JohnB – the old Federation of British Industry was corporatist (orignial meaning – not silly left “libertarian” meaning – they think corporations are in charge, in fact they are NOT) in the 1930s – happy for government to “plan” (i.e. order about business) as long as a few pets (the leading lights in the organisation) got tossed a few bones now and then.

So the CBI is just walked down the well worn road when it went for Heathism in the 1970s.

Watching these business pragmatists types makes me despair – the sort of trash who go on CNBC (or Bloomberg) and say “people on minimum wage deserve more” (then pay them more – why have a government regulation to do what you say you want to do anyway?) “but not as much as this”.

A businessman is very often a haggle-man – always out to “make a deal”.

The trouble with that attitude is that the statists will eat you alive.

Once you concede the PRINCIPLE you have lost (skining a cat is not hard – once you have broken the cat’s spine) – but they do not understand that.

Rob.

The “FT”.

Back in old days they actually had Communist Party people on the staff – card carrying ones.

The business executives who bought the newspaper did not mind – just as they do not seem to mind about the FT being what it is now.

They are “practical” people you see….

Ayn Rand was correct about “practical” people.

So the CBI

That siren song does not need to be sung by people who believe it. It is sung for the benefit of the listeners, AKA “useful idiots”. I seriously doubt the Soros, Buffets, and all of the lesser rich singing the song of economic equality, actually believe what they say. If they did, they would be writing checks to poor people, not to astroturf political creations to get more power.

Look at the choir singing (and funding the singing of) the song of economic equality, Eric. Some of the voices may believe, but the conductors and orchestrators are rich and almost certainly economic fascists.

People are always seeing the rise of fascism behind every bush and tree. Me, I’m much, much more worried about the siren song of “economic equality”.

Shannon Love has written some very cogent essays at Chicagpboyz about this issue, the essence of which is that all the above faults are ubiquitous in human beings, so the option that is clearly the least desirable is to augment those flaws with unchecked state power.

As described by the comments above, ordinary people have been so well indocrinated in the collectivist line that they can easily hold the opinions that the state is badly corrupt, and should be given even more power, at the same time with no comprehension as to the inherent irrationality of such co-existing views.

The progressive mantra in the US has been:

1) Here is a serious defect in society that needs immediate attention;

2) Only the government has the resources or capability (read power) to deal with this issue;

3) Here is a (seemingly) reasonable, modest sounding program which will begin the process of solving the problem;

4) The recently enacted program isn’t doing enough to solve the problem and must be expanded with more resources and powers;

5) Repeat #4 at regular intervals.

Always included in the endless proposals for program expansion is the angry indictment of any opponents as being callous and uncaring toward the groups supposedly being aided, even if the opposition is based on clear, documented research that shows the program is having serious negative unintended effects, or no positive effects at all.

This is the “salami” process, or the “ratchet” process, by which the collectivist ideologue turns every good and decent impulse of the ordinary citizen into an acceptence of relentlessly expanding state power, and, with the cooperation of a complicit media, makes any serious examination of the true effects of these allegedly compassionate policies nearly impossible.

My late step-father, a gruff old Norwegian Lutheran with a heart of gold, could go on for hours about the dangers of having the Pope in control of the spiritual rulebook for Christianity, and then, seamlessly, turn and argue in favor of giving earthly politicians enormous power here on good old earth so they could help the poor or disabled or elderly.

He, like so many, could not see the discontinuity between his skepticism about giving too much power to one group over the issues of a supernatural realm which couldn’t be seen, while also being supportive of giving steadily increasing power and resources to another group of equally flawed and venal humans in the very real and material world in which we all must live.

The road back from this world of magical thinking will be a long, tedious, and often dirty, slog through the nuts and bolts of political action, from city councils and school boards to national legislatures and executives.

Put your gloves and boots on, and, oh yeah, carry a shovel.

I looked at its editoral today.

Leaving aside its smug, superior tone – which always drives me to anger (if they were just reading out the telephone directory I would still want to punch them in the face).

The United States – the tax increase last month not enough, “there must and will be” another tax increase (that is not even Keynesianism – it is just c.ntism).

Britain – more monetary expansion, and get the banks lending again (more bonus payments for your half brother to be angry with).

And, of course, more CORPORATE WELFARE – “infrastructure projects”.

The “FT” stands for everything that is wrong (indeed that is evil).

No doubt they will be happy with the victory of the EuroCommunist in the Italian general elections.

“But Paul – they supported Mr Cameron”.

I know – I know (only too well).

I never met Mr Breitbart – but I miss him.

I did meet him and he was a very congenial fellow.

Two years ago while helping my dad fix up his small place I listened to him and his brother go on for a couple of hours listing the examples of government corruption they’d witnessed just in their small town and county governments; dirty police chief, dirty mayors they’ve known, etc. They’ve lived there all their lives and so I took them at their word – my dad has his finger on the local pulse believe me. I even knew about a couple of their examples and knew them to be factual.

Without missing a beat, the conversation turned to fuel prices and how people who owned wholesale operations in the area shouldn’t be “allowed” to own retail gas stations because they were ripping people off with inflated gas prices. Both men looked at me funny when I suggested they go to one of the many competing gas stations in the area. They were really puzzled when I asked which part of the corrupt local government would they empower to decide who was allowed to own a gas station.