CLICK to listen to the audio version of this Daily Paradox

The shove is beginning. British riots seemed somehow to do with boredom and ill-discipline; Greek riots might be dismissed as cultural, Arab Spring as political. Saturday’s efforts were more than any of these. For all the attempts to obscure the reality of the financial scandal that has been perpetrated on us the man in (literally) the street has sussed the cause of his discontent.

Henry Blodget has kindly provided Four Key Charts and Salman Bokhari has drawn them to my attention. Click on the following to see the story as well expressed as I have seen it so far. Thank you Henry and Salman.

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-four-charts-that-explain-what-the-protesters-are-angry-about-2011-10

Mostly we want to see changes affecting the world’s economy and how we live made slowly – the nudge principle. After all, disruption often leads to hastily-thought-out remedies not all of which work. Taking people out of even an uncomfortable comfort zone is always distressing for them. Slowly, slowly catchee monkey.

Politicians are especially devoted to this kind of progression. They talk of not turning over apple carts and a ‘measured pace of change’. Well, they can be right about that but they had better think a bit faster now. The voter horse has got the bit between its teeth. I doubt it will let go. Political thinking caps on, please.

However, we do now have to calculate the possible pace of change and this is where I suggest that distinguishing between the nudge and the shove is important. A good shove is sometimes necessary to get an item onto the agenda of those in power. Effecting the change is something else again. It is not simply a matter of timing. We need to understand how to handle both ourselves and other people if we are to effect change sensibly and for the better.

I doubt this will happen unless we enlist everyone’s help. To do this we need to commit that every time we advance our own interests we simultaneously make some advance of the interests of another more in need than ourselves. It is not rocket science to see that if we developed the habit of a one for one, even if they were not the same size, we would soon have a lot of work being devoted to improving the lives of those we know deserve better than they are getting.

Political change is brought about by a majority taking the same point of view. That is why President Clinton observed “It’s the economy, stupid”. That is the epitome of self interest but it reflected the majority view and still does today. The view is changing to see that a fairer world is vital for survival even – or especially – for the richest.

Shall we make a new phrase “It’s a necessity, stupid”?