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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – German political candour edition “Mr. Merz is doing what no one else in the top ranks of Western politics seems willing to do, which is broach the fundamental dilemma of the modern West. Nations have built welfare and entitlement states that are so large they have outstripped the ability of slow-growing economies to pay for them. Yet because the entitlement cushion is so broad and reaches deep into the middle class, it has become nearly impossible to reform.
This is true among conventional politicians of the left and right. But it’s also true of the supposed radicals of the populist right. From Marine Le Pen in France to the U.K.’s Nigel Farage, the AfD in Germany and Donald Trump, the populists dodge difficult reforms of the broken welfare state.”
– Wall Street Journal ($) editorial, reflecting on the recent statements on the German welfare state by the country’s Chancellor, Friedrich Merz.
|
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.
|
On the other hand politicians say ‘stuff’ all the time and we have become used to ignoring them. So perhaps a small outbreak of candour is only of interest to pundits struggling to come up with new stories?
Let me know when welfare reform appears in several manifestoes at the same time.
Western welfare states would be a lot more affordable if the ruling classes weren’t importing more and more welfare claimants (and demands on all public services) from abroad.
The Prince of Liechtenstein did this some years ago – he invited the population to a gathering and spoke o them about how the benefit and public services costs needed to be limited, he had no power (none) to do this himself, but the people were convinced and passed on their opinions to the elected politicians.
However, this is vastly less difficult to do in a nation of tens of thousands of people – rather than tens of millions like Germany.
The German government also depends on the support of the SPD party – which is totally opposed to controlling government spending, if Chancellor Merz allied the CDU/CSU with the AfD he would find (contrary to the false claims of the Wall Street Journal) they are open to controlling government spending.
As is the Freedom Party in Austria – the party that won the Austrian election, but was excluded from the Austrian government. Austria has (I am told – I hope what I have been told on this matter is NOT true) even turned down the gift of a statue of the King of Poland who saved Vienna in 1683 – as the establishment elite in Austria (as in so many Western nations) are people who turn a blind eye to the gradual conquest of their nation – and, indeed, persecute those who seek to warn them.
Jim – YES.
Contrary to the Wall Street Journal – what the “Populist Right” (which seemingly includes the Social Democrat government in Denmark – so the “Populist Right” must be a broad church indeed) understands is that the Third World immigrants, and most of their children and children’s children (for little real “assimilation” takes place over the generations – visit English towns and cities if you doubt this) are a net-drain on the budget – when all benefits and public services (including crime) costs are taken into account.
It is quite true that ending mass immigration and encouraging “remigration” (obviously all illegal immigrants should be deported – but encouragement for some others to voluntarily leave is also essential) would NOT, on its own, solve the emerging crises of the Welfare State – which is a both an economic and a cultural (societal) emerging crises, but it is a vital part of the solution.
In short such people as the President of Poland, the Prime Minister of Hungary, the Deputy Prime Minister of Italy, and the President of the United States (I suppose the Wall Street Journal would call all these people “the Populist right”) are correct on this particular matter.
Obviously such things as restoring the fertility of various nations must be done as well (reversing the, far left inspired, “Social Revolutions” that really got under way in the 1960s – although the intellectual roots of such destructive movements go back long before the 1960s), and there must be a return to mutual aid societies – both religious and secular, rather than seeing the state as “all in all” responsible for everything. People should have children again (not look to the Third World to produce the children they-never-had) and there must be a restoration of traditional families and networks of voluntary aid and mutual support (both religious and secular), to help the poor, the sick and the old.
Again, ending mass immigration and encouraging “remigration” of these “communities” is NOT enough on its own – but it is a vital part of any way out of the emerging crises, for both economic and cultural (societal) reasons.
There must be a return to “community” rather than “communities” – as, for example, the research of Professor “Bowling Alone” Putnan (a “liberal” leftist who sat on the results of his academic research for many years – because he did not like the findings of his own research) showed – “Diversity” (capital “D”) does not just lead to conflict between groups, it also leads to a decline of trust WITHIN population groups – helping lead to a decline of mutual aid and voluntary (non state) help for the poor, the sick, and the old. It leads to “atomized” individuals – filled with distrust for everyone around them (even people from their own population groups), and less and less voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.
“Atomized” individuals lead to an all mighty state – a state that tries to be “all in all”, be responsible for everything, and that always ends in disaster.
The situation in Britain is particularly depressing.
In spite of crushing taxation, both national and local, people are told they must volunteer if they want libraries and art galleries to be open – and must volunteer to clean the streets (even remove bushes and so on – which are destroying pavements), national and local government appears to be incapable of doing anything – other than demand more and more money.
When the volunteers ask how they are supposed to live (as volunteers are not paid) the answer of the state is simple “go on benefits” – the various advice groups (which are funded by the state) all say this, and it is normally some form of health related benefit (either for physical or mental health – or both).
The problem is obvious – if more and more people are on benefits and fewer and fewer people are in paid employment (again volunteers are not paid – and so do not pay tax), society will collapse.
And, no, the establishment response “more immigrants” does NOT work (see above).
The British economy also (increasingly – the situation is getting worse and worse) imports food (farm land is going all the time – partly to build the housing estates the Institute of Economic Affairs, and other London based bodies, claims are not being built) and raw materials – in the past it used to expert manufactured goods to pay for this, but now manufactured goods are imported as well.
The Wall Street Journal (and other such) claim that anyone who points out that this (this relying on Credit Bubble banking and “financial services” to “pay for” endlessly increasing imports of food, raw materials and manufactured goods), is unsustainable, is part of the “Populist Right”.
This would mean that everyone who is not potty (not out of their minds) is part of the “Populist Right” – again it must be a very broad church, seemingly even including the Social Democratic government of Denmark.
Those who lump President Trump in with all those politicians in other nations who wilfully ignore the unsustainable nature of their welfare systems are themselves wilfully ignoring the salient fact of the US political system, viz, that Trump has no legislative powers WhatSoEver – he is an executive. To control or reduce spending is the remit of the legislature – the Congress – and unless and until they vote on expenditure, Trump has no power to change it. Agencies like Social Security and Medicaid publish detailed reports that make their unsustainable ways perfectly plain to the meanest intelligence, and the Congress does – Nothing – and they will continue to do – Nothing – until the collapse of these systems is on the electoral horizon of individual members of Congress – in about 5-7 years. Since spending legislation originates in the House, the finger of blame needs to be pointed squarely at successive Speakers, of both parties, who have been successfully kicking this can down the road for 40 years.
llater,
llamas
It feels like a very long time ago, but I recall the Tory friendly press celebrating the welfare reforms undertaken by the Cameron government a decade ago as a success. Yet, COVID lockdowns and Boriswave immigration not only reversed any benefits such reforms had but have left a situation worse than ever.
Welfare reform always seems politically very tricky to enact but also very easy to mess up, and even if successful, easy to negate any such success.
As for Merz in Germany, he made it clear he will never work with anyone to the right of the CDU, so I look forward to his comrades on the left tearing him to shreds over this.
llamas – yes for President Trump to do what President Milei has done in Argentina would be illegal, the left would easily find judges to block it and the Supreme Court (under John Roberts and others) would not back President Trump on such radical actions – regardless of how necessary such actions are.
Most Federal Government spending is unconstitutional (the Federal Government is not supposed to do what it now does), but the courts have long ruled that “the common defense and general welfare”, the PURPOSE of the specific spending powers granted to the Congress by Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States, is (somehow) a “general welfare spending power” allowing spending without limit on anything – thus ignoring both the clear intent of the Founders, but also ignoring the Tenth Amendment (which should settle any doubt on the matter).
Even Milton Friedman went along with this – suggesting in his 1962 book “Capitalism and Freedom” that the Federal Government (the Federal Government – Washington D.C.) should give everyone below a certain income money – to get them up to this level of income, this welfare program to be called “the Negative Income Tax”.
This was before most Federal Government health, education and welfare schemes existed – remember it was 1962.
As for today, the establishment “right” still suggests such a policy – even though it would not be enough to pay for health care, or housing, or other such things. So it is NOT the case (and never was the case) that the “Negative Income Tax” would be paid for by getting rid of other government programs. It would, if enacted, have to be funded by space aliens (Tucker Carlson claims space aliens exist and visit us) – however, I do not believe that space aliens are visiting us, and even if they were – I do not believe they would be interested in funding our welfare schemes.
In the early 1800s such a policy was tried in much of England and Wales – it was called the “Speenhamland” system of wage subsidies (it started in the parish of Speenhamland – in the very late 1790s) – the policy was a disaster, leading to crushing Poor Law taxation – it was abolished by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.
Martin – yes indeed, and well put Sir.
My only doubt would be that I do not remember what the “welfare reforms” of Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne were.
Did these welfare reforms actually exist – or were they just a press release?
It’s a good point. I do think a lot of what the likes of the Telegraph, Times or Spectator used to cheer on about Cameron and Osborne’s government was mostly fake or at best gross exaggerations. I recall them excited about education reforms led by Michael Gove, but from what I can tell the education system is worse than it was when I finished school in the mid New Labour years.
But from what I recall the welfare system was changed to the universal credit system they have now and I vaguely recall them claiming they’d managed to get a decent number of people into work who weren’t before, although a lot of these were still getting some welfare as what they earned from working wasn’t sufficient to support them.
I read the past week that in the past year they’ve added 1 million people to the books getting some form of UC, so I think it is fair to say the system is messed up more than ever. God forbid we have a major recession and loads of people currently working lose their jobs and can’t support themselves or family…..
Paul:
A US Dollar is 371 1/4 grains of silver. As long as that was a dollar, then none of these problems arose. Dollar bills are not dollars, they are debt notes, issued by the Federal Reserve in recognition that the US government has “borrowed” a dollar.
The entire edifice of the welfare/warfare state can only exist in its present form because the US government is able to “borrow” an almost infinite amount of “money” from the Federal Reserve. None of it exists, and the loans will only ever be “repaid” via more borrowing.
I believe it took the government of the USA two hundred years to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion. It now adds that much to the debt pile every three months. It is obvious that this cannot continue. This debt can never be “repaid”, and everyone knows that. Yet it suits everyone to pretend that these “debts” are real, and are on a par with a normal commercial transaction. This is not the case. No-one will ever be repaid in a single silver dollar. They will be repaid with a piece of paper the US government says is worth a dollar, a very different thing.
I checked the Bank of England’s inflation calculator the other day. In 1971, 72p was enough to buy goods which you would need £10 to buy now. The phenomenon we call “inflation” is merely the debasement of the currency, a modern form of coin clipping. In another fifty years, assuming, optimistically, that Britain still exists in a recognisable form, perhaps £100 will be needed to buy what 72p bought in 1971. But it is more likely that the entire corrupt system will have collapsed. Ponzi schemes always do, and fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme of them all.
The Wall Street Journal editorial pages are a mixed bag – there is some good stuff there (and some stuff that is not good), but the rest of the newspaper (excluding the editorial pages) is pretty much the same boiler-plate leftism that one finds in most American newspapers – “School of Journalism” stuff, slanted and written in a pretentious way.
I remember 2020 when Republican poll watchers were forced out of some counting centers – and the WSJ (basically) said “nothing to see here folks – move along now” (the tidal wave of fake “mail-in-ballots” ignored). The same was true in Arizona in 2022 – when people in Republican areas of the State went to vote to find that there were “problems” with the voting machines (“come back tomorrow” sneered the officials – asking for a punch in the face) – again it was nothing-to-see-here-folks-move-along-now from the WSJ.
Now the government in Brazil (the Lula regime) has come out as pro Putin – the Wall Street Journal is starting to be open to the idea that there might have been “problems” with the (wildly, blatantly, rigged) Brazilian election – but at-the-time the WSJ would not tolerate any “Populist Right” complaints about vote rigging in Brazil.
The exception to all this, at least SOMETIMES is the New York Post – the oldest American newspaper, which sometimes has real scoops (actual discoveries of news – rather than copying out press releases), it would be a real loss if the New York Post was ruined – as it will be when Rupert Murdoch (who also owns the WSJ) dies.
When Rupert Murdoch dies News International will pass to a trust (to avoid inheritance tax) and his eldest son will be outvoted by his siblings (who are Dems).
At that point the remaining bits of the “mainstream” media which are of any interest (including Fox News) will die.
It it is “Populist Right” to demand paper ballots, cast after showing proper I.D. (proof of citizenship), and then counted in public with observers from all the candidates…..
Well then we are all “Populist Right”.
JohnK
I do not deny what you say – my point is that the courts (the judges – or “Justices” or whatever these scumbags should be called) ignore it.
What should we do to restore real money and honest finance?
Some people (including people I respect on other matters) seriously suggested that Mr Putin would do this in Russia – I always thought that was absurd, and I still think it is absurd.
A drowning man may clutch at a poisonous snake (Mr Putin)- but a poisonous snake is still a poisonous snake.
Mr Putin loves fiat money and Credit Bubble banking – he uses it to fund his unjust war in Ukraine (and for other things).
Not even President Milei in Argentina seems interested in restoring real money and honest finance.
I fear we are not going to see a restoration before a total collapse of the present economy – on a world wide scale.
I will not survive such a collapse.
The mess goes back a long way – even President Taft thought the problem with the monetary and banking system was that it was not “flexible” enough – he was exactly WRONG – the problem, even in the early 1900s, was that the system was too “flexible” (i.e. fraudulent).
Even then banks lent out “money” that-did-not-exist – expanding “broad” money. Although the problem was tiny compared to now.
For example, Mr J.P. Morgan lent out three “Dollars” for every physical gold Dollar he actually had.
A crook yes – but a saint compared to even British bankers of the same period (let alone now).
Now there is no connection to objective reality at all – none.
The system is totally divorced from reality – it is utterly insane.