“So, you’re a Silicon Valley billionaire and you’ve already got the private plane. What you need next is a philosophy, something to live by, and to help finance, and—most important—to use to explain or justify yourself. Don’t just grab the next philosophy to come along. Chances are that will be Ayn Rand and her extreme form of capitalism, which she called objectivism.”
'The Obscure Economist Silicon Valley Billionaires Should Dump Ayn Rand For'
'He lived almost 200 years ago, but Henry George’s theories might have something to offer people who want to put their money to good use today.'
argues Vanity Fair columnist Michael Kinsley
Before sharing this interesting article with you, I would very much like to briefly share a bit of my own story of when and how I got to know Henry George.
For knowing George, I owe a debt of gratitude to my friend, editor and publisher, Anthony Werner, Editor-in-Chief, Shepheard-Walwyn. I think the best I can do to say more about this, is to quote a passage or two, from a Blog I had written a few years back:
“In my journey and search for wisdom, I have been extremely blessed with finding some wonderful friends, friends that have inspired me and have made me a happier, and I hope, a better person. I thank them all for who I am and what I do. One of those friends is Anthony Werner, Editor-in-Chief, Shepheard-Walwyn Publishers (SWP), London.
Whilst at Plater College, in Oxford in early 2000s studying for a diploma in pastoral theology in my quest and search for life’s bigger picture, I happened to see an advertisement for one of SWP’s titles, The Natural Economy in The Tablet. Anthony had quoted a remarkable statement from the book:
‘A true grasp of how the economy should be constituted shows it to be a thing of harmony and beauty, all its parts cooperating for the common good, and its inbuilt laws distributing benefits equitably.’
This must have struck a chord with me, because I immediately ordered a copy. Having read it, I ordered two or three more different titles and then, some months, later I went to London to see Anthony. I opened my heart to him. I told Anthony that, despite having taught economics for over twenty years, I was unaware that such a body of knowledge existed.
We chatted and chatted for a long time. I left his office a different man and a different economist. I then sent Anthony a manuscript, the fruit of my new thinking about economics. Anthony published it in 2002 as Globalisation for the Common Good.”...Continue to read
Also see- Anthony Werner: Ethical Economics
Anyhow, Anthony and I had many discussions about many engaging topics. Economic freedom, social justice, welfare of humanity, Land Value Tax (LVT), Henry George and his life journey and story, as I recall, were amongst the most interesting subjects we talked about.
Anthony, as I recalled above, published my book, Globalisation for the Common Good in 2002. In Chapter 5 of this book, I was delighted that I was able to bring together the fruits of our discussions, the wisdom and insight of Henry George, to enable me to see the better world that I was imagining: Promised Land Revisited: A Philosophy for a Progressive and Just Society.
Having told my Henry George story, I am now pleased to share with you, Michael Kinsley’s reflection on George and the Silicon Valley:
Photo:hgchicago.org
“So, you’re a Silicon Valley billionaire and you’ve already got the private plane. What you need next is a philosophy, something to live by, and to help finance, and—most important—to use to explain or justify yourself. Don’t just grab the next philosophy to come along. Chances are that will be Ayn Rand and her extreme form of capitalism, which she called objectivism.
Rand has a lot going for her, to be sure. First, you may have actually read her in high school and may have been genuinely influenced. Second, in a nutshell, she rationalizes greed, which you have nothing against. Third, she was into mildly kinky sex—something else you may have in common. Fourth, she was associated in some way you don’t quite follow with Alan Greenspan, who is respectability itself, whatever other Rand enthusiasts may have been up to.
But you’re too late. Ayn Rand, who never was really undiscovered (The Fountainhead became a movie, starring Gary Cooper as a heroic architect, a few years after it was published), has by now been thoroughly re-discovered. According to James Stewart (the prominent business journalist, not the even more prominent actor), writing in The New York Times, President Trump says Ayn Rand is his favorite writer and that The Fountainhead, her pulmonary embolism of a book, is his favorite novel. Travis Kalanick, the onetime Übermensch of Uber, is on board, as is (liberal foodies, please note) John Mackey, co-founder and C.E.O. of Whole Foods.
The Damning Impact of a Toxic Philosophy on America: The Tragedy of Ayn Rand
Meet the architects of world crisis
My dear billionaire, you need an economist almost no one has heard of. One who addressed the most pressing problems of today, which do not include the insufficient greed of rich people. But one who was not completely out of sympathy with rich people, either.
May I nominate Henry George (1839–97)—economist, pamphleteer, journalist? Once famous, he is now widely forgotten. He described himself as a man who came out of the great American West, which he did—but only after he got there via Philadelphia, where he was born. He later moved to New York City, ran for mayor, and attracted 10,000 people to a political rally (but lost nonetheless). He made the best-ever short defense of free trade: You wouldn’t fill your harbor with rocks to keep out goods your citizens want to buy, would you? Well, that’s what you’re doing when you slap tariffs on imports.
"One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form and fervent love of justice. Every line is written as if for our generation."- Albert Einstein on Henry George
George’s masterwork, published in 1879, was Progress and Poverty, which set forth to explain how “increase of want” could go hand in hand with “increase of wealth.” Thus George took on precisely the question we face today: not the general question of poverty or inequity, but why specifically are middle-class incomes stagnating, and incomes of people at the bottom falling, while those at the top continue to rise?
George was no vulgar Marxist. You might call him a “supply-side socialist.” All products of the economy, he reasoned, are ultimately derived from three sources: labor, capital, and land. What else is there? Labor and capital are both productive. Put them to work and you end up with more. But land is different. As the man said, “They aren’t making any more of it.” When you work for an hour, you increase society’s wealth (and your own) by an hour’s worth of wages. When you save a dollar rather than spending it, you increase society’s (and your own) wealth by a dollar. But when you buy a piece of land for $10,000 and sell it for $20,000, you haven’t increased the total wealth of society by a nickel. Yet the price of land keeps going up, up, up, as the population increases and society grows richer. Where does that money come from? It comes from the pockets of the other two factors of production, labor and capital.
George distinguished, in other words, between the capitalist who is truly productive and the capitalist who is simply a “landlord.” If you’re a landlord, he wrote, “you need do nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota to the wealth of the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion; but among its public buildings will be an almshouse.”
And how is all this talk of leperos and almshouses relevant today? You’ve got to think of “land” as a metaphor for all unproductive forms of capitalism. Much of the financial industry, for example: hedge funds, private equity, I.P.O.’s and I.R.A.’s. Some might defend finance as an industry that makes the making of what other industries make more efficient. But when you read that Goldman Sachs is getting some enormous fee for fuck-all or that two companies are merging that unmerged a few years ago and will unmerge again in a few years, you gotta wonder.
Take a look at the Forbes 400 list. The No. 1 slot has been occupied for many years by Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft. As it happens, Microsoft and Gates are a notable exception: Gates grew rich the traditional way, producing real products that people were willing to pay for. But, as Forbes admits, 93 of the Forbes 400 made their money by just playing with money: “All together this group is worth a combined $491 billion—20% of the Forbes 400’s total $2.4 trillion net worth.”
Government licenses confer monopolies all over the economy, but no place more than in the media. Start with Comcast, the beloved cable company. Real estate itself—which, remember, they’re not making any more of—represents $129 billion of the wealth in the Forbes 400. Simple inheritance (the most efficient method of becoming rich) is a non-trivial source of wealth. The members of the Walton family on the list—heirs of Walmart’s founders—are by themselves worth $123 billion.
Henry George believed that the landlord’s share of wealth that all of us have helped to accumulate is inherently illegitimate and should be confiscated. He wouldn’t send in the National Guard to seize people’s property. He would instead confiscate the value of unimproved land—that is, land that had not been improved by, say, building on it—by taxing its annual value at a rate of 100 percent.
“But,” you’re thinking, “that would make the property itself worthless.” (“That’s not what I’m thinking,” says Arianna, mysteriously.) Well, you’re right. Making the property worthless is the whole idea. Society gets the value of the property. Taxes on the other factors of production—labor and capital—can be reduced, or even eliminated. This is why people who are dedicated to promoting George’s ideas are known as “single-taxers.”
The landlord will have little choice but to put the property to its “highest and best use.” This raises another difficulty with George’s idea: we no longer believe—or at least we no longer assume—that the “highest and best use” of a piece of land is to throw up another reflective-glass skyscraper. “Highest and best use” is a legal term that doesn’t distinguish between “use” that is the most profitable and “use” that is best for society. Jane Jacobs won that battle. And, anyway, today’s landlords probably paid full price for their monopolies. The people who originally benefited from the monopoly have long since disappeared with their ill-gotten gain. So there would be practical problems figuring out what is taxed, and by how much.
But George got the main things right. Free markets are best (provided they are really free). A lot of markets that masquerade as free really aren’t. And we often tax the wrong things—ignoring wealth that accomplishes nothing while taxing labor and capital that are actually productive. After his book came out, Henry George was the most famous economist in the world for a while. The Thomas Piketty or John Kenneth Galbraith of his time. An intellectual with star quality, and total conviction of the rightness of his argument. He probably thought he would be famous forever. He was wrong about that.
This article was first published in VANITY FAIR, 1 September 2017
Read the original article: The Obscure Economist Silicon Valley Billionaires Should Dump Ayn Rand For
A related article to reflect on
Rising house prices lead to highest number of UK millionaires on record, with nearly half living in London and the South East
One in 79 Britons is a millionaire, with the regions enjoying the healthiest house price growth and the biggest increase in millionaires
If the UK was economically and morally on the edge of bankruptcy in September 2008, it seems, it is intellectually and spiritually bankrupt in 2017. It is now left to all the progressive people and campaigners to direct the country toward the common good
UK’s economic model is broken, says Archbishop of Canterbury
'Britain’s economic model is broken and produces widespread inequality,' the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned. Photo: theguardian.com
Before sharing the gist of what the Archbishop has said, which I must admit, I was very pleased to read, I must say, good on you Archbishop, for your wisdom and insight to see what has happened to our country, losing its heart and soul in pursuit of a morally, spiritually and economically bankrupt ideology, the so-called NEOLIBERALISM.
Moreover, it is refreshing to note that somebody in place of authority and moral compass, is speaking the truth. Our political leaders, of all backgrounds and political persuasion, nourished and nurtured by years of values-free education, worshipping the invisible hand of market economy (whatever that means) have become totally blinded to what is right or wrong, just or unjust, and thus, unable to rescue this country from the catastrophe that is waiting to happen, unless they change course, steering the ship towards the calmer waters.
“Our economic model is broken,” said Welby. “Britain stands at a watershed moment where we need to make fundamental choices about the sort of economy we need. We are failing those who will grow up into a world where the gap between the richest and poorest parts of the country is significant and destabilising.”
The report by the IPPR thinktank’s commission on economic justice, which features senior business and public figures alongside Welby, stressed that all political parties needed to reject the current patterns of economic growth that delivered most of the gains to corporations and the richest in society.
It said the situation had worsened in recent years as workers struggled to make ends meet after the longest period of earnings stagnation for 150 years.
Pointing to rising debt levels, the report called for an urgent public debate on the role of banks and the financial sector in the British economy. It also flagged extra support for trade unions to act as a bulwark against shareholder interests in the workplace. The report, which is expected to produce a series of policy initiatives when it unveils final conclusions next autumn, also said ministers must tackle the market dominance of digital companies such as Amazon, Facebook and Google.
Here I find myself in total agreement with Tom Kibasi, the IPPR director and chair of the commission, who said: “We don’t have a British economic model. We have an economic muddle.”... Continue to read
All in all, Yes, it is true, our country is engulfed in serious crisis by pursuing a BROKEN ECONOMIC MODEL.
photo:independent.co.uk
Here, to my mind, it is noteworthy to reflect on what I wrote on this matter in May and June 2011:
“Do you remember that Margaret Thatcher, the so-called Iron Lady!! She told the Brits that she was going to put the “Great” back into the “Great” Britain. Do you remember? Then, she told us this can only happen if we accept and implement the “Washington Consensus”, the so-called dreaded neo-liberalism. She told us that there was no alternative. She told us we will all prosper and develop more fairly and equitably. She won election after elections. Everything was privatised, deregulated, self-regulated. Industry, manufacturing, (the real economy) was destroyed. Instead, the banks and the bankers were encouraged to rule the world. The economists with no principles and values were “bought” and the business schools, such as Harvard and Columbia were showered with money to act as “Cheerleaders” for the dreaded neo-liberalism (see the Inside Job for evidence). Communities were dismantled and dis-organised. We were told that there is nothing as a society and community. We are all in it just for ourselves, we were told. Destructive competition at the expense of life-enhancing cooperation, collaboration and dialogue was greatly prompted. We were told to say no to love, kindness, generosity, sympathy and empathy and say yes to selfishness, individualism and narcissism, as these values will fire the engine of capitalism and wealth creation! In short, the hell with the common good, we were encouraged to believe.
We were brainwashed. Our other Prime Ministers have repeated her nonsense and have carried on her footsteps. It is now over 30 years since the neo-liberalism experiment in Britain. Are we any “Greater” than we were in 1979? Are we any fairer or more equitable? The country is nearly bankrupt, with public and private debt at unprecedented levels, with greatest levels of poverty and wealth disparity ever. The house of neoliberal capitalism is now at its nadir of decadence.”
You see, all those interested in life’s bigger picture, have been saying the same, over and over. The neoliberals are not in touch with humanity. They will prostitute all in the interest of profit maximization, cost minimization, highest return to the shareholders, and the biggest and juiciest bonuses for the CEOs and their lackeys.”...Continue to read
The pertinent questions must now be: How we might rebuild this broken economic model? What might an Economy for the Common Good look like?
To be able to answer these and other relevant questions, as a first step, one must be able to begin imagining that a better life and a better world is, indeed, possible:
Imagine a political system that puts the public first. Imagine the economy and markets serving people rather than the other way round. Imagine us placing values of respect, fairness, interdependence, and mutuality at the heart of our economy. Imagine an economy that gives everyone their fair share, at least an appropriate living wage, and no zero-hour contracts. Imagine where jobs are accessible and fulfilling, producing useful things rather than games of speculation and casino capitalism. Imagine where wages support lives rather than an ever expanding chasm between the top 1% and the rest. Imagine a society capable of supporting everyone’s needs, and which says no to greed. Imagine unrestricted access to an excellent education, healthcare, housing and social services. Imagine hunger being eliminated, no more food banks and soup kitchens. Imagine each person having a place he/she can call home. Imagine all senior citizens living a dignified and secure life. Imagine all the youth leading their lives with ever-present hope for a better world. Imagine a planet protected from the threat of climate change now and for the generations to come. Imagine no more wars, but dialogue, conversation and non-violent resolution of conflicts. Imagine a world free of corruption!
And now: A Look at an economy that looks and feels good
Dear Prime Minister-Britain needs a New Economic Model
Oxford Theology Society Lecture: Values to Make the World Great Again
Forgiveness and Reconciliation in Pursuit of the Global Common Good
'After a long history of avoiding the morality factor, economists are beginning to include it in their work'
Economist- A Dismal Scientist: An emperor with no clothes
Hopefully not for much longer
"Today's neoclassical economist is an emperor with no clothes who's fooled us all long enough."
Photo: transitionvoice.com
For years, budding economists have been taught to leave morality, values and virtues out of their arguments. This could hopefully be about to change
‘We don’t do God,” Tony Blair’s press secretary, Alastair Campbell, once famously remarked. Similarly, economists don’t “do” morality. They are a breed concerned with economic efficiency not spiritual uplift; human choices and incentives, not human values. They believe questions of morality can be left to philosophers and theologians.’
‘There’s an element of truth in that stereotype. Economists have indeed tended to leave aside issues of morality. In some cases that’s because they think, on ideological grounds, that it has no place in the discipline.
But even more thoughtful and less dogmatic economists have tended to shy away from the question on the grounds that moral values are tricky to pin down, much less quantify…
But things might be changing. Two economic Nobel laureates at a meeting on the German island of Lindau last week outlined a bold attempt to put morality into theoretical economical modelling.
Oliver Hart, a 2016 Nobel winner, presented a paper, co-authored with Luigi Zingales, in which he looked at how the personal morality of shareholders might affect the behaviour of the companies in which they invest, in particular whether those firms will behave in a way that will maximise profits or whether they sacrifice some profit for the sake of behaving in a socially responsible manner.’...
Today I am happy. Please allow me to share my happiness with you
I was pleased to read the article above by Ben Chu in the Independent on Sunday 27 August 2017. Whilst reading the article, I began a nostalgic journey in my head, my mind and my heart, which took me back to the early 1990s.
I paid a heavy price for a small personal revolution in economic thinking that I had started. I was accused of being a troublemaker, ridiculing my honoured profession. How dare I was calling for inclusion of morality, spirituality, God and humanity, and such likes, in the study of and the teaching of economics.
Wherever I went, whichever economics conferences I went to, whoever economists (bar a few) I mentioned these thoughts to, I was taken not seriously, I was treated like a heretic and advised to change my profession: to go and study theology and become a vicar!
Well, I did not become a vicar, but, I went on and studied Pastoral Theology at Plater College in Oxford. Today when I read that many economists are having second thoughts about the inclusion of values in their subject, I feel very happy, I feel exonerated, I feel grateful, and I am thankful for the journey that I started in early 1990s.
Let me explain, as I strongly believe that unless you know the messenger well, first and foremost, then, his message would not make any sense at all.
To do this, the best I can do, is to quote you a passage from a book I wrote in 2005, well before the crash of September 2008 and very relevant to what I am trying to say today:
“From 1980 onwards, for the next twenty years, I taught economics in universities, enthusiastically demonstrating how economic theories provided answers to problems of all sorts. I got quite carried away by the beauty, the sophisticated elegance, of complicated mathematical models and theories. But gradually I started to have an empty feeling.
‘I began to ask fundamental questions of myself. Why did I never talk to my students about compassion, dignity, comradeship, solidarity, happiness, spirituality – about the meaning of life? We never debated the biggest questions. Who are we? Where have we come from? Where are we going to?
‘I told them to create wealth, but I did not tell them for what reason. I told them about scarcity and competition, but not about abundance and co-operation. I told them about free trade, but not about fair trade; about GNP – Gross National Product – but not about GNH – Gross National Happiness. I told them about profit maximisation and cost minimisation, about the highest returns to the shareholders, but not about social consciousness, accountability to the community, sustainability and respect for creation and the creator. I did not tell them that, without humanity, economics is a house of cards built on shifting sands.
‘These conflicts caused me much frustration and alienation, leading to heartache and despair. I needed to rediscover myself and real-life economics. After a proud twenty-year or so academic career, I became a student all over again. I would study theology, philosophy and ethics, disciplines nobody had taught me when I was a student of economics and I did not teach my own students when I became a teacher of economics.
‘It was at this difficult time that I came to understand that I needed to bring spirituality, compassion, ethics and morality back into economics itself, to make this dismal science once again relevant to and concerned with the common good.’
As an economist with a wide range of experience, I do appreciate the significance of economics, politics, trade, banking, insurance and commerce, and of globalisation. I understand the importance of wealth creation. But wealth must be created for the right reasons.
Value-led wealth creation for the purpose of value-led expenditure and investment is to be encouraged and valued. Blessed are those wealth creators who know “Why” and “How” wealth is produced and, more importantly, when wealth is created “What” it is going to be used for.
Today’s business leaders are in a unique position to influence what happens in society for years to come. With this power comes monumental responsibility. They can choose to ignore this responsibility, and thereby exacerbate problems such as economic inequality, environmental degradation and social deprivation, but this will compromise their ability to do business in the long run. The world of good business needs a peaceful and just world in which to operate and prosper: A world that is truly for the common good.
However, in order to arrive at this peaceful and prosperous destination, we need to change the house of neoclassical economics, to make a fit home for the common good. After all, many of the issues that people struggle over, or their governments put forward, have ultimately economics at their core. As I mentioned before, the creation of a stable society in today’s global world is largely ignored in favour of economic considerations of minimising costs and maximising profits, while other equally important values are put aside and ignored.
Economics once again must find its heart, soul and spirit. Moreover, it should also reconnect itself with its original source, rooted in ethics and morality. Today’s huge controversy which surrounds much of the economic activity and the business world is because they do not adequately and appropriately address the needs of the global collective and the powerless, marginalised and excluded. This, surely, in the interest of all, has to change. The need for an explicit acknowledgement of true global values is the essential requirement in making economics work for the common good. Economics, as practiced today cannot claim to be for the common good. In short, a revolution in values is needed, which demands that economics and business must embrace both material and spiritual values.”
And now please allow me to further share my happiness with you, by sharing a passage or two from a lecture I gave at a recent meeting of the Oxford Theology Society, which was held at Keble College, University of Oxford:
"Values to Make the World Great Again: Theology, Economics and Spirituality in Dialogue Again"
...But now, there was another story in making, one that was not under my control: Life is so full of unpredictable beauty and strange surprises
As many people, wiser than me have noted, our lives and the world in which we all live, are so unpredictable. Things happen suddenly, unexpectedly. We want to feel we are in control of our own existence. In some ways we are, in some ways we're not ... Life, it can bring you so much joy and yet at the same time cause so much pain.
I was so devastated that after this wonderful journey, full of joy and happiness, achievements and success, due to some reasons beyond my control, I started to feel unwell, unhappy, depressed, not enjoying what I was doing and teaching, especially when I lost all confidence in the value of moral-free economics that I was teaching my students, and more.
In 1999 I voluntarily resigned from my post at Coventry University. It goes without saying that, I was heartbroken and extremely hurt that I was unable to nurture and develop further what I had envisioned and built.
Looking back, reflecting on what has happened, I think, somehow, somebody, somewhere, had planned it so that I, too, should have a life, similar to the life of Coventry itself: fall and rise again, the story that I very much wish to continue sharing with you tonight.
Oh, my God, there is so much to tell, so much to share. But, one is very relevant to my talk tonight, and that is my return back to Oxford in 2001.
After leaving my post at Coventry University, I went through two years of hell, hardship and struggle with everything. I had to rediscover myself again. I had to find a new path to explain who I am, what I am, and why I am.
Thus, I came back to Oxford again. This time to a small Catholic adult education college there in Pullens Lane, Headington, called Plater College. After decades of being a university lecturer, I became student again, when I register for the Pastoral Theology course.
I enjoyed my time and studies at Plater very much. It was truly a path to my personal healing. There I also discovered the beauty of wisdom, ethics, morality, spirituality, solidarity, comradeship and more.
It was there that I also discovered that I must begin to work hard to ensure that these values must become the values of economics, business, education and globalisation too. I wrote a few books, booklets and articles about these new discoveries. Too much to mention now, but let me quote you a few selected passages, relevant to my discussion tonight:
“Why should we try to combine religion and economics? Because they have a common end: that all may live happily; it is just that they employ different methods in order to achieve this end. One uses the production and exchange of goods and services, the other selfless service, love and compassion.
Religions could – if they will speak with their original source of inspiration – greatly contribute towards restoring the balance between the material and the spiritual elements and thus show the way to live fully human lives in a peaceful, just and sustainable society. The ethical and spiritual teachings of all religions and their striving for the common good can provide us with a clear and focused model of moral behaviour in what we term ‘the marketplace’. An overall ethical orientation to the challenges of daily economic activity can be related to each of our faith traditions. In the Jewish tradition we see the effort to balance pragmatic considerations of economic efficiency with ideals of interpersonal equity and social justice. The key themes of Christian and Islamic thoughts are respectively a concern for human dignity and a concern for communal solidarity. These three themes are not separate: they overlap and interlock; and they are shared by all three traditions. Together they form an inspiring mosaic of Western religious ethics.
The traditions of the East have somewhat different themes from those of the Abrahamic religions; nonetheless, there is much that is similar. The importance of humility and patience characterises the Hindu view of economic life. In Buddhism, the theme that resonates most strongly is compassion; in Confucian thought it is reciprocity. These, also, are not separate themes, but overlapping and interlocked. The mosaic they form is not sharply distinct from that of the Western traditions. Related to the marketplace, it would inspire businessmen to exhibit mutual compassion, while individual achievement would not be at the expense of communal solidarity. Steady economic and moral improvement would be pursued with humility and patience. These must become the guiding principles, the vision behind the teachings of a new economics: the marketplace is not just an economic sphere, ‘it is a region of the human spirit’...
If you wish to read more, see below for further reading:
Oxford Theology Society Lecture: Values to Make the World Great Again
Globalisation for the Common Good
Promoting The Common Good Bringing Economics and Theology Together Again
Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility and Globalisation for the Common Good
The Money Gods: Economics Our New Religion
Father Forgive’: Coventry Cathedral and my life's journey of discovery