Haringey had a beautiful paper trail of how they failed to protect this baby.
– Eileen Munro, London School of Economics, as paraphrased by Simon Jenkins.
|
|||||
|
A lot of people are noticing the parallels between what happened in Japan when and since their bubble burst, and what Britain, and if our Prime Minister gets his way the entire world, is now doing to itself. About a month ago, I did a podcast, with Antoine Clarke and Michael Jennings, in which Michael J in particular gave Japan a big mention, as an illustration of what not to do. This headline, which I snapped yesterday, reminded me of that conversation:  A zero percent interest rate has been a feature of Japanese life in recent years, as has almost total economic stagnation. In an October 29th article in the Independent, Hamish McRae noted this parallel. I got back to that piece thanks an ASI email, which flagged up this blog posting by Tom Clougherty. Said Clougherty:
Indeed. McRae actually went on to say that we are not in as bad a pickle as Japan. Which is some comfort, but not very much. November 13th, 2008 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Matt Welch – author of a recent fine study of John McCain – has this to say about the recent cave-in by so-called conservatives to calls for a massive bailout of failed businesses and banks:
Indeed. Like a few other Samizdata contributors – such as carbon-footprint monster Michael Jennings – I am a big fan of the deregulated airline business. This business has been a huge boon in places like Europe. Thanks to the lower cost of flying around, I can see friends in Europe, see my family (and they, ahem, can visit me). The development of the cheap airline business model, notwithstanding some of its flaws, has done more to bring Europeans together than all the EU directives ever passed. Arguably, such directives have in fact been a hindrance, rather than a help, to such closeness. On Matt’s broader point, he is right that we are going to have to make the case for free markets, dispersed property rights, entrepreneurship and trade all over again. It is extraordinary to think that barely over a year ago, Conservative Party leader David Cameron was attacking cheap flights. He has allowed a Big Government, environmentalist message to overshadow what must always be a staunch support of freedom and property rights. He reminded me of the comment attributed to the Duke of Wellington in the 1820s about the railway train: he disapproved of them as they would encourage the common people to move around. Thankfully, such nonsense has disappeared But just you wait: as and when the good times reappear, the inhabitants of Notting Hill, the Upper East Side and central Paris will be arguing for shackling the unwashed masses to living and holidaying within a few miles of where they live. It is vital, therefore, that the defence of the market order, and resistance to bailing out politically well connected firms like GM or RBS, be given a strong, populist image. Defending deregulated airlines strikes me as a good sort of issue to use in this respect. Keep your stinking, socialist hands off my Ryanairs, my Easyjets and my Southwests! Unleash the spirit of Richard Cobden! November 13th, 2008 | 36 comments - (Comments are closed)
At 8 pm on Friday 14th, the day after tomorrow, I am giving a talk to the Oxford Libertarian Society, as mentioned here. I killed two birds with one stone by listening this evening to a talk given on October 24th to the Society by Professor David Friedman, concerning which they have a report (and a link to the recording) on their blog, here. I wanted to hear what Professor Friedman had to say because I always want to hear what he says, he having been one of my favourite libertarians ever since I first read The Machinery of Freedom in about 1975. And, by listening to what Friedman said to the Oxford Libertarians and to the questions they asked of him after he had spoken, I now have a better idea of what kind of audience they will be and what they’ve recently been attending to and thinking about. More recently, their blog flagged up their video of the same event. I’ll be watching some of that too. Today, they put up a blog posting advertising my talk. Its heading is a little out of date, but it describes what I used to do far more energetically than I do now, and what I will be talking about: Propagandising for Liberty. My use of the word propaganda is deliberate in this connection. For me, propaganda is a neutral term, meaning simply: that which should be propagated. But there is, I agree, a whiff of intimidation about the word, of weight of argument in the gross tonnage sense as well as merely in the sense of intellectual power. But how to contrive such effects without incurring crippling costs? I don’t have all the answers, but will offer some and I will be paying particular attention to universities. By the way, David Friedman’s talk to the LA/LI conference on the afternoon following his Oxford talk, on the impact of various revolutionary near-future technologies, can now be viewed as well as heard, here. November 12th, 2008 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
“Unlike those excitable countries where the peasants overrun the presidential palace, settled democratic societies rarely vote to “go left.” Yet oddly enough that’s where they’ve all gone. In its assumptions about the size of the state and the role of government, almost every advanced nation is more left than it was, and getting lefter.” Mark Steyn. As he points out, the upcoming US government bailout of General Motors and god-knows-what-else should nail the idea that the US is the land of “unregulated capitalism”. Update: PJ O’Rourke writes in similar vein. November 12th, 2008 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
Simon Heffer concludes this Telegraph piece about why there must be public spending cuts, despite the public statements of all the political parties which by omission suggest the contrary, with this:
All the lies and idiocies? That would be asking too much. But you can see what he means. My first reaction was: what a frightful commentary on the state of public opinion just now, if no politician dares tell it like it is. But then again, it is the very fact that Cameron is not telling it like it is, but instead just following idiotically behind Mr Brown, that is causing his current decline in the polls, which I confess I did not see coming. I can’t recall who said it – I think one of the Coffee Housers – but the best recent comment on the Conservatives I heard said something like: Cameron was picked to deal with good times, in a way that Blair was doing, and Brown subsequently couldn’t. But face Cameron with a catastrophe, in which the option of pretending to be nice to everyone no longer exists, and he is a rabbit caught in the headlights. Mr Brown loves a good catastrophe and is benefitting from this one now, even though it is to an appalling extent a catastrophe of his own making. Like I say, I did not see that coming. The voters now face a choice between clever and determined but deluded, and nice – well, polite, in a smarmy old Etonian manner – but bewildered. One thing I do seem to recall saying a few months ago, although I can’t recall when, was that Cameron believed he merely had to say and then do nothing in order to sail into power and stay there for a decade. Only “events” would upset such a calculation. Now, those events have arrived. Optimistic Conservatives presumably now hope that Cameron is “keeping his powder dry”, and will stir up a rhetorical storm come the actual election campaign, whenever it materialises and when it will be too late for Brown to steal all Cameron’s brilliant policies. But I am starting to think that Perry de Havilland has had Cameron’s number all along. There are no brilliant Cameron policies. There is no Cameron powder, or not the sort that accomplishes anything. Which means that a general election now would simply prolong the reign of idiocy, no matter who wins. November 12th, 2008 | 2 comments - (Comments are closed)
Tim Worstall, whom I read daily, has a good post dealing with the idea that it is somehow wicked for banks to charge a higher interest rate for a mortgage than the official base rate as set by the Bank of England (or any other central bank, come to that). It is, as he says, a matter of pricing for risk. Lending money to a person with a relatively small deposit – or collateral – relative to the total value of a loan is risky. I am going to have to renegotiate my mortgage in the next few weeks, and because the pricing of risk has risen dramatically, I can expect to pay more even though my loan-to-value ratio is quite low and I have a decent amount of equity, while both my wife and I earn a reasonable amount of money. It is not a great situation to be in, but it could be worse. For many years I chose to rent and stash up enough money to put down a good deposit, as did my wife. That, by the way, is one reason why there is a basic injustice when relatively prudent folk get taxed to bail out the imprudent, such as a person on a 100 per cent mortgage. To be honest, had the price of risk not been artificially reduced by recklessly loose monetary policy over the past few years, we would not be in this pickle in the first place, but that’s another story. November 12th, 2008 | 22 comments - (Comments are closed)
Whenever you hear a politician, particularly a Tory politician, use the term “fiscally responsible“, this is a codeword for… will make no difference. The true meaning is “we will not actually reduce the size of the state, we will just move the pain around a bit”. November 11th, 2008 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
You might think this is good news. From The Times:
But no, even this is not a move to logic and fairness, removing privilege from state clients and getting the state out of people’s lives. The bit I cut out reads:
So this is not, repeat not, a plan to reduce dependency, to diminish the proportion of the population in receipt of the taxpayer’s subsidy, nor even to relieve poverty. It looks like the proposals will be both more intrusive, bureaucratic and moralitarian than the present ones. Instead of in old socialist style checking people are poor enough to qualify for subsidised housing and leaving them to it, on the (generally correct) assumption that the dependent poor are unlikely in general to get much better off, and not worrying if some do, we are to look forward to a new grand scheme of supervision, whereby people are compelled continually to immiserate themselves for the inspectors in order to keep their roof. So there is to be a new premium to be created for inadequacy and profligacy. But the dependent class may not be too miserable or helpless. The very people who in a reasonable humane system we might be willing to help (those too feeble or disturbed to be able to earn a living) will not be the ones that are targetted for assistance, but those who have or are actively looking for a job, who show every sign of being able to look after themselves, in other words. How to explain this? It is neither likely to be economically efficient, nor is kindly (foolishly or otherwise). We need to note that as a project it embodies Gordon Brown’s puritan obsession with “hard working families”. I do not particularly care if people are feckless or pleasure seeking as long as it is not at my expense. I rationally wish I could be a bit more feckless and pleasure seeking myself, but I can neither afford it, nor do I have a sybarite’s soul. But the Brownite regards suffering and struggle, social compliance, and resentment of the easy life, as the core moral values. And this is of a piece with the politics of New New Labour. For the struggling compliant, resentful of others pleasure, are reliable voters for the gifts of authority. The feeble and disturbed who can make no shift for themselves are not voters at all. This is a plan to build, and politically police, a new client class. [To pre-empt the objection that at least it gets rid of privileged access to council accomodation to party apparatchiks and local government employees, I would point out that that form of corruption is already obsolete. Such people now get subsidised equity as often as subsidised rent, and get to live with others like themselves, not among the lumpenproletariat on council estates, because they have a claim as key workers. Key workers (who are largely middle-class and paid above average, even including town planners and Connexions advisers) constitute another client class of the state that has been silently established this last decade. Welcome to nomenklatura UK.] November 10th, 2008 | 40 comments - (Comments are closed)
Times have changed, voters want the pendulum to swing back from spending towards tax cuts. Rumours are circulating in the Westminster Village that Gordon and Alastair are preparing to announce tax cuts. Which will, even if they are only rhetorical tax cuts, in a stroke make Dave and George look ridiculous as both Labour and the LibDems promise tax cuts and the Tories are left high and dry stranded on the high tax centre ground … – Guido November 9th, 2008 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
I had a look at this test and think I would do reasonably okay. The only flaw in PM’s headline is that it refers to skills that men should know, but I would have thought this applies as much to women. As my wife likes to point out, she’s much smarter at changing a tyre on a car than most men we know. November 9th, 2008 | 27 comments - (Comments are closed)
“I have met several people, who when explaining the extreme youth or old age of their parents, have told me, “Of course, I was an accident.” Well, if they can admit it, why can’t we all. Our existence is not due to the preference of some fabulous Being: it is just dumb luck. Why people should feel bothered by this I don’t know. They have won the lottery of life!” Jamie Whyte, Bad Thoughts, page 128 November 8th, 2008 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||