(3)

Thanks to our vigilant commentariat, I read this excellent, pithy demolition of central banking by Jamie Whyte, the banker and writer on philosophy and other subjects. Good on the Times (of London) for running it. It's a healthy antidote to the flawed semi-Keynesian nonsense of Mr Kaletsky.

(6)

"When I stacked the shelves at my father's grocery store, and I finished bringing the boxes up and emptying them and pricing everything, I wanted to see the shelves just sparkle. I called my dad over - I had a great father - he’d pat me on the back, “Fantastic!"

Ed Snider, American sports entrepreneur and philanthropist, from an interview with Stephen Hicks. This quote, I hope, gives some flavour of the zest and energy of a great, principled businessman who does not seek government handouts or favours. The interview is long but worth a read.

(13)

...says the person calling himself the Right Honourable Alan Johnson MP.

Amusing comments.

(20)

A friend (you know who you are) informed me that the Economist magazine was "getting better", for example it had a lead story denouncing government debt. Of course this was the government debt that the Economist had urged government to take on (to bail out banks and other corporations and then to "stimulate the economy"), but it was good that it was denouncing the debt.

So I decided to give the Economist a chance and read their article ("editorial") on American health care. After drinking a bottle of cider to recover (what a nice new bottle shape Henry Westons have produced) these on my thoughts upon that article:

It starts with a lie - Barack Obama was elected in part because of his plans to "fix American health care".

In reality it was Hillary Clinton who stressed her health care plan during the Democrat primary campaign (Barack Obama just attacked her plan and made vague noises about his own). And during the general election campaign it was John McCain who came out with a specific health care plan, allowing people to buy health cover over State lines and switching the tax deductibility of buying health care cover from employers to individuals, whereas Barack Obama just (dishonestly) attacked the McCain plan and was vague about his own.

Barack Obama was elected President of the United States for several reasons (white guilt about mistreatment of black people, the total ideological devotion of the education system and the mainstream media, the insane judgement by John McCain to back the bank bailouts...), but stressing some specific plan to "fix American health care" was not one of them.

Still the Economist does not let the truth stand in the way of its articles, so it then outlines its position.

"Starting from scratch their would be a good case for a mostly publicly funded system" even for a magazine "as economically liberal as this one".

This is a standard Economist trick - propose some form of statism and defend it by saying even we, the free market ones (the European meaning of "economically liberal"), are in favour of this statism. Of course the Economist never actually produces any evidence that it is pro-free market - but it is at trick it has been using since Walter Bagehot (the second editor, the first editor actually was a free market man) so I suppose it is a lie hollowed by history.

However, we are not "starting from scratch" so the Economist reluctantly concedes that some little freedom (about half of American health care is already government funded and the rest is tied up in regulations - facts that the Economist avoids, see later) must remain for awhile - it suggests five years.

The first step, according to the Economist, must be to make everyone buy health cover by statute with the poor being subsidized by the government "as is done already in Massachusetts". That the Massachusetts "reform", introduced by Governor Romney, has turned out rather badly is a fact that the Economist article neglects to mention - even though the percentage of "uncovered" in Massachusetts was very low compared to other States so if this "reform" was going to work anywhere it would have worked in Massachusetts.

Of course, says the Economist, insurance companies must not be allowed to exploit government subsides for the poor. They must provide "affordable" plans (no prices are suggested - it is all left vague), and must not be allowed to exclude the old or the already sick from their plans.

In short - lower prices and covering high cost groups. As (contrary to the propaganda) American health insurance is already not a high profit margin industry, these "reforms" should be enough to bankrupt the insurance companies - even before the five year period comes to an end and the government plan the Economist suggests takes over.

However, just in case the private health companies are not bankrupted, the Economist also suggests that "anti trust" be introduced into the area. As the late Ayn Rand (and so many others) have pointed out, there are no clear principles (things that can be clearly defined in advance) in "anti trust" or "competition policy" in fact the whole thing is an excuse for arbitrary power for the government working with the politically connected. But the Economist either does not know, or does not care, about this point - and loves "anti trust".

Almost needless to say the Economist does not mean getting rid of regulation (such as the licensing regulations for doctors - exposed as a racket by Milton Friedman 60 years ago,. or the F.D.A. and its price inflating and new medical adavance preventing "health and safety" regulations). On the contrary the Economist means yet more regulations on top of all the ones that exist already.

Of course the Economist does not mention the real problems of American health care. Neither the ones I have mentioned already or the others. It does not mention how Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP have vastly inflated prices (just as the subsidies for higher education have had the effect of inflating tuition fees over the decades) or how the vast web of Federal and State regulations prevent much of a real "market" in health care at all, or how American hospitals are forced to provide free ER cover in spite of the fact that an expensive (although terrible - rather like some British NHS hospitals in fact)) network of government "county hospitals" already exists, or... But of course it does not - because it wishes to add subsidy schemes and regulations, not get rid of them.

Lastly I must mention one other policy suggestion of the Economist.

It suggests abolishing the tax deductibility of employer health care provision - not to switch the tax deductibility to individuals to buy health cover themselves, but because the lower taxes "cost the government" lots of money (all money belongs to the government it seems - although it should kindly allow people to buy toys, not important things like health care).

This massive tax increase is something that even Barack Obama is wary about talking about (although it would only pay for a fraction of the costs of his plans), but have no fear the Economist will hold his hand - it is all about "The Renewal of America" to quote one of the most vile magazine front covers I have ever seen.

As for the Obama plan of one and half TRILLION Dollars (according the Congressional budget office in reality it will grow to far more than that, entitlement programs always do) that will only cover a fraction of the people he says it will. Well if the Economist is truly "economically liberal" it will help lead the fight against this evil - but judging by this article...

Of course it could be claimed that I am being unfair - that the American coverage of the Economist is the worst element in the magazine. Although I have not noticed the Economist denouncing the move to income support schemes and government health cover in India (in spite of the ever growing fiscal deficit) in India - or indeed in any country.

Be that as it may, it is the United States where the alternative of a free market current affairs magazine is most needed - an alternative to the statism of Time and Newsweek and the rest of the mainstream media. And the Economist utterly fails to provide this alternative.

So, friend (again you know who you are), do not ask me to give the Economist a chance again - to do so is not good for my liver.

(39)

There is a bit of a debate going on over at The Corner, the National Review's group blog, on whether the 150-year sentence meted out to Ponzi scheme fraudster Bernard Madoff is excessive. Well, given that the man is 71 years old, it is academic anyway since he will die in the slammer. But clearly, the length of the punishment is symbolic, though the judge could be accused of grandstanding - it might have been easier simply to sentence Mr Madoff to life imprisonment and have done with it.

From a philosophical point of view, I am not sure whether such a sentence has much of an effect in deterring future fraudsters; the trouble with the notion of restituting victims of crimes, however, is that what on earth can a convict like Madoff do to pay back his victims tens of billions of dollars? If he did some kind of work until he dropped dead, it would be unlikely that he could generate a fraction of the wealth that has been taken from people. In some cases, folks lost their entire life savings. Now the snarkier folk out there might say, well, his victims were all incredibly rich so they will not suffer, but that is nonsense. Theft is theft; if you have honestly built a fortune and some shyster takes the lot, that's a crime, period.

But there is a problem with the idea of compensating victims when the size of a fraud is this huge. I'd be interested in what commenters think might be some practical solutions.

(2)

Some speculation is already generating about who might get the top job at the Institute of Economic Affairs, the think tank in the UK that is, in some ways, the grand-daddy of free market think tanks in the UK. John Blundell is going, having been in the post for some time. Guido has some rather barbed comments about Blundell. Guido mentions an old journalist friend of mine, Allister Heath, as a candidate. Allister would be great - but he is anyway going great guns at the financial paper, City AM, and may also have his eye on other journalistic positions in the future. But he would be a very strong choice for the role, although selfishly, I'd prefer it if those few of us who are libertarian journalists stayed in the profession.

In some ways - these things are not easy to measure - I get the impression that more focused groups such as the Taxpayers' Alliance have been making far more of the running in recent years than the IEA, while the Adam Smith Institute has been doing a lot of outreach work with universities and colleges, which is vital. But the IEA has a tremendous pedigree and it ought to be a coveted position to go for. The only reservation is whether it can command enough of a budget to get in someone at the right level.

(7)

I rather like the recently-launched magazine of UK current affairs, Standpoint. This item on Ken Loach, the film-maker, is particularly good.

I wish the magazine success and it should give publications such as The Spectator, Prospect and The New Statesman a run for their money.

(8)

"Brown's claim that he'd increase public service spending year after year is not an exaggeration, it is a lie. I cannot think of any modern Prime Minister who has based his strategy on a demonstrable lie - but Brown thinks no one can add up enough to expose him. After all, he got away with it as Chancellor. Why not now? As I have said before I believe the internet will hound him. We have infinite space to print the tables, the data, the proof. The table above spells it out, and we will keep reprinting it every time Brown repeats his lie. He is going for broke - in every way."

Of course, politicians have always, with varying degrees, told lies or only partial truths, and Brown is hardly an original in this regard. Arguably the greatest lie, or set of lies, told to the UK electorate were told in the period leading up to the UK's entry into the-then EEC, later European Union: namely, that our entry into the Community was in no way a loss of national sovereignty. In fact I am sure that I recall reading - sorry, cannot find the source - such pro-EEC journalists as Hugo Young saying that it was admirable and necessary for the likes of the late Edward Heath (curses be upon him) to bullshit the public.

Even so, Brown's denial of his own budget arithmetic, when it can be so easily checked, is a jaw-dropper. But what is encouraging is that parts of the media, even the fairly lefty bits, are not buying the line that there will be no cuts in spending over the next few years.

Of course, if Brown is refusing to make spending cuts, then I guess that fits with the whole "scortched earth" idea that he has: he knows Labour will lose the next election, probably quite badly, but out of a mixture of low cunning and sheer evil, he wants to bequeath a terrible inheritance upon the next government.

Yes, I said evil. Mr Brown is an evil man. In fact his invocation of his puritanical Scottish religion is part proof of that.

(85)

I feel sure that early man would not have embarked on the road to civilisation if he had thought that, one day, humankind would arrive at a point where one man has the right to determine how much beer another man may take into a field in the middle of the night.

- Jeremy Clarkson, on the over-policing of midsummer at Stonehenge.