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]
|
This is a tremendous rebuttal of the claim that British manufacturing is in decline. Of course, there is nothing specifically wonderful in having a large or small manufacturing sector, but for those who care about such things, this article nails a lot of cliches about how Britain is supposedly losing the art of making stuff well. In fact, a lot of the manufacturing that goes on in the UK is first class. Take the aero-engine business, for example.
Well, it is nice to grasp at positive news that is going.
I posted this item almost as Brian hit the button on his own entry on the same subject. But I think it is worth a second bite at this cherry.
Great work by Fraser Nelson at the Spectator for revealing that Royal Bank of Scotland, which is now almost totally owned by the UK government, has been asking prospective clients about their political affiliations. The exact term is to ask whether a wannabe client is a “politically exposed person”. Now, this maybe more of a cockup than a sign of anything more sinister, so my trigger finger may be getting unnecessarily twitchy, but still. This is, as the commenters on the article Fraser writes says, a classic demonstration of why state-owned banks are bad and ripe for corruption. Special favours will be demanded by the ruling party’s clients. In France, remember, the former state-run Credit Lyonnais bank was a sink of corruption.
RBS is also the parent of Coutts, the private bank, and RBS Coutts, the international version of said. These banks provide clients with offshore accounts. The risk is that such a bank could be put under political pressure to deliver details about its clients, a fact that becomes particularly relevant with so many governments currently trying to shut down so-called “tax havens” such as Switzerland.
If it is the case that RBS has been trying to prize out details of potential clients’ political affiliations, then at the very least the management responsible for this dim-witted idea should resign. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, should serious consider his own position. On his watch, the once very solid, in fact gloriously dull, UK banking group Lloyds has been pressured into buying the debt-laden UK banking group HBOS. Result: Lloyds’ share price has crashed and most of that bank is now owned by the government. (Full disclosure: I bank with Lloyds).
Unbelievable.
Bloomberg carries this article today about the willingness of China to go on holding Western debt that might deteriorate in value:
China, the U.S. government’s largest creditor, is “worried” about its holdings of Treasuries and wants assurances that the investment is safe, Premier Wen Jiabao said.
“We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States,” Wen said at a press briefing in Beijing today after the annual meeting of the legislature. “I request the U.S. to maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets.”
Good luck with that. As Brian Micklethwait noted the other day, the fact that the US, or indeed the UK, might be downgraded in credit terms as nations or even default on certain debts, is no longer unthinkable. Defaults are not just things that happen in Ecuador, Russia, or competelyfuckedupistan. They can happen in the supposedly rock-solid financial centres of the world.
As Glenn Reynolds says sarcastically of the new US government of Mr Obama, the country is in the best possible hands.
Following on my from recent SQOTD about property rights, it seems poignant to link to this item by Roger Thornhill.
This issue is also related to that of compulsory purchase/eminent domain that I wrote about some time ago. It is also somewhat related to the idea that the government is entitled to take money out of “dormant” bank accounts if, after a certain period, the account-holder does not use the account. The assumption seems to be, that if in doubt, it belongs to the collective.
Well sod that, quite frankly.
I do not like all of Will Farrell’s movies. But this one, about a nutty US TV anchorman, is wonderful. I wonder if any actual broadcasters have ever dreamed of doing this? I bet Jeremy Paxman has.
“The trouble is that because schools fail to teach history, especially legal and constitutional history, the vast majority of today’s citizens have no inkling to what they owe their liberty and prosperity, namely a long and successful struggle for the rights of which the right to property is the most fundamental. They are therefore unaware what debilitating effect the restrictions on property rights wil, over the long run, have on their lives.”
– Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom, page 291.
Of course, by property, one does not just mean physical property, but also to the whole idea that individuals, not the state, own their lives.
Well, full marks for trying, I guess. Ross Clark – a columnist whom I enjoy reading – argues that the fuss about proposals to reduce certain speed limits on UK roads are unwarranted. This is his argument:
It didn’t take long for the militant motorists’ lobby to get into gear to attack the Government’s proposal to reduce the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph.
That’s true.
To lop 10 mph off the speed limit on country lanes, apparently, is tantamount to declaring a fascist dictatorship. “These corporate Nazi New Labour bastards are intent on turning law-abiding citizens into criminals,” began one of hundreds of angry posts on the website of a prominent motorists’ pressure group yesterday – before, bizarrely, imploring his fellow petrolheads to vote for the British National Party.
A classic bait and switch. For sure, some opponents of speed limits might like to clam they are the equivalent of bringing back the Gulag, but for most of us who do not see the logic of ever more draconian controls on the car, the case can be made without invoking images of Soviet Russia or Hitler’s Germany.
That the leaders of the motorists’ lobby are not quite the defenders of liberty they often profess to be is obvious from reading their output over the years. They have never been slow to demand the prosecution of cyclists, jaywalking pedestrians and motorists who drive too slowly or in any other fashion that impedes their progress.
That has probably something to do with the fact that a lot of pedestrians and cyclists do not think the highway codes in countries such as the UK applies to them. But he does make a fair point, but so what? Just because some motorists are hypocrits does not undermine the broader point.
Unfortunately, Mr Clark descends into nonsense:
The assertion that tighter motoring law is tantamount to dictatorship is further confused by a paradox. The world’s most illiberal regimes happen to have some of the most anarchic and dangerous of roads, while the most liberal nations tend to have the strictest traffic enforcement and safest roads. For all the conspiracy theories, Morgan Tsvangirai now says that the car crash that tragically killed his wife on Friday was an accident. It shouldn’t come as a surprise: reporters who have used the road between Harare and Beitbridge paint a terrifying picture of speeding, overloaded lorries and complete lawlessness – this in a country where if you criticise the President you can expect a rapid visit from Robert Mugabe’s thugs.
He’s right that consistently enforced rules of the road are hardly the same as political oppression, forced labour or torture. Of course. Rules of the road are a bit like etiquette: if consistently followed, it helps us all to rub along, which in a small island like the UK is not a trivial matter. But Mr Clark needs to think this through. Take countries such as post-war Germany or France, with their excellent motorways. Speed limits are, and can be, quicker than in the UK and in the case of Germany, some of their autobahns have had no limits at all (this may have changed, I’ll have to check). When that fella with the silly moustache was in power, the autobahns got built, and the quality of driving in Germany is, in my experience, high. But that example, when set against the chaos of Zimbabwe, proves little. In India, which is a democracy and fairly free place, the driving is absolutely terrible. There’s no correlation between oppression and driving like Jeremy Clarkson on crack. None.
Local authorities would love to reduce speed limits on a great number of roads, but they are hampered by bureaucracy. Whenever they want to designate a limit on a rural road lower than the default 60mph they must justify it through accident statistics. It may be obvious that motorists are driving too fast on a stretch of road, but a council must wait for the required number of people to be killed or injured before it can take any action. And even when, finally, sufficient coffins have been filled to justify a speed limit on a rural road, it remains legal to drive along surrounding lanes at 60mph, giving reckless motorists an incentive to divert on to even more dangerous rat-runs.
Well obviously, if we had privately owned roads, rather than roads run by bureaucrats, then speed limits would be dealt with without the need for all this sort of wrangling. This is, by the way, a powerful argument for privately owned roads.
The only problem is that the proposal does not go far enough. Many country roads are no more than cart tracks covered with tarmac, where 50mph is still far too fast.
Match the speed to the conditions – that is a sensible principle. But if that is the case, that does rather mess up the idea of blanket speed limits in the first place, unless one is going to adopt a sort of “if in doubt, walk” approach to getting from A to B.
And Mr Clark makes no reference whatever to the glaringly obvious fact that the profusion of speed cameras is, and has been, driven in part by a desire to raise revenue. Now, if roads were privately owned and the driver, as consumer, knowingly signs up to the deal, that would not be an infringement of liberty. But as things stand, the obsession with restricting use of the car is all of a broader assault on these machines, for ideological and environmentalist reasons. And the proposal to cut speed limits comes across, at a time like this, as just another, petty little squeeze on private citizens and their desire to get around relatively quickly. It has nothing to do with a yobbish desire to drive as fast as one likes and damn the results.
Notwithstanding traffic congestion – which private road ownership would help solve – the car is a symbol of freedom for millions. Mr Clark, who has written brilliantly about the assaults on freedoms in this country, should focus his ire elsewhere.
One of the recent themes of this blog’s authors has been to challenge, and hopefully demolish, the “narrative” of how the current crisis proves the weaknesses of “unregulated capitalism” (I could be far ruder than that but I am not a swearblogger). Another, related theme that we try to plug away at is to show how previous acts of interventionism, with politicians playing the role of strong hero on a big white horse, have failed or if they have “worked”, been by-products of massive state mobilisation for war.
Prime exhibit: the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When I was a child doing my O-Level history course in the early 1980s, I got this broad version: the New Deal demonstrated the success of Keynesian pump-priiming economics, therby proving also that support for fuddy-duddy things like the Gold Standard, or balanced budgets, or “sound money” was silly, reactionary and wrong. And some of my impressionable teenage brain agreed. I did rather sense that there was something fishy about this, but it was not until I was a bit older, and started reading all those wicked reactionary Austrians and Chicago economists that the issues began to clarify.
Recently, there have been moves by some writers to challenge the Roosevelt-As-Great-Man story more explicitly. One of the most recent examples is Amity Shlaes’ book, The Forgotten Man (borrowing her title from a famous essay by Willam Henry Sumner). And Jonathan Chait, a leftist writer for the New Republic, is angry at Ms Shlaes’ analysis. Reading his review, there are some points where I think he is being quite fair, but his article fails to deal with what I think is the most damning thing about FDR’s record during the 1930s, namely, that unemployment, according to official US data, never fell below double percentage figures right up until the outbreak of WW2. However one slices and dices it, that is an appalling record. Chait tries to claim that unemployment roughly fell by half, in percentage terms, during FDR’s period of office in the 1930s but that does not seem to be born out by the official statistics. Chait even tries to claim that FDR was not much of a consistent Keynesian anyway.
We then get this:
“Moreover, the classic right-wing critique fails to explain how the economy recovered at all. In one of his columns touting Shlaes, George Will observed that “the war, not the New Deal, defeated the Depression.” Why, though, did the war defeat the Depression? Because it entailed a massive expansion of government spending. The Republicans who have been endlessly making the anti-stimulus case seem not to realize that, if you believe that the war ended the Depression, then you are a Keynesian.”
Well it is undoubtedly correct that unemployment did fall dramatically at this point. Well, for a start, it is not very difficult to achieve full employment if your country ends up, by a terrible turn of events, to be the sole economic power that has not been invaded or otherwise been bombed heavily. And Mr Chait completely ignores the rather important fact that a large chunk of the US male workforce was put into uniform. And yes, when the war was over, and with oil prices at rock bottom, the momentum the US had built during the war years continued. But remember, Mr Chait, that the US had a recession in the late 1950s and JFK, let it not be forgotten, cut taxes – they were implemented after his murder, in 1964. That was a supply-side measure, although not advertised as such, since the language adopted by Arthur Laffer and his school had not yet become common currency in US public affairs
But the broader point Mr Chait makes is troubling: is Mr Chait saying that what the world, or at least the US needs right now is the economic equivalent of a war, or of some massive, government-led direction of all economic activity, complete with rationing, forced service to the nation, etc? He needs to argue why it was that Britain, for instance, had managed arguably to recover quicker from the Great Crash than the US. By the late 1930s, Britain, at least in the south and east, was actually quite prosperous, although unemployment in the traditional industrialised regions was still bad.
Mr Chait makes a number of valid points about Shlaes’ book, which is not the most persuasive or rigorous demoltion job on Keyensianism that I have read. If you want to read such a book, this is a great place to start. And if one wants recent evidence of the problems with trying to reflate economies with cheap money, then the history of Japan over the last decade and a half is striking. Mr Chait will have a tough job trying to shrug that example off.
Following from my previous article about the alleged size of the role played by China/Asia in the current financial troubles, an eagle-eyed commenter by the name of Marc Sheffner pointed this excellent article out which clarifies a lot. My thanks to Mr Sheffner.
God but I love the internet.
“If you have a mortgage and are celebrating record low repayments, then enjoy it for now. Ask what the consequences will be for your household budget of interest rates of 10 per cent or higher, which will be needed to tame the rising prices that will result from this mad experiment. But there is another great British consensus emerging around the idea. “It is essential,” say analysts. “No other option,” sighs many a fiscal conservative. “Everyone” is in favour of it, we’re told. I have just about had enough of “everyone”. It was “everyone” – most economists, politicians, etc – who thought that the bubble would never burst. They were wrong then, and are now. “
Iain Martin, on the Bank of England’s descent into monetary madness. Milton Friedman must be spinning in his grave.
Following on from this, is another theme that came out of that seminar with media/City luminaries I went to the other day. One point that Anthony Hilton mentioned was the “global imbalance” issue. This is all about how the West, which is in net terms, up to its eyes in debt, has been living high on the hog thanks to oodles of surplus savings generated by countries such as China and Japan. In looking to figure out how to play the “global financial crisis blame game”, one argument goes like this: China, with its cheap exports, kept cheap by its artificially low and fixed exchange rate, earned huge amounts of money by selling this stuff to the West; in turn, the Chinese needed to reinvest the proceeds – there would be no point earning money you cannot spend – and they reinvested those proceeds in things like US government securities. As a result, long-term bond yields in the US fell, which enabled Mr and Mrs Westerner to renegotiate their long-term mortgages, release equity from their homes, and spend even more of their inflated wealth on – yes you guessed it – Chinese consumer goods. Result: a whacking great housing and consumer spending boom that inevitably crashed.
This argument sounds quite convincing. If it is true, then it also suggests that, contrary to what some of the critics of the Fed or other central banks might say, that there is not much that someone like Alan Greenspan could have actually done to curb domestic US monetary growth if there were such enormous inflows of hot money coming into the country’s debt markets from abroad. Well up to a point, Lord Copper. Much depends, I think, on what proportion of monetary growth in the West was driven by Asian inflows, and what was basically driven by domestic factors. I haven’t seen a lot of commentary on this.
If you buy the “Asian connection” argument, a problem, it seems to me, is that it would not have been realistic, for various reasons, for the US to have tried to curb these supposedly dangerous inflows of Asian money by protectionist measures such as capital controls or exchange controls. If one believes that capital and trade flows are good things, then imposing such controls would and could cause more damage than it solved. Exposure to capital flows has, in many ways, driven beneficial economic change.
But the argument about Asian money does suggest that had the Fed, etc, raised rates to curb inflationary pressures, all that would have achieved would have been to suck in even more Asian money from investors seeking a higher yield. But presumably, with higher rates, it would have curbed, and did eventually curb, US consumer spending, and hence dent the demand for Chinese and other non-US goods. China is now starting to feel the effects of the global slowdown rather sharply.
Even so, the “global imbalance” argument highlights the fact that in a world of fiat money without capital controls, it is now very hard for state central banks, even those with powers as wide as the Fed or the European Central Bank, to set interest rates effectively. Of course, the idea of a central bank setting rates for a complex economy is itself a version of state central planning. Globalisation has exposed its limitations.
One of the things I really want to ask Kevin Dowd at his Libertarian Alliance Chris R. Tame memorial lecture next week is how this sort of issue can be addressed. The “Asian dimension” to our current predicament could be the proverbial big gorilla in the living room. Or maybe it is just a small and rather distracting rodent.
Brian Micklethwait, over at his personal blog, links to a sentiment that states that it is wrong to blame the private sector banks for the current problems, given that the underlying cause of the credit/property bubble was cheap credit as supplied, ultimately, by central banks. Central banks are not creatures of the free market and would not exist in a world of pure laissez faire. So obvious to us, it hardly needs to be said. But outside our little intellectual bailiwick, you’d be be surprised – or perhaps not – to realise that saying such things still gets you a funny look.
As purely personal evidence, let me cite an experience last evening. I went along to a financial seminar in London’s Bloomsbury district, where various folk, including Anthony Hilton of the London Evening Standard and Angela Knight of the British Bankers’ Association were holding forth. Q&A ensued. Yours truly asked a question about what the panelists thought was the role of central banks and governments in causing the current SNAFU. You could almost smell the palpable relief on Knight’s behalf that she had heard someone not try to pin the blame entirely on private banks. My god, she thought, here’s a guy who has not bought the statist line that what is happening was caused by big, evil private banks. I have to say I found her answer on how the central banks mucked up was quite convincing although she by no means accepts the idea that the existence of central banks as such is a problem. As a lobbyist for the existing fractional reserve banking industry, she is certainly no Ludwig von Mises, but still.
I sense that some of the banking industry’s more independent-minded figures are getting really angry at being pilloried for sins outside of their control. The banking industry, however, cannot win any battle for hearts and minds until they are absolutely transparent about their own financial affairs, and until some of the leaders of the banking industry begin to embrace genuine free banking rather than the quasi-statist mess that we have now. Let’s face it, given the reputation of banks at the moment, what do they have to lose? The current option – hope for the best and take taxpayer’s money – is not proving to be very successful.
|
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.
|
