The idea that we should have a mission-driven economy is an appalling one:

Of course, that may sound like a lofty and idealistic proposition,

What is this loft?

What is required is a more sophisticated understanding of government debt management, alongside an overarching purpose or mission for the economy – a mission-driven economy as Mariana Mazzucato puts it – that would help shape economic policy.

No, that’s an appalling idea and not just because it comes from Mazzo.

The background to this is that economic policy making should be split up, changed, made different, so as to enable this mission-driven economy idea. But the mission-driven economy idea is also being touted as the reason to change economic policy making. We should change the system so as to allow that imposition of the plan and we should have a plan so as to allow the change in the system.

There’s no actual discussion of why the plan. It’s just assumed that having a plan - something, anything - would be a good idea.

We object and we object vehemently. The only desirable plan for the British economy is that Britons get to do more of what Britons wish to do. That we even have to say this is one of the proofs that we’re the only liberals left in the country.

Now, if the plan were to be that government wouldn’t do anything that would prevent utility maximisation - suitably adjusted for third party effects, of course - then we’d be all supportive. But that’s not what’s being suggested, is it? There should be a plan so that those running the plan should be able to tell everyone what to do to achieve the plan.

But then, you know, that’s Mazzonomics for you.