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]
|
The European Social Model is dead! Long live the European Social Model! Gordon Brown has written an excellent article in today’s Financial Times explaining why the old European Social Model is a relic of the past. He says that a new European Social Model needs to be created, one which is centred around free trade and flexible labour markets. He says that globalization is a race to the top and Europe has to be part of that race. Mr Brown’s comments follow a speech given by Peter Mandelson earlier in the week in which Mandelson mocked the French economy. Mandelson said the French government was engaged in a futile effort to build an economic “Maginot Line”.
It is great to have figures so associated with the Labour Party saying such good stuff, especially while the British have the Presidency of European Union.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Balls.
What they say and what they do are two entirely different things.
My father’s business, which had survived the three-day week, the winter of discontent, the recessions of the early 80s and 90s, took all of five years of Brownite regulation before it collapsed under the weight of compliance and form-filling.
They use the language we like to advance the agenda they like.
Maybe you Brits don’t realise it, but your New Labour is subject of envy by many continentals. If only our (i.e., Czech) social democrats were more like Tony Blair or, for that matter, Prince of the Darkness. Yes, it’s sad.
Comment deleted by Admin. Ciao Dr. Vic (or as we like to call you “the commenter who creates a consensus by posting with mutliple names”)… comment not off-topic (in fact a fairly sensible comment) but you have burned your bridges here and are still banned.
This idea that Tory economic policies of the 80s were our economic salvation from the post-war social democratic nightmare is, I’m afraid to say, a revisionist myth. Average national income growth rates from 1960-73 ran at 3.2%, higher than at any subsequent time. Over that period, both parties followed broad social democratic/Keynesian policies. And, of course, Labour were in power for a good chunk of that period.
The divine Margaret only managed 2.5% during her term in office, probably because of the boom and bust recessions she triggered (although she did buck the EU average, which Britain hadn’t done since the 60s).
So, two myths need slaying. One, that there is a ‘correct’ way to run an economy that people were just too stupid to see in the post war period. The golden age of economic growth belongs to Keynes and the social democrats, not Hayek and the Tories.
Two, that the Tories provided ‘economic stability’. Not in the 80s and early 90s they didn’t – unless you regard recessions and black wednesday as symptoms of stability.
I am a bit more interested in what Brown and Madelson (the director of that smash hit “Bra Wars”) do rather than what they say.
I mean, if you go by what people say about what they think, Ken Clarke is a Euroskeptic civil libertarian rather than a crapulous dissembling merchantalist statist who has spend years trying to make the UK a province of a Federal Europe. Words are cheap.
John Thomas – what is economic stability?
Surely a stable economy is by definition a stagnant economy? The Left’s fetishisation of stability in economics reveals an odd conservatism, while we social conservatives are, equally oddly, castigated for supposedly failing to believe that society even exists.
“Words are cheap.”
Sure. We are used to hear such cheap words before elections, but it seems you are now after the election. So what makes them say it ? Could be they beleive in it ? Or is it that they have no idea what they are saying ?
Anyway, it’s better to hear these words instead of the ones decrying the cruelty of social darwinism and capitalism, like we used to hear before.
After reading what was actually said, I’m not sure it means anything at all, beyond the usual empty claptrap of politicians. I don’t know why Alex Singleton calls it “such good stuff”.
John Thomas, You give the game away will your off the cuff comment, “…although she did buck the EU average, which Britain hadn’t done since the 60s).”
It’s pointless to talk about changes in national growth in one country whilst ignoring the rest of the world. National UK governments cannot buck world trends.
It would appear from your comment quoted above, and the content of your post that when, “labour were often in power and following Keynesian policies in the 60’s” our national growth was below the European average, whereas under Thatcher it was above the European average. (I’ve not checked these claims, just taken them from your post).
So it would appear that the Thatcher era was a relative success after all.
Jacob – “We are used to hear such cheap words before elections, but it seems you are now after the election. So what makes them say it ? Could be they beleive in it ? Or is it that they have no idea what they are saying ?”
The answer, my dear old mucker, is that yes, they know exactly what they are saying. They say it because there is political advantage in doing so, by buying off the disapproval of the easily-persuaded who would otherwise concentrate on their deeds rather than their words.
Politicking for advantage does not stop just because elections are over.
In any event, I gather Gordon Brown’s monumental conceit is such that he truly believes he has found a way to reconcile the rigours of a true market economy with his own instinct to control and regulate; so if he’s not cynical he is epically arrogant.
Sorry for being all over this post like a cheap shirt, but it irks somewhat to see even this site buying the Brownite PR line.
John,
Allright, the period of 1960-73 was good by GDP figures. No arguing about this simple fact. However, the statistics don’t show you that the growth carried its price tag, and it was substantial. Britain had to be bailed by the IMF like a third-world country. Maggie did a divine job indeed.
That’s right, Pavel.
GDP will often rise in Keynesian times because it’s based on spending, not on tax. Government can raise GDP by spending money on projects.
The “golden age” that John Thomas talks about gave us high inflation and massive debts, and at the same time, British Leyland, Concorde and high-rise tower blocks.
Edward,
The government talks free market, but don’t really believe in it. Any government that has a committee that discusses the issue of the price of replica football shirts is far from a free-market one.
Just so
Here’s the elephant in the living room: there should be no such thing as a European Social Model, for god’s sake! It reeks of command economies!
Now that they think Ken Clarke, widely regarded as a successful chancellor (I can’t comment; I don’t know) is in the horse race, they are going to try to diminish his reputation by appearing to be more free market and more daring than he is. If he doesn’t win the leadership contest, they will stop talking like this.
John Thomas may not understand the difference between nominal and real GDP.
Second, given the time frame involved, GDP per capita ought to be more relevant. Britain added 6 million people to its population since 1960.
Third, one ought to be wary of obviously cherry-picked start/end dates. Why 1960-1973 ?
This web site lets one go back in time and compare nominal/real GDP etc : http://www.eh.net/hmit/ukgdp/
As it turns out, real GDP per capita increased 29% between 1960 and 1973 – 14 full years – which we can annulize to 1.8% per year.
Under Margaret Thatcher – taking 1979 to 1990, or 12 full years – real GDP per capita increased 24.1%. Which , annualized, amounts to…..1.8%.
How people can flatly assert one period was so much better for the UK economy than the other on the basis of GDP numbers alone is, at this stage, a bit of an enigma.
But then we can’t let boring facts get in the way of a good argument, can we ?
Gordon Brown is just a stealth communist.
Blair, Brown, Mandelson etc have been talking free markets for years. Their aim is as much changing the social democratic movements (across Europe) as it is assuaging right-liberal leaning people, or countering the perceived threat of that fat old fart Ken Clarke.
Still, what politicians say is not altogether insignificant whatever their actions may be. For a start, big beast politicians like Brown and Mandy will reach a great many more people than anyone here at Samizdata will -and so long as they are saying broadly the right sort of things then this will help to spread libertarian ‘memes.’ I think this should be welcomed (if not applauded) to some degree.
I have to agree with Verity. It says a great deal about European political culture that you even have the concept of a “European Social Model”
I don’t think I have ever heard of an “American Social Model” in any serious political discussion. Even if some theorist were to use such a phrase it would not occur to the electorate that the “American Social Model” was something one could engineer at will.
It is frankly weird the degree to which Europeans appear to unconsciously assume that economies and cultures can be centrally controlled. The debate doesn’t seem to be whether such complex systems can be engineered to any specs they might want but rather what specs should be chosen and who should be in charge.
As Edward Lud states, balls. Brown was on the Today programme (interviewed by Naughty, naturally) and spoke as much about the continuence of the ‘progressive consensus’ as he did about free markets. The ‘progressive consensus’ of course being … oh endless high tax, high spend socialist ruination.
European Social Model – eh? More ruinous socialism dressed up as polite bullshit.
The gulf between Brown with his new social model and the right can never be bridged. The social modellers want to mould people to fit their models (impossible), whereas most on the right accept human nature for the immutable thing that it largely is, and try to devise systems that work best within this constraint.
John Thomas talks a lot of rubbish. The fact is that Britain’s standing as a serious economic power declined disastrously before the situation was turned around in the 1980s by Mrs Thatcher’s administrations. She did not directly cause the recession of the early 1980s – it was the result of the oil hikes following the Iranian revolution, the necessary and unavoidable reduction in the runway inflation of that time, and the recession experienced in many other countries.
The period of history associated with Keynes was largely fuelled by cheap oil and the mighty resurgence of the U.S. economy and that of continental Europe. Britain largely tagged along, but was nearly destroyed in the madness of the late 1970s. Brown and Blair, however much one may dislike them both, are not going to repeat that error, hence their willingness to give the reins of monetary policy power to the Bank of England, something the Tories should and could have done years earlier.
As an American, it is always interesting to observe other societies and cultures wrestle with the same complex issues that we have struggled with during my lifetime, and in our history.
For most of my early years, and most of the 20th century prior to that, the liberal/progressive agenda held sway here, and the socialist/statist model was certainly transcendant across the rest of the world.
Some people lament the disorder of the sixties, and the crash of the ’70’s, which ended with the “malaise” of Jimmy Carter in the US and the near bankruptcy of Britain, but, as I look back now, I can see that these years were the necessary precursors for a re-evaluation of the “dominent paradigm” ( a trendy little phrase which just happens to fit here).
For many decades, the theory was that any problem could be analyzed, and a solution developed to resolve it successfully, provided one had sufficient power and money to take the necessary steps required. In short, government was the answer to all questions.
We still hear variations on that formula today, as in, “Well, the school system would be just fine if we gave it the resources needed.”, or “The oil dependency problem would be resolved if we prohibited the building of inefficient vehicles, and funded research into alternative energy sources.”
Reagan, and Thatcher, as well as several prominent public figures in and out of government around the world, began to dismantle the liberal/progressive/socialist worldview by pointing out that the very evident mess the West was in was a direct result of increasingly statist policies, and advocating another viewpoint.
Has everything that’s happened since 1980 been one victory over statism after another? Hardly. But, and this is very obvious in these days of turmoil after Katrina, the idea that the government has the solution to all our problems will probably never be so naively accepted again, except, of course, by those in the “reality-based community”.
So, if a statist has to use non-statist rhetoric to advance a program, that is a victory, of sorts. It is up to those who actually believe in the primacy of the individual to point out any deceptions or inconsistencies. The struggle, as the collectivists so often remind us, goes on.
Veryretired,
The ruling socialists in the UK may have some daft policies, but they themselves are very clever. They have changed the make up of the voting constituencies to maximise the number of seats they get at election time, engaged in massive immigration (which will ensure a pool of low income, grateful voters) and presided over a massive increase in welfare for the underclass (more grateful voters, many of which forunately are so apathetic they don’t vote).
I agree with you that common sense and experience should ultimately lead in one direction, free enterprise, but it won’t be an easy journey.
‘European Social Model’ reeks of the grandiose Soviet ‘5 Year Plan’, when pure socialism would have been achieved.
The facts of the matter are simple.
Mr Blair and Mr Brown have pushed into effect higher and much more complicated taxes, vastly greater government spending (much of it “off the books” via P.F.I.s and other Enron style tactics) and endless new regulations.
The last Chancellor to cut and simplfy taxes in Britian was Mr Lawson.
Nigel Lawson did not undertstand monetary policy (he allowed the money supply to go up in an effort to rig the Pound/ D. Mark exchange rate) and created a boom-bust cycle, but few people do. On fiscal policy (cutting taxes and making them less complicated) he was O.K. The level of knowledge in Britian is so low that people blamed the boom-bust on “tax cuts”, rather than a fiat money credit expansion.
As for “New Labour” – it is a load of shit. If the Continentals “envy” our government then they are misinformed.
Would the Conservatives be any better? I doubt that “Ken” Clarke would be any better.
I am told that Mr Davis has been going to I.E.A. conferences for years – who knows some of it may have made impression.
Are you really going to back anything that Gordon Brown or Mandleson say ? Brown just repeats what he thinks people want to hear and to give the impression he wants to create. It’s only because this ultimate bighead can’t claim he invented the European model that he is against it. He created something else so contending models must be useless. Clear ? Just look at his current take on high fuel prices and compare with the truth (eg yesterday’s FT).
Brown is talking rubbish.
He has increased the size of the public sector (and businesses relying on the publc sector) hugely, in contrast to the reest of Europe, and has resisted breaking their monopoly in any way. How is this consistent with free trade and (given the public sector unions) flexible job markets?
Whilst the public sector resists change, the private sector are expected to be more innovative and enterprising then their foreign competition just to survive, whilst at the same time being heavily taxed and charged to pay for the ever rising costs of the protected public sector (where hourly rates are now 20% higher than the private sectore, without including their expensive index-linked pensions).
Those that say that the Thatcherite reforms did not improve the growth rate of the economy are talking rot. First, you need to compare growth rates relative to other countries over the same period, rather than look at absolute growth levels, because of the huge effect of international conditions. Secondly you have to acknowledge that economic policy has long time lags. The economic performance of the first few years of a government should be attributed to the previous government. If you do this, Margaret Thatcher’s performance looks much more impressive and Gordon Brown’s much less so. In fact, he has only sustained the growth after the first five years by massive borrowing and spending, ruining the impressive legacy he inherited.
HJHJ,
That’s part of it – as well as raising the size of the public sector, he’s also raised the size of the private sector that supports the private sector.
Every ludicrous scheme that requires an internet site means a company employed by government, probably on a deep trough contract.
This has given the country a boost and even encouraged investment in businesses who get the juicy contracts. Eventually, this will start to dry out, and the effect will be that it will take us deeper into decline.
Yes Tim. Why haven’t more people realised this?
The ‘pure’ private sector has had an incredibly tough few years. The bits that have done well are those supplying the public sctor or benefitting from the consumer boon (retailers, estate agents, etc.).
A friend of mine is a consultant in London, specialising in telecommunications and technology advice. I asked him about a year ago whether he had seen a downturn in business. He was quite frank – it has never been better, because although nearly all his private client work evaporated, the public sector work increased hugely (and more lucratively). Best of all is “Transport For London” who now pay him a fortune as a full time consultant (he knows nothing about transport).
If we believe in free markets, as the neoclassic economy suggests, means that we trully deeply believe in the market as the best mechanism to allocate resources.
Right!
Then, we should be consequent with it. First, small government, less intervention.
Second, no restricions for goods: Free entrance for as many chinese clothes or any other product coing from the so called “cheap countries”.
Third, no subsidies: UK will abandone their share in the Common Agricultural Policy.
Fourth, no restrictions for people: Free entrance to the country to people coming from wherever in the world. The market will regulate.
When I see all those free-market supporters agreeing on the fourth point, I will start to believe that they are not, actually, doing what they accuse Gordon Brown of doing: Talking one, doing another.
Oscar: well I have always argued for open borders, for goods and also for people! I am all for heaving loony toon Muslim clerics out of the country (or down a well if needed) but I have no problem with free immigration. Hell, not only will it mean high initiative folks will move to when I make my money, it means the welfare system will go bust unless dramatically reformed, which works for me either way too.
Perry, having open borders means the loony tune muslim clerics will just come right back in after you heave ’em out…. an open border doesn’t keep anything out.