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 University of St Andrews Students’ Association has threatened to ban the student newspaper, The Saint, for not complying with an Equal Opportunities Policy. The Saint is an independent newspaper, run by students, but pays rent to the Students’ Association (the union) for the use of an office. Unlike student newspapers at many universities, it is not funded by the university/taxpayer. Nevertheless, the tabloid publication has won several prestigious national awards and is regarded as one of the best student newspapers in the country.
Three years ago, a campaign against The Saint was run by a group of anti-capitalist students. They charged that it was too right-wing, and a flat window on College Street was taken up by posters attacking the newspaper.
The student union has repeately tried to compete with The Saint, bringing out a succession of free newspapers and a magazine, but none have enjoyed success – or regularity of production. Union officers have complained over several years that The Saint doesn’t give their side of the story.
Now the union has found that the newspaper is in violation of the union’s Equal Opportunities Policy on the grounds that it does not respect students’ “right to dignity”. This seems to refer to a section of the paper called ‘Halo’ which features pictures from parties and events, generally of students fairly drunk and in strange poses. There is a caption underneath each photo. The issue apparently came to a head after they featured a student union official who objected to the caption used. Some students fear that the Equal Opportunities Policy could be used to censor other types of reports.
…is usually as bad as the problem. In fact, it is often worse. Let us say the problem we are given to solve is that poor people are not getting access to justice. The government solution is to give them legal aid. It seems like a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, the solution is worse than the problem. Instead of creating an utopian legal system, it causes taxpayer money to be used to benefit a very small minority who can bring dubious cases at no risk. Indeed, on a big picture level, it acts as a cancer on the legal system, not an improvement. On the other hand, market-based approaches can improve the legal system rather more effectively… but, of course, the politicians did not think of that.
For years, a certain type of person wrote letters to national newspapers and was frustrated that none would be published. Letter Editors would refer to their submissions as ‘nutter letters’, pinning some to the office noticeboard for the amusement of their colleagues.
Now these letter writers have moved into the age of the blogosphere. They are blogroaches now, but not ordinary ones. They are a type of superbug – the taxpayer-funded blogroach. They have nothing to do all day, except to collect jobseeker’s allowance or, more likely, incapacity benefit (which the government encourages them onto to massage the unemployment figures).
Not having got out much recently, they have lost many of their social skills, and seem less able to interact with others with courtesy and respect. For this reason alone, workfare has a lot going for it.
In having nothing to do all day, they inhabit other people’s blogs writing tediously long essays which tangentially refer to a blog’s point. They write 500 to 1000 words each time, and often get shirty if a proper response is not made by the blog’s author. Fortunately, Samizdata combines big readership with a high level of reader participation, meaning that its writers can sit back and let Paul Coulam beat up such annoying people. These blogroaches do not understand how to make their points graciously, normally regarding the blogs they infest as evil, and depositing their words of ‘wisdom’ on each and every article.
The taxpayer-funded blogroach assumes that everyone has as much time as they do for blogging, and should take their views seriously, and publish proper responses to them – or retract what they have said. In reality, bloggers on popular blogs tend to have real jobs and thus a fraction of the time to write for a blog. Spending hours responding to unemployed blogroaches seems pretty tiresome.
Some blogs solve this problem by just not allowing comments. Others delete blogroaches on sight. But the taxpayer-funded blogroach considers this to be restricting his right to free speech. Newspapers were wrong not to publish his letters and so are blogs. Apparently.
Keynesian economics may have gone out of fashion, but it is still here with us today in a different form. That is the theory of ASI president Madsen Pirie, who writes that Keynesianism has been privatized by the current UK government.
Keynesian economics used to be about government spending being used to flatten the business cycle. Now the privatized Keynesianism is about pushing private citizens into doing it. As Pirie writes:
They make saving less worthwhile by burdening companies with taxes and regulations, depressing share prices. They make spending easier with lower interest rates and by measures which boost house prices and encourage people to borrow.
The privatized Keynesianism builds up indebtedness and inflated house prices, and cuts into investment and pension provision. Government hopes that the boom part of the cycle will come to the rescue, and that rising wealth and prosperity will solve these problems.
Or will the privatized Keynesianism inflict the same long-term damage on the economy that the old Keynesianism did?
No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.
– Lord Salisbury (1877)
A year ago, the student union at the University of St Andrews denounced the Royal Bank of Scotland, along with a plethora of other companies and products, for being unethical. The arguments were generally spurious. In the case of RBS, it involved the fact that they had invested in or given bank accounts – or something – to biotech companies, if I remember correctly. RBS was the most unethical banking choice students chould make, the union claimed.
At around the same time, the Left, led by the One World Society, ran a referendum campaign on whether the union should only invest ethically. The union had already decided to only follow the ideas of ethical investment, but they wanted the student body to vote on it in a referendum so that it would get more publicity. Over 90% of voting students were in favour.
A year later, the union has evaluated its financial position, and has decided to move its money into an “ethical fund”.
With the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The Guardian, dubbed The Grauniad for its typos, seems to be in a world of its own. Its articles are full of polytoines. The Britain it describes seems not to have anything to do with the one here on Earth, but on some distant land – the Planet Guardianopolis perhaps. The paper’s spin rarely gets corrected but, in the face of undisputable facts, corrections and clarifications do get published. Here is one example:
In our report, Life after Living Marxism, page 10, July 8, we referred to the Reason Foundation and said its “leading writer, the syndicated columnist Sandra Postrel, is author of the libertarian book The Enemies Of Freedom and frequently talks at the Hudson Institute”. The Reason Foundation points out that no one of that name works at the Foundation or for Reason Magazine. The editor-at-large and former editor of the magazine is called Virginia Postrel. She is a columnist for Forbes and the New York Times but not a “syndicated” columnist. Her book is not called The Enemies Of Freedom. It is called The Future And Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise and Progress (Free Press). The Reason Foundation says Ms Postrel has never been to the Hudson Institute and has no connection with the organisation.
Good work, chaps.
The government talks a lot about ‘investing’ in hospitals and schools. That is why we have to pay extra taxes. We all know that New Labour’s experiment with spending has been a flop, with the improvements to services tiny compared with the increased spending.
One problem is that the cash we think is going to be spent on operations and classrooms gets diverted. Sometimes this is because of excessive bureaucratic layers, like Local Education Authorities. But sometimes it is rather more blatantly wasted.
Like with government attempts to encourage ‘e-society’.
The private sector worldwide has done a really good job at providing opportunities for e-society. Just look at AOL Instant Messenger, webcams, blogs, web site forums, Friendster and Orkut.
But the fact that e-society is so abundantly provided by the private sector has not stopped the UK government thinking it should get involved. Back in the autumn, I got an e-mail from James Crabtree of VoxPolitix asking if I would blog about a new project called MySociety.org, run by his friend Tom Steinberg, a former No. 10 adviser. I have met Crabtree a couple of times and like him, so I thought I should do my bit. I tried for an hour or so to write a blog about this new project, but I just could not. The project was utter crap. And I just could not write anything nice about it with a clear conscience.
Well, that project which I thought was ‘utter crap’ is now being funded by the government. It has just been awarded £250,000 as “part of something called the e-innovations fund, a pot of government cash set aside to stimulate useful and innovative new online projects”.
How international trade works has always been a difficult sell for promoters of economics. Explaining Comparative Advantage is easy if you are holding a lecture, but less easy if you have only a sentence or two. I am reminded of the catchphrase of my economics teacher who would say: “Not everything in economics is intuitively obvious.”
This is unfortunate. Mercantilism – and the neo-mercantilism put forward today by many NGOs – is deeply damaging, especially to the world’s poorest who are “protected” by high import tariffs.
The current buzz-word in trade policy is “offshoring”. Many people in Britain and America think it bad for their country. Yet offshoring jobs is nothing new. It is merely the specific jobs that are moving abroad is different. In the past, the jobs moving abroad were always changing. There is nothing new now. And each time people campaigned against losing jobs to overseas countries, Britain and America kept on increasing the total number of jobs in their economies. Opponents of offshoring do not have the evidence of history on their side.
Further reading: Offshoring service jobs is advantageous
You may not have noticed, but in the UK this week is Fairtrade Fortnight – that time of the year when we are encouraged to buy ‘fair trade’ coffee and other ‘fairly priced’ products. I spent Monday going on TV and radio shows explaining why the scheme is counter-productive, much to the fury of its supporters.
For a start, we should be realistic about the scheme’s potential. In Britain, despite ten years of advertising, 97% of coffee sold is not on the scheme. Most consumers are likely to continue buying coffee according to cost and quality. Its potential for increasing wealth among coffee producers is thus extremely limited. Some argue that the scheme is taking us away from thinking about more radical solutions to poverty.
Secondly, the real problem with ‘fair trade’ is that it is based on economic illiteracy. The low price of coffee is caused by production increasing by 15% since 1990, and supply is bigger than demand. This cannot be blamed on multinational buyers of coffee. There are simply too many people employed in coffee production. With new technology, the price may well decline further. In Brazil, five people and a machine can do the work of 500 people in Guatemala. The low coffee prices are a signal to exit the market, or switch up to higher value coffee.
‘Fair trade’ – though it helps some farmers – encourages people to stay in the coffee market and gives them confidence to increase production. That is all very well, but this has a downside. More supply means a lower price on the world markets. Perversely, ‘fair trade’ makes matters worse for the vast majority coffee producers.
Criticism of the multinational buyers of coffee abounds, but these people have probably done more to help the lives of coffee producers than ‘fair trade’ has – by promoting coffee drinking to members of the public, and putting trendy coffee shops everywhere.
Instead of ‘fair trade’, we should concentrate on real solutions. Like getting rid of the Common Agricultural Policy and EU tariffs, which limit the goods overseas producers can diversify into. And coffee producing countries need to make the economic reforms that enable enterprise to flourish. ‘Fair’ pricing schemes may sound like a good idea, but they fail the market test.
Alex Singleton can be contacted via his personal website.
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
– Barry Goldwater
Here’s a quiz. The UK government is squandering money all over the place. That’s what governments do, after all. Just look at National Rail, The Dome, Government Department IT projects… If you could choose one government project that was the most appalling of all, what would it be? Are there ones that we don’t know about?
|
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.
|
