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]
|
“When I stacked the shelves at my father’s grocery store, and I finished bringing the boxes up and emptying them and pricing everything, I wanted to see the shelves just sparkle. I called my dad over – I had a great father – he’d pat me on the back, “Fantastic!”
Ed Snider, American sports entrepreneur and philanthropist, from an interview with Stephen Hicks. This quote, I hope, gives some flavour of the zest and energy of a great, principled businessman who does not seek government handouts or favours. The interview is long but worth a read.
There is a bit of a debate going on over at The Corner, the National Review’s group blog, on whether the 150-year sentence meted out to Ponzi scheme fraudster Bernard Madoff is excessive. Well, given that the man is 71 years old, it is academic anyway since he will die in the slammer. But clearly, the length of the punishment is symbolic, though the judge could be accused of grandstanding – it might have been easier simply to sentence Mr Madoff to life imprisonment and have done with it.
From a philosophical point of view, I am not sure whether such a sentence has much of an effect in deterring future fraudsters; the trouble with the notion of restituting victims of crimes, however, is that what on earth can a convict like Madoff do to pay back his victims tens of billions of dollars? If he did some kind of work until he dropped dead, it would be unlikely that he could generate a fraction of the wealth that has been taken from people. In some cases, folks lost their entire life savings. Now the snarkier folk out there might say, well, his victims were all incredibly rich so they will not suffer, but that is nonsense. Theft is theft; if you have honestly built a fortune and some shyster takes the lot, that’s a crime, period.
But there is a problem with the idea of compensating victims when the size of a fraud is this huge. I’d be interested in what commenters think might be some practical solutions.
Some speculation is already generating about who might get the top job at the Institute of Economic Affairs, the think tank in the UK that is, in some ways, the grand-daddy of free market think tanks in the UK. John Blundell is going, having been in the post for some time. Guido has some rather barbed comments about Blundell. Guido mentions an old journalist friend of mine, Allister Heath, as a candidate. Allister would be great – but he is anyway going great guns at the financial paper, City AM, and may also have his eye on other journalistic positions in the future. But he would be a very strong choice for the role, although selfishly, I’d prefer it if those few of us who are libertarian journalists stayed in the profession.
In some ways – these things are not easy to measure – I get the impression that more focused groups such as the Taxpayers’ Alliance have been making far more of the running in recent years than the IEA, while the Adam Smith Institute has been doing a lot of outreach work with universities and colleges, which is vital. But the IEA has a tremendous pedigree and it ought to be a coveted position to go for. The only reservation is whether it can command enough of a budget to get in someone at the right level.
I rather like the recently-launched magazine of UK current affairs, Standpoint. This item on Ken Loach, the film-maker, is particularly good.
I wish the magazine success and it should give publications such as The Spectator, Prospect and The New Statesman a run for their money.
“Brown’s claim that he’d increase public service spending year after year is not an exaggeration, it is a lie. I cannot think of any modern Prime Minister who has based his strategy on a demonstrable lie – but Brown thinks no one can add up enough to expose him. After all, he got away with it as Chancellor. Why not now? As I have said before I believe the internet will hound him. We have infinite space to print the tables, the data, the proof. The table above spells it out, and we will keep reprinting it every time Brown repeats his lie. He is going for broke – in every way.”
Fraser Nelson, continuing his relentless and admirable campaign to track the sheer, barefaced dishonesty of Gordon Brown.
Of course, politicians have always, with varying degrees, told lies or only partial truths, and Brown is hardly an original in this regard. Arguably the greatest lie, or set of lies, told to the UK electorate were told in the period leading up to the UK’s entry into the-then EEC, later European Union: namely, that our entry into the Community was in no way a loss of national sovereignty. In fact I am sure that I recall reading – sorry, cannot find the source – such pro-EEC journalists as Hugo Young saying that it was admirable and necessary for the likes of the late Edward Heath (curses be upon him) to bullshit the public.
Even so, Brown’s denial of his own budget arithmetic, when it can be so easily checked, is a jaw-dropper. But what is encouraging is that parts of the media, even the fairly lefty bits, are not buying the line that there will be no cuts in spending over the next few years.
Of course, if Brown is refusing to make spending cuts, then I guess that fits with the whole “scortched earth” idea that he has: he knows Labour will lose the next election, probably quite badly, but out of a mixture of low cunning and sheer evil, he wants to bequeath a terrible inheritance upon the next government.
Yes, I said evil. Mr Brown is an evil man. In fact his invocation of his puritanical Scottish religion is part proof of that.
A nice piece by Jesse Walker at Reason about the late Michael Jackson. I think Off the Wall was one of the first pop albums I remember listening to, and of course Thriller, with that unbelievable video, was the one that helped propel MTV as a vehicle for music. Those two records remind us not only of what a great performer Jackson was in his heyday, but also of the musical genius of Quincy Jones. Yeah baby!
I also sympathise with Jonah Goldberg, who is a bit caustic about the whole spectacle of mourning. The weirdness and the allegations of criminality that swirled around Jackson in his life are well chronicled, and should not be brushed under the carpet. And remember that people, who are unknown to all but their family, work colleagues and friends, die of heart attacks every day. The truth is, that unless we take a bet on cryonics and join the Singularity, that the Grim Reaper gets us all eventually.
“Orwell was right. It was Wells who made it respectable, even before World War I, for liberals in England and America to demean their own native democratic culture in the name of an imagined antidemocratic World State. And it was Wells, with his stature as the prophet of the future, who taught upper-middle-class liberals that they were entitled to govern in the name of social evolution.”
Fred Siegel, writing on HG Wells. It is fair to say that the Fabian movement of which this man was such a key part deserves to go down in infamy, given the damage it has done in so many ways.
I do not intend to buy the book, but Sean Gabb’s review of Kevin Carson’s recent work is well worth reading. Carson is a sort of radical anarchist-libertarian who has interesting things to say. He is worth paying attention to; and Sean gives what looks like a very fair appraisal. And reading Sean’s review got me thinking about one supposedly arcane issue: bankruptcy law.
I thought about this because Mr Gabb, whom I would consider to be a libertarian in the Rothbardian tradition – with a Burkean twist – and Mr Carson are opponents of limited liability laws. I am not so opposed, but I can certainly concede the force of the point, and I think a similar point applies to the bankruptcy codes of some western countries. I have come across several instances recently of the “pre-pack”, in which a business goes into liquidation, the firm’s assets are sold off to supposedly the highest bidder, and the firm is re-started, Phoenix-like, under the same management, often in exactly the same business and line of work. I know of at least one business rival of my firm who has done just that and has, as a result, been more or less given, for free, hundreds of thousands of pounds in credit, while his creditors get the shaft. In a pure free market order, a rather more drastic outcome might be felt by this debtor, not least, the blackening of his or her business reputation. Indeed, if I recall from history, debtors used to go to jail.
Now, there may be good reasons for bankruptcy protection laws: they ensure that the chances of creditors getting their money back are enhanced by continuing a business as a “going concern”. But a balance needs to be struck, since if the law is too lax, it surely means that many borrowers get away scot-free with heavy debts and as a result, the average cost of credit goes up for the rest of us, good and bad risks alike. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Anyway, I am sure Carson’s book, which covers a wide field, will get plenty of attention.
Here is a revealing article in the Washington Post – hardly a newspaper of the conservative or libertarian side – that mocks the fawning treatment of Mr Obama by much of the press. Things change but there are continuities: I can remember how Tony Blair, or, for a while, Bill Clinton got such an easy ride in the press. The media was studiously easy on JFK in the early 1960s and covered up Kennedy’s numerous extra-marital affairs. Sure, Bush jnr got an easy ride from some of the Right – remember when Andrew Sullivan practically wrote love letters to Dubya before the gay marriage thing sent Sully off the edge? – but there was not the kind of broad-based cult of worship that there now is around the community organiser from Chicago.
Apart from Fox, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, a few niche publications like the American Spectator and the blogs, Mr Obama has had a remarkably easy ride and it does not seem to be ending soon. In part this is because much of the liberal media, even if some of its more intelligent denizens know that this is a bit silly, are playing as a “team” for Their Man, and don’t want to be seeing doing anything that might help the other side.
There has always been, and always will be, slanted coverage of public affairs, and it will continue. Even if the BBC in the UK were scrapped tomorrow and its reporters sent off to planet Titan, the fact is that there will be a substantial block of leftish/liberal media types and pundits. But the sheer, jaw-dropping bias of the White House press corps is something to behold. But maybe, just maybe, there are signs of cracks in the facade. I cannot help but think that Obama has, by trying to be all cool and sophisticated over the Iranian turmoil, started to piss off even parts of his side. He does not walk on water, and it is about time that this fact was noted. The stance now adopted by the media is not one suitable for self-respecting adults.
This might have made the grade as a Samizdata quote of the day, but we already have a superb one today. However, I wanted to post this by the regular commentator, IanB, as it was too good to leave at the bottom of a very long thread about the flawed idea that land, qua land, is special, and must be singled out for tax because of its supposed uniqueness, as distinct from say, income or consumption:
“Liberty is based on a different presumption which has the virtue of making sense, which is that people should own property and do with it as they wish, because it is their property. And, honestly, if I save up and buy some land and plant a big garden on it for my retirement, I don’t care whether you think it would be better used for a glue factory because that would return you some externality that you can double charge for via your tax.”
“This is why liberty and georgism are incompatible; you keep making claims on behalf of the community. Screw this “community” of yours. It has no rights or claims on me beyond the right to freely interact with me. The LVT is a crude social engineering plan. It attempts to maximise productivity of land. Liberty is not about maximising any statistical value- it is simply the principle that the person may do with themself and what is theirs what they wish. So long as they produce enough by whatever means to survive, there are no other demands upon their economic activity.”
Exactly. Suffice to say, I doubt the LVT enthusiasts will give up (they are persistent, a bit like cockroaches that can apparently survive a nuclear blast). Question: why does this issue come up a lot on this site? Are we masochists? Well, libertarians obviously are against taxation, period, but there are grounds for debate on the least-worst form of tax; for what it is worth, some form of consumption tax is probably best in my view, not least because they tend to be fairly easy to collect, although there are still issues here. But in debating the pros and cons, let’s not lose sight of the fact that it is tax, per se, that we want to grind down as far as possible (that leaves open debate between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists on how to fund “core” functions of law and defence). There is no such thing as a perfect tax, and use of tax to re-arrange some alleged fault in the economic order of things by punishing some presumed “unearned” surplus is not just morally wrong, it is almost always doomed to failure. So however tedious some readers might find the LVT debate, I make no apologies for giving it the occasional good kicking on this site, along with other taxes.
The debate has certainly encouraged me to read a bit more about Henry George, the thinker associated most often wiith the land tax idea. He was an interesting thinker in many ways. He was a good guy in many respects: a passionate defender of free trade, for example. And he hated other taxes besides LVT. He’d be far too free market for most of our current politicians. Here’s a nice entry on him, which has some good but I think very fair criticisms.
Update: as part of our slugfest with these Georgists – they embrace a range of ideological stances, BTW – I thought to add some further points, having read a bit about their views. I don’t know why Georgists should, for some reason, not give more weight to foolish central bank policy in causing asset price bubbles, or assume that property bubbles are bad, but other bubbles – like say, the dotcom one of the 1990s, are less so. One Georgist likes to raise the example of Hong Kong, which has a LVT. But that example won’t fly as there have been big gyrations in the price of accomodation, which hardly suggests LVT did much to alleviate the situation, or by much. In fact I would say that proves pretty conclusively that LVT, on its own, cannot fix this sort of problem if monetary policy is deranged by Keynesian demand-management or other economic quackery.
There is another, even more fundamental problem with the Georgist position about land. The problem is that it does not distinguish between the fact that while land is, by definition, fixed, available land is not. This is why the likes of John Bates Clark, an economist of the late 19th Century, demolished the land value tax movement’s arguments as did Murray Rothbard half a century later. Both men pointed out that the LVT argument ignores the fact that the price of land is driven by its marginal productivity, and in that sense is no different from labour or physical or human capital. To single out land for special tax treatment will lead to a misallocation of resources, encouraging more building density than is rational, etc. The total amount of land is fixed – obviously – but the total amount of sellable land is determined by the amount of marginal buyers and sellers, a very different thing. If demand is heavy enough, new land comes onstream. Just ask the Dutch.
Update: one commentator on the other long thread – it is so far down that I’d rather address it here – claims that Rothbard’s critique has been “thoroughly demolished”. Has it hell. Perhaps someone could explain to me why his point is mistaken. Consider this paragraph by the fellow:
“The selling-price of an asset on the market will be the capitalized value of its expected future rents: the capitalization to take place at the going rate of interest. The rate of interest is the price of “time,” and hence future earnings are discounted back to the present at this rate. A piece of land sells now at the discounted sum of its future rents. Similarly, any asset will sell at the capitalized value of its future earnings; and where these earnings accrue from hiring out, the rent selling-price relation will be the same. If Rembrandts are habitually rented out to museums, they will earn, say, per monthly rents; tuxedos will earn nightly rents, and so on. Admittedly, land differs from improvable capital because land is not replaceable, and therefore land earns ultimate rents.”
And then this:
“The Georgist has a curious conception of the market; he considers that the market is independent of the actions of an important part of its constituent individuals: the suppliers. On the contrary, there is no entity “market” which will take care of finding correct rents. If the shell of ownership is left and its contents confiscated by the State, there will be no incentive for owners (whether of land or Rembrandts) to allocate the assets to the highest bidders and most productive uses. There is no inconsistency when I point out that everyone will rush to grab the best locations if land were free; it would be the same if Rembrandts were suddenly declared free by the government (or if there were a 100 percent tax on their value).”
Here is also a very detailed, and to my mind, devastating take on Georgism in its various forms, by the writer Paul Birch. It is pretty technical, but worth studying. He concludes that the “libertarian” Georgists are the least-bad, but also notes, as many Samizdata commenters have done, that Georgists tend to flick around between a sort of hatred of landlordism per se on the one hand, and a more pragmatic concern with efficiency, on the other. One commenter has referred to landowners as “parasites”. That should tell us something about where these guys are coming from.
In boxing terms, the referee would have to stop the fight at this point to save Mr George’s hide. And I am done here.
“We live in a broadly capitalistic society…if Briitish Airways gets into trouble and cannot be sustained as a profitable business, then the government should not step in and bail it out.”
Richard Branson, talking about the economic woes of British Airways. I have no idea whether sincerely believes in untramelled laissez faire (one has doubts) or is just dissing the competition, but it was refreshing to hear such comments on the BBC Breakfast TV show this morning. Take note, Messrs Obama, Brown, and the rest of them.
Warning: for the irony-challenged, this is a spoof.
Or maybe not.
|
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.
|
