We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

More gibberish from Dave Cameron

Dave Cameron, the head of the non-conservative Tory Party, has addressed the great and ‘good’ at Davos, and as usual he says things that actually mean the opposite of the words looked at in isolation:

He will say: “We must stand up for business because it’s businesses, not governments or politicians, that create jobs, wealth and opportunity, it’s businesses that drive innovation, and choice, and help families achieve a higher standard of living for a lower cost. But we must also stand up to business when the things that people value are at risk. So it’s time to place the market within a moral framework – even if that means standing up to companies who make life harder for parents and families.

Translation: moral framework in fact means political control… whoever best has the ability to manipulate the political system can simply distort the market so suit their narrow needs. So when Dave Cameron says ‘moral capitalism’, he actually means ‘regulatory statism’ and ‘political manipulation’… in other words he does not actually want to change a damn thing.

And political manipulation is exactly how we ended up where we are now with banks and car companies being handed vast quantities of other people’s money: Neither moral nor capitalism, which sums up Dave Cameron’s ‘philosophy’ perfectly.

15 comments to More gibberish from Dave Cameron

  • Having looked at the speech, Cameron has decided to seek one term. With crap like this, he seems destined to become a one term wonder like the Face of BHO

  • Alice

    There is a name for an economic system where private capital is allowed, as long as it does what the political controllers say — that would be “fascism”.

    Interesting that it is becoming the most prevalent political philosophy around the globe. The politics that dare not speak its name.

  • veryretired

    Ah, yes. Once again it is necessary for the superior moral sense of political figures, and the higher moral purpose which imbues the political system, to come to the rescue of the hapless citizenry, beset on all sides by the immoral and uncaring machinations of those involved in the economic system, especially those unfeeling, amoral automatons of business.

    For over a century we have heard this bizarre assertion made repeatedly, and, although its roots go deep into the tangled strands from which our culture is woven, only in these last several decades have the age old moral inversions of the mystics of spirit been so joyously exalted by the mystics of muscle using that most modern of all faiths—the mystery of science.

    This is not at all surprising, as the enormous power of empirical science has transformed nearly all aspects of life in the modern era, all the while being seen by most people as an unintelligible, and even frightening, force.

    And, just as the famous force of Obi-wan, science perverted to the sole purpose of obtaining political power and control over one’s fellow members of society is truly a descent into the dark side.

    Now we see before us the utterly obscene spectacle of endlessly pontificating “experts” and concerned pols, who have all agreed, based on no experience or understanding that any of them can articulate or demonstrate, that enormous amounts of wealth, which will only be created in some misty, undefined future, must be gathered up and handed over to them, to dispose of as they see fit.

    For most ordinary people, going to work, if their job has not evaporated, trying to raise their families and educate their children, this is a time of almost paralyzing fear and uncertainty.

    But for some, those whose lives are completely and totally consumed by the search for power, and ever more power, this is a time of opportunity, indeed, joyous fulfillment.

    For this is their chance to create a new “moral framework”, within which all decisions will be filtered through them for their approval, all possibilities will be judged by them as to their suitability, all potentials weighed, all purposes balanced.

    This is the triumph of the vanguard. The future awaits, and rewards, those who will seize it with both hands and not let go.

    And someday, someday, the moving finger will write, and having writ, pass on, leaving this message once again for the powers of the world—”Mene, mene, takel upharsin”.

    It is time to read the writing on the wall.

  • Alice is quite right. Read the latest few emissions for DC leaves me feeling a touch alarmed at how quite frankly fascist they are.

    Look, I know I’m a nut. But honestly:-

    And that links to a third – and even more important – reason why capitalism has become unpopular: the incredible inequality of the modern world. Too often, the winners have taken it all. Today, the poorest half of the world’s population own less than one per cent of the world’s wealth. We’ve got a lot of capital but not many capitalists, and people rightly think that isn’t fair.

    So this is what too many people see when they look at capitalism today. Markets without morality. Globalisation without competition. And wealth without fairness. It all adds up to capitalism without a conscience and we’ve got to put it right.

    CAPITALISM WITH A CONSCIENCE

    So I think it’s time to update the free market orthodoxy that has dominated the past few decades. It’s time to assert a fundamental truth: that markets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Markets are there to serve our society, not to suck the joy out of it or trample over its values. So we must shape capitalism to suit the needs of society; not shape society to suit the needs of capitalism.

    Can anyone who has even a trivial understanding of economics and history not be chilled by this, not hear the resonance, not understand what this is?

  • CFM

    WTF? Hitler and Mussolini won after all?

  • You don’t get any sympathy from me. Kevni has just announced the same sort of bullshit.

    KEVIN Rudd has put his ideological spin on the global crisis – arguing the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years represented by Thatcher, Reagan, Greenspan and John Howard has failed.

    Bastards

  • DC’s basic flaw is to assume that what is going wrong at present (and in 1990 or 1970s or any other recession, for that matter) is the fault of markets being ‘too free’.

    Nope, two-thirds of it can be directly traced back to government intervention, regulation, corruption, restriction, whatever.

  • Paraphrasing part of Cameron’s Davos speech, as quoted above by DavidNcl, and noting that (not unlike the science of thermodynamics) economics and sociology are studies of the mass effects of many many individual decisions or events (made/happening both independently and sometimes, unlike thermodynamics, not so independently):

    It’s time to assert a fundamental truth: that the laws of physics are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Natural laws are there to serve our society, not to suck the joy out of it or trample over its values. So we must shape the laws of physics to suit the needs of society; not shape society to suit the constraints of physics.

    Is my version any less barmy than Cameron’s? Really?

    Best regards

  • Nigel, that was brilliant.

  • Paul Marks

    Thatcher and Reagan and Howard – i.e. the effort (only in part successful) to control government spending.

    Silly me – I thought it was Bush and Brown, i.e. the effort to increase government spending as much as possible, that has had negative consequences.

    As for Alan Greenspan – his policy of increasing the money supply to bailout financial entities that got into trouble is exactly the sort of thing that Comrade Kevin supports himself.

    Ayn Rand was right to throw that plate in Alan Greenspan’s face all those years ago.

  • Paul Marks

    Leaving aside modern Marxist terms like “neoliberalism” (whatever that is supposed to mean), I forgot about David Cameron and, I suppose, I should comment on what he said.

    A “moral framework” – actually I agree with that. A businessman with no sense of honour is not someone that one should trade with.

    However, why does not Mr Cameron apply that to HIMSELF?

    How can one denounce debt and demand that banks “start lending again”?

    How can one say that one wants business enterprises to be responsible – and then support a slush fund for politically connected companies, indeed denounce the government slush fund for being too small.

    And how can one say one is against ever more power for the E.U. – and then bring “Ken” Clarke, back into the shadow cabinet?

    Mr Cameron is from a wealthy family, he went to Eton and Oxford, he married into vast wealth – but all this does not make him a gentleman. He has no sense of honour, no “moral framework” – this is what is wrong with him.

  • 30 years ago, in Australia, we were just getting over Gough Whitlam’s disaster. I guess it must have been a mistake to get rid of him, according to Kevin.

    I bet Australians didn’t know they were voting for Mussolini at the last election. Not that the Australian Looter Party can even make the trains run on time.

  • Derek W. Buxton

    I concur with Mr. Marks. With Cameron we are lost, he has no conception of what happens in the real world, especially that of work. I have never trusted him and every reported speech adds to the distrust. As for promoting Ken Clarke, that demolishes any claim to being EUrosceptic.

    Derek

  • Nuke Gray!

    So both your opposition party and your governing party is sprouting rubbish. At least here, Turnbull has some positive things to say about capitalism! (Turnbull is our Opposition leader, a selfmade millionaire. Do you remember ‘Spycatcher’?. Kevin’s wife is a self-made millionairess, so you’d think that he’d have some appreciation of money!)

  • Zevilyn

    The best thing would be to let the British banks die and encourage the people to move to foreign bank accounts.

    I would urge anyone about to set up a bank account to “buy foreign”; go for a foreign or foreign-owned British bank.

    No more British bankers in Britian would make our ecnomy far more efficient.