Okay, so next question. Sarah asks, neoliberalism created both winners as well as losers.

Who will be the equivalence of the people in the UK who sold their council houses and got access to easy credit under whatever is coming after neoliberalism?

It's a good question. And it gets the heart of the matter about, you know, we've got to think about this in class terms and as a society's a site of conflict, not just, you know, ideas that happen and things move past us and that's that. The caution on it, and I don't think the question meant this particularly, but the caution on it is, of course, the real winners from neoliberalism aren't people who bought their council houses. The real winners are,

you know, the top, not even the top 1%, to be honest, the top 0.1% that are top 0.01% who have

done spectacularly well. I mean, this is Tamar Piquetti's contribution to our understanding

of this is to just really systematically detail how well they've done. But if we also have

an appreciation that capitalism doesn't survive, presumably wouldn't

survive very long if it was literally, you know, the top 0.1% are doing spectacularly well and

everyone else is ground into the dirt, then there are layers of winners that neoliberalism

created.

You know, if you take the fact that you're here's, yes, if you bought your council house, you could do very well out of doing this. So that's one set of winners. The other one is, of course, if you look at Thatcherism, if you look at the sort of 80s overall, if you remained in employment and if you were more likely in the sort of southeast of England, you could do quite well in terms of rising

real wages over this period. Very different stories. If you're in different parts of the

country, very different stories if you lost your job. But there are some winners there. And

then the relaxation of credit conditions was a particular benefit to these people in the

87, 88, 89, up to the crash really, that sort of all the slump of that kind of period, the Lawson boom. And then what New Labor did is generalise those easy credit conditions effectively across the rest of the country. So a lot of people feel like they're doing well, which then sort of ends in the crash of 2008. That's a particular set of sort of, they're not the actual real winners, but this is a bunch of people who might feel they're doing all right at this. I think if we're talking about post-neoliberalism, I don't

think that financial mechanism is going to work in the same way because there's, I mean,

finance is still kind of repressed in lots of different ways, right? We still have incredibly

low interest rates. We still have all sorts of controls on how finance connect. We still have very much

reduced flows of finance across borders relative to what they were running up to the 2007-2008 crash.

So that's the financial system operating somewhat differently to how it used to do and probably

it's not going to end up generalising quite such an expansive way,

as we saw in 2007-2008. If you look at winners now, it's probably going to be more

...