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]
|
I left this comment over at this particularly bad article at American Conservative, a sort of ultra-paleocon publication, as it was flagged up in the Arts & Letters Daily aggregator site. The AC article made various, and in my view foolishly wronghead, comments about Adam Smith, while neglecting to mention other aspects of his ideas, or mistakes, such as his mistaken attachment to a form of the labour theory of value (admittedly a mistake made by other classical economists and not really sorted out until the marginalist revolution of the late 19th Century). I note that Philip Salter, of the Adam Smith Institute, left a comment. Here is mine, which I thought I would republish here.
“Philip Salter has nicely rebutted many of the points of this remarkably bad article. But I would add this point to the argument, made here, that somehow there is a case for protectionism in giving “infant” industries a chance to get off the ground. It is sometimes argued that in the case of some of the “Asian Tigers” – Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc – that this is what happened. That is far too glib. Sure, some of these countries practised protection, but then again, as Philip Salter said, Hong Kong did not. Also, many African nations, which on a per capita basis were richer than Asia in 1945, often used subsidies, tariffs, quotas and many other restrictions, and those countries have been largely overtaken by Asia.”
For a good debunking of the whole “infant protectionist” argument, I recommend this article by R. E. Baldwin: “The Case Against Infant Industry Tariff Protection”; Journal of Political Economy 77 (May/June) 295-305, as cited on page 41 of “Reviving the Invisible Hand: The Case for Classical Liberalism in the 21st Century, by Deepak Lal. I suggest readers of this website study that book, if only to guard against the kind of nonsense that this publication has chosen to publish. In the meantime, I commend PJ O’Rourke’s recent excellent, and typically witty, study of Adam Smith.
“Liberal democracy is not about “paying a fair share” based on the exigencies of the moment and the vagaries of public opinion. If it were, Parliament would be little more than a trading floor where the freedoms of minorities were bartered away for temporary fixes and periodic bond repayments. True liberal democracy was and still should be about protecting and preserving freedom, equality in liberty and equality before the law – even when it is not, financially or politically, in our best interests to do so.”
PJ Byrne, over at the Adam Smith Institute blog. Alas, “true liberal democracy” is hard to achieve, given the strong urge by politicians to persuade one group of electors to rob another group, or indeed, even to rob themselves.
“More and more, this society feels like a tacit civil war between the state, with its armies of employees, and the few of us still left who are not involved with it in some way, whether in making up the rules or implementing them. No shots are fired, but it is a conflict nonetheless.”
– Fabian Tassano
I occasionally get sent material about the economy, and fresh data on today’s ugly UK inflation figures must surely set the alarm bills ringing in the City and Bank of England.
UK consumer price inflation – which unlike retail price inflation, does not factor in mortgage interest payments – comes out at 4.4 per cent in February, the highest in 28 months, according to the Daily Telegraph. RPI rose to 5.5 per cent, the highest level since the early 1990s, back in the period when the hapless government of then Prime Minister John Major was in power and trying to fix the system by tying sterling to the-then Deutschemark. How well that worked.
It is going to be harder and harder to ignore the inflation problem. If you compound the effect even over, say, five years, an inflation rate of about 5 per cent will massacre savings, while of course being just marvellous news for borrowers. And I have this sickening feeling that while some policymakers may fret publicly about inflation, some of them are quietly happy to have this huge wealth transfer via inflation persist. The capital structure of the West’s financial system will be further distorted.
Here are the figures as shown by the Office for National Statistics. They don’t make for fun reading.
One of the few MSM journalists in the UK has been onto this subject early and frequently is Fraser Nelson at the Spectator. Here’s his latest. (The comment thread shows how depressingly silly some people are about inflation).
Tim Worstall, the redoubtable debunker of flat-earth economic nonsense, comes across a particularly juicy specimen in relation to the recent terrible earthquake in Japan. It is worth quoting at some length, because this “localism” stuff needs to be endlessly trashed:
Take local food. So, if everyone in North-Eastern Japan were to be reliant upon local food supplies then everyone in North-Eastern Japan would now be condemned to starvation in the next month or so. Not just the ten or twenty thousand who have already died, but the hundreds of thousands, millions, that make up the entire population. For in the wake of an earthquake that destroyed much and a tsunami that swamped the rest, there is no food, no saved food storage and no damn chance of growing any for the forseeable future.
“Localism” would kill all of these people. And the same would be true of localism in Pakistan when it floods, Queensland when it floods, Cockermouth when it floods, any damn where when there’s a drought and, in fact, any part of the planet that could be hit by any of those natural disasters which a vengeful planet can plop upon us, from the flood and drought already mentioned through to hurricanes, cyclones, potato or banana blight and plagues of frogs
“When Hollywood shows you an earthquake, an eruption, or a towering inferno, you see mass panic, stampeding crowds, maybe a looting spree. When sociologists study real-life disasters, they see calm, resourceful people evacuating buildings, rescuing strangers, and cooperating nonviolently.”
– Jesse Walker, on how Japanese people are responding to the terrible events to have hit that country over the past week. (H/T, Instapundit).
Well, I am back in the UK after a very busy – but also very enjoyable – trip to the US, visiting both New York and San Francisco. One of the problems in flying eastwards from somewhere such as San Francisco, as I and my wife did yesterday, is the jetlag. People have their own solutions or countermeasures, such as making sure you drink plenty of water to combat in-flight dehydration, and so on. I rarely sleep much on aircraft unless I have the luxury of a very roomy seat and can recline it. Being the cheapskate I am, I flew economy, and kept partly awake for most of the 10-hour flight. (I flew Virgin Atlantic, which I think is pretty good).
So what to do? Well, a number of friends of mine in the US recommend Melatonin. You can buy this easily enough in any decent US drugstore. In the UK, so I am told, you have to get it via prescription. But there appear to be websites where you can buy it, so I am not sure what the legal issues are, if any. I took a tablet last night, slept the sleep of the righteous, and now feel fine. It does not necessarily work for everyone, but it works like a charm for me. I am told that you should avoid caffeine and booze for a while before taking the pill and hitting the bed.
I first read about this substance via the Extropian crowd of friends – a group of futurists and transhumanists – back in the early 1990s. Melatonin is a substance that is produced by the body, but it reduces with old age, and some have argued that taken in the right quantities and used sensibly, that it has beneficial health effects. Here is a Wikipedia item on Melatonin. I know people who have suffered from insomnia, and it is no joke. So something that might handle that issue can make a big difference to quality of life.
Here is an article that caught my eye from the Wall Street Journal about some of the effects of China’s “One Child” policy, a policy that has led to a significant imbalance, as high as 60-40, between men and women. Yet another reason, you might think, to resist the coercive nonsense of some of the population control folk.
Mind you, perhaps one reason for a relative dearth of marriage-potential Chinese women is that many of them, as far as I can tell, seem to be in New York at the moment. I have been in Manhattan for a business trip – here until Friday – and I have never seen so many beautiful Asian ladies in my life. And I am off to San Francisco for the weekend, where the Asian population is even more pronounced.
Good to be back in the USofA, by the way. New York is as magnificent as ever.
This is a development which, despite whatever natural skepticism that I might have about such items, could be enormously positive for the millions of people – not just the very old – who fall victim to the terrible disease of Alzheimer’s.
The greatest passions, however, require privacy, and the good society would not deserve to be so-called if it lacked ample opportunities for seclusion and solitude. In work and in love, creativity requires time alone, to think and plan. Great, passionate works of art are not usually brought into existence by committee. The deepest friendships and loves also need time away from prying eyes to blossom; time to share intimacies not shared with others; time to build a special microcosm of private meaning within the wider, public world. A society devoid of privacy would be a society with no room for great passion, and hence not a place I would want to live. Warrantless wiretaps and extensive networks of closed-circuit television cameras have contributed to the United States and England being ranked alongside other “endemic surveillance societies” like Russia and China, according to Privacy International. But those who say, in defense of such invasive government actions, that people who have done nothing wrong have nothing to hide, reveal a profound misunderstanding of the importance of privacy. Privacy matters not because of the bad that it hides, but because of the good and the great that it nurtures.
– Bradley Doucet
“I just caught the last couple of minutes of a cable-TV documentary about Playboy magazine, which featured a clip of Hugh Hefner opining about the huge cultural impact the magazine has had in its 50-plus years of existence. And it struck me as an illustration that, even in the realm of culture and ideas, it’s the supply side that makes the greatest difference. Two young men in the mid-1950s had vastly different ideas of what the American audience really wanted and needed, and ventured forth to create magazines that reflected these views. Hugh Hefner, convinced that America was too sexually conservative and really needed to let its hair down, founded Playboy in 1953. Bill Buckley, convinced that America was too politically liberal and needed to restore its older, small-r republican virtues that had been eroded in the Progressive and New Deal eras, founded National Review in 1955. Now, think about how these ventures must have appeared at the time. Playboy was an outrage to conventional pieties about sexuality. National Review was an outrage to conventional pieties about politics. How much money would you have bet, at the time, that either one would survive for very long? “A dirty magazine? Won’t people be embarrassed to buy it?” “A magazine that’s to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon? Are there that many real fringies out there?” But the supply side takes a chance. And, quite amazingly, both ventures succeeded beyond imagining. Playboy bore fruit in the Sexual Revolution, which may already have reached its high point but shows little sign of receding. And from National Review emerged Reaganism, and conservatism as the broadly dominant system of political thought in recent years.”
Michael Potemra.
It is an interesting piece of commentary. Is it really true, though, that conservatism (however defined) is the “broadly dominant system of political thought in recent years”? I suppose it might be to the extent that the rise of Obama is in fact an aberration rather than anything else. But even if that is true, then it would be nice to see this reflected, long term, in the relative decline, not rise, of state power and spending.
Anyway, Hefner and Buckley were indeed very influential figures, no doubt about it. I have always had a lot of time for Hefner – he upsets the sort of people who need to be upset.
Update: Hefner has taken his business private.
“For as long as I can remember, I have been shouting at my TV screen. Possibly the first occasion would have been circa 1971, in sheer irritation at the infuriating, self-defeatingly named kiddie programme Why Don’t You Just Switch Off Your Television Set And Go Out And Do Something Less Boring Instead? Perhaps it was even earlier than that. Though I liked Teddy, I used to find Andy Pandy incredibly wet. Bill and Ben were incomprehensible. The Clangers whistled too much. ZsaZsa the Cat and Kiki the Frog were quite maddening in the way they ganged up on Hector the Dog. As for Florence in the Magic Roundabout, what a goodie-goodie!”
– James Delingpole
I would say that one of the great benefits of blogging has been that where before a person would get dangerously high blood pressure watching or hearing some drivel on the TV or radio, now they can work off this rage by blogging about it.
Apologies to non-UK readers who may not get the children’s TV references in the quote. That is why Wikipedia was invented!
|
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.
|
