isn’t good or bad that was conveniently brushed aside above, an important point in this context? If this narrative dominance is what is to be expected, should this be a worry for India?Well, narrative dominance of any kind is an unstable equilibrium. For three reasons. One, we aim for dominance but once we achieve it, boredom sets in. No one likes to watch games where their team is so dominant that there is no contest. Over time we lose interest or we create two versions of our team to play against each other. Soon it is “us” versus “them” again. Either way, the narrative dominance is broken. This is also the reason there can never be a successful conservative-only or liberal-only social media platform in the long term. People crave to argue. To go one up on others. They will invent enemies if they have to. We have written about Schmitt’s friend-enemy construct in politics before here. Two, narrative dominance of any kind doesn’t emerge out of a vacuum. It is built on the vestige of a previously dominant narrative. Those who were dominated by the previous narrative, remember those times. The humiliation and the rage of being under it is the fuel that sustains the current narrative. Unfortunately, humans are mortal. They die and a whole new generation arrives who have no first-hand experience of the previous narrative. They only learn about it from the surviving members who tell them about the horrors of the past. Or, from books. That’s one of the reasons why changing history textbooks is always on the agenda of every dispensation in the world. You control the past, you control the future. But time wears down everything eventually. In the pre-internet era, this could take multiple generations to come to a pass. That has shrunk now. Alternative narratives sustain themselves online and the information velocity facilitates their spread. Three, there’s always a tendency to overreach among those who are driving their narrative dominance. Nothing remains sacrosanct in their desire to dominate - university, media, courts, law enforcement agencies, regulators or independent bodies. In a democracy, with strong independent institutions, the checks and balances in-built in the system come into play to counter this. This is a battle of attrition between institutions and political formations. The institutions usually win because they are designed to be permanent. They are necessary for democracy to survive. If they are subverted, democracy withers away.The Indian ProblemBetween the three, the institutional response tends to be the fastest way to counter-narrative dominance. The other two could take time and a lot could be undone during that period. The challenge in India is the institutional mechanism has been systematically weakened over many decades. To begin with, we inherited colonial institutional and legal structures that weren’t exactly suited for liberal democracy. Whatever gains we made in building new institutions and strengthening them were lost starting from the 70s. The Emergency being a high watermark of that era. Since then it has been one step forward and two backward on this. The reasons why a state or the union government in India can make citizens or private entities (like a private university) fall in line are two-fold. One, there are just too many outdated laws often working at cross purposes that are impossible for anyone to manage. This gives the state the power to haul you up for breaking the law. Two, the willingness of the institutions to do the bidding of the political class because their independence has been compromised. This means a CBI or a Tax raid is always around the corner. Coercive institutions are a structural problem and there’s little incentive for political parties to change this. This seems like an irreversible slide. The problem with this slide is clear. Overtime when this narrative loses steam and an alternative narrative emerges (as it will), expect its adherents to be keener to dominate every sphere. To eliminate space for any dissent. And they will do so using the same tools - political and ideological mobilisation that overwhelms the institutions. Pratap Bhanu Mehta might have been countering the narrative of the current regime in his op-ed pieces. But the larger point he was making was probably beyond it. He was alerting us to the dangers of this inevitable slide. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Article] “The Spectre of Totalitarianism: The worst offenders in the new climate of intolerance are our universities” writes Edward Skidelsky in The Critic. Money quote: The “woke” left is currently pursuing this goal by way of a Gramscian “long march through the institutions” — a progressive co-option of the schools, universities, state bureaucracies and big corporations. Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

Dan Russell claims that business ethics is more than just a set of ethical dilemmas. Isn’t that what ethics is about, though? Facing a moral quandary and figuring out how to solve it? How do the teachings of Aristotle tie into all of this? What does it mean to live a good life? What does a wise choice look like?Show Notes and Further ReadingRobert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky, How Much is Enough? (book)Daniel C. Russell, The Cambridge Companion to Virtue Ethics (book)Daniel C. Russell, Happiness for Humans (book)Dan Russell, “Happiness — A Feeling or a Future?” (video) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

Why do we work so hard, and should we? These are the questions that Robert and Edward Skidelsky explore in their thought provoking book How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life (Other Press, 2012). Their answer to the first question is (to put it in my own words) that we don’t know any better. Our competitive capitalist culture has taught us to work hard so we can earn more. Further, it has taught us that earning more will be “happier.” It won’t, say the Skidelskys. Their answer to the second question is “no,” full stop. What we should do instead is take advantage of our remarkable wealth, work less,  and live the good life. What is the “good life?” Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why do we work so hard, and should we? These are the questions that Robert and Edward Skidelsky explore in their thought provoking book How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life (Other Press, 2012). Their answer to the first question is (to put it in my own words) that we don’t know any better. Our competitive capitalist culture has taught us to work hard so we can earn more. Further, it has taught us that earning more will be “happier.” It won’t, say the Skidelskys. Their answer to the second question is “no,” full stop. What we should do instead is take advantage of our remarkable wealth, work less,  and live the good life. What is the “good life?” Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why do we work so hard, and should we? These are the questions that Robert and Edward Skidelsky explore in their thought provoking book How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life (Other Press, 2012). Their answer to the first question is (to put it in my own words) that we don’t know any better. Our competitive capitalist culture has taught us to work hard so we can earn more. Further, it has taught us that earning more will be “happier.” It won’t, say the Skidelskys. Their answer to the second question is “no,” full stop. What we should do instead is take advantage of our remarkable wealth, work less,  and live the good life. What is the “good life?” Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Anne McElvoy examines whether we place too much weight on happiness as a measure of our quality of life. Contributors consider the new economics of well-being and the role of happiness in writing and include: Richard Layard, Edward Skidelsky, Gus O'Donnell, Juliet Michaelson, Paul Ormerod and Alexandra Harris.