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]
|
Tim Worstall provides a suitably terse response to the latest piece of economic illiteracy from leftie writer Richard Murphy, who is against admirable things like avoidance of high taxes, and who now is supporting measures to prevent, or at least hamper, investors from making money by “shorting” the shares of firms they think are likely to perform badly.
The practice of “shorting” seems to get a certain class of person all upset. Earlier this year, when the shares of HBOS, the UK banking group, came under pressure, the cry went up that those irresponsible wreckers called hedge funds were deliberately trying to destroy the firm to make a fast profit. What this ignores is that if there were not investors willing to temporarily borrow stock as part of their short-selling tactics, then this would reduce the total number of counterparties in a market, and reduce liquidity and efficiency in the pricing of shares, which is a bad thing. Illiquid markets – which can produce big jumps up or down in the prices of shares – are generally not good places to be in, particularly for smaller investors.
If I take a dim view of a company that I do not own, shorting lets me act on that view and maybe make some money out of it. Quite why this is so terrible, Mr Murphy does not bother to explain.
Some time ago, when I wrote about this topic, one sarcastic commenter moaned that I was insulting the intelligence of readers by trying to explain what “shorting” is. I reject that criticism since it s plainly obvious that even among supposedly intelligent people, the workings of the financial markets are mysterious. And what people do not understand, they fear.
The Irish “no” vote on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty has already had some positive effects, such as the lessening chances of the European major states attempting to create a tax cartel. Well, we can all hope, anyway:
France has dropped plans to push forward with tax harmonisation under its European Union presidency, following Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon treaty.
Christine Lagarde, French finance minister, told the Financial Times that while the proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base had not been abandoned altogether, Paris would no longer press other governments to back it over the next six months.
Yes, perhaps the French, rather than attempting to prevent some horrific “race to the bottom” on tax rates, should instead admit that tax competition, including that which comes from those dreadful offshore centres, is a good thing.
The comments ought to underscore just how serious are the consequences of creating an EU state and the benefits that exist from resisting that ambition.
Well, maybe I write these words in a spirit of optimism as the light pours through my window. Indulge me for a while.
Nice item on the writings of this wonderful author. I remember watching the TV series Shogun many years ago and remember how enthralled I was.
On her blog over at the Spectator website, Melanie Phillips, a writer with whom I generally agree on certain things, not least the right of Israel both to exist and defend itself, writes what I think is a poor article on David Davis’ recent decision to hold a by-election in his parliamentary seat to highlight the loss of civil liberties:
Much is being made in some quarters of the apparent gulf between the view taken of David Davis’s resignation by the political and media village (he’s lost the plot/is a one-man plot/is a monstrous narcissist) and the public (he’s a hero fighting for Britain’s ancient liberties). I can’t help but see all this as yet another example of the replacement of reason by emotion. I can certainly see that Davis has touched a popular chord among people who feel passionately – and I have much sympathy with this – that MPs no longer act in the public interest and no longer speak for them but instead are machine politicians whipped by their party leadership into a systematic denial of reality. I also sympathise with the general view that the state is encroaching more and more oppressively into people’s lives – the abuse by local councils of anti-terrorist legislation being a case in point. To that extent, the quixotic Davis is surfing the popular tide of anti-politics, which explains much of the support he is getting and is not to be under-estimated.
“Much is being made”. Yes, that is because the loss of civil liberties and the spread of the database state has reached the point where ordinary members of the public – those ghastly people – are getting riled. David Davis is a sufficiently paid-up member of the human race to have spotted this. But to dismiss his action as some sort of Dianaesque emotional display, rather than what is in fact a pretty shrewd, calculated act seems a bit patronising. And then we get to the reasoning that explains why Ms Phillips dislikes what Mr Davis has done:
Second, he says he is against 42 days because he stands for the hallowed principle of not locking people up without charge. So does that mean he is against the 28 day limit as well? And if he is, then surely he has to be against the 14 day limit that preceded it, and the seven day limit before that. Indeed, according to the principles he has laid down he has to be against any detention before charge at all. Similarly, he says he’s against the whole ‘surveillance society’ including speed cameras, DNA databases, CCTV and so forth; yet he also says he’s not against all of this, and doesn’t want to get rid of all DNA testing because some of it is perfectly sensible. So what exactly is he fighting for? And why couldn’t he do so within his own party, which largely takes precisely the view he professes? Has he given this any systematic thought at all? Despite his SAS image and multiply-broken nose, is he not merely beating his chest and emoting, in tune with the sentimental irrationality of the age?
Well, leaving aside the snide remark about his “SAS image”, I am not sure how Mr Davis would reply to all of those points but his recent remarks make it pretty crystal clear that he is against the holding of DNA on innocent people, for example, or even shorter periods of detention without trial. Ms Phillips, presumably, is in favour of all the above and more.
Then we get an argument that Mr Davis is in favour of all this “emotional” civil liberties stuff because he is insufficiently aware of the threat Britain faces from Islamic terrorism:
It also strikes me that there is a strong and quite vicious sub-text to the support he has been getting within certain political circles, which are backing him against what they call the ‘neo-cons’ in David Cameron’s circle — by whom they mean in particular Michael Gove and George Osborne. The thought-crime committed by these two is to analyse correctly the threat to this country posed by Islamism and to support America in its fight to defend the free world. The anti neo-cons believe, by contrast, not merely that Britain must put critical distance between itself and American interventionism, but that the threat to Britain from Islamism is hugely exaggerated, both from within as well as from without. It is in that context that they maintain that 42-days is unnecessary because the dire warnings about the likely threat to this country are unproven and that the extension of the detention limit is instead a Trojan horse for the willed erosion of our ancient liberties.
The reasoning is weak. It does not seem to cross her mind that one might be as concerned as the next man about terrorism – as I am – without feeling the need to chuck out long-standing protections of the individual that were not even removed – or at least only shortly – during emergencies such as the Second World War. It may be that some people on the right dislike the “neocon” argument out of some naive attitude about terrorism, or some sort of hatred of Israel/America, etc, but that does not appear to be the case with Mr Davis. As far as I can tell, he is very much from the Atlanticist tradition of conservatism.
Ms Phillips is also playing to the bad argument that to be a defender of liberty is to be a softie on security. We have to absolutely nail this terrible idea that you can trade off one against the other.
By contrast, here is a cracking article that takes Mr Davis very seriously indeed.
The annual jamboree that is known as the Wimbledon tennis fortnight gets going in a few days’ time. I watched the Roddick/Nadal match yesterday and was stunned at the sheer speed with which Andy Roddick, the US player, served the ball. On several occasions he hit serves of more than 140 mph. Jesus. It made me wonder whether there is any wisdom in John McEnroe’s suggestion that wooden racquets are brought back to put some more finesse into the sport. There is no doubt that modern sports technologies, including the materials used to make everything from tennis racquets to the heads of golf drivers, have evolved at an amazing pace. One reason why modern tennis championships have to use special gadgets to test that a ball has fallen inside a court boundary is because of the ferocious speed with which the ball can be hit. It is almost impossible for a line judge to see the fall accurately over the course of a long game. I play occasionally and bought a racquet in a sale that, to my amazement, can be used to hit the ball incredibly fast. But I wonder whether this makes for a better game overall.
In the meantime, here are some good reasons to watch the sport. As for the ladies, I am told they are rather keen on the young Spanish maestro, who threatens to dethrone Roger Federer, one of the greatest tennis players I have ever seen, from his spot as best player on grass.
The Guardian newspaper, which regards David Davis’ resignation as an MP to hold a by-election over detention without trial as a “stunt”, carries this rather sniffy editorial that tells you a great deal about the mindset of those in power and their media lackeys. Excerpt:
He is right on ID cards, but only on the basis of an excessively sweeping mistrust of the state. The liberty he is concerned with is, almost exclusively, liberty from official interference. There is little place in this conception for freedom from destitution, for example, which only the state can provide. There is also a strongly patriotic dimension, baffling to those who see rights as universal. Mr Davis’s defence of the age-old liberties of English common law, such as habeas corpus, is impressive, but his past disdain for the Human Rights Act sits strangely with that. The European convention which that act codifies may not be exclusively English, but it will provide the only legal basis for a challenge if 42 days becomes law. Another convention right is that to life. Liberals who see that as the most basic freedom will be uncomfortable with Mr Davis’s personal support for the death penalty.
As Perry de Havilland of this parish would put it, that is wrong on so many levels. At the most basic level, the Guardian has conflated the idea of liberty and the idea of power. There is “negative liberty”, which says that liberty is the absence of coercion, and “positive liberty”, which blurs the idea of freedom with the ability, or power, to do things, or have things one wants, such as food, shelter, good health, nice weather, and so on. The late, great Isaiah Berlin skewered this reasoning years ago. The problem in claiming, as the Guardian does, that being “destitute” is the same as lacking liberty is that it ignores what has caused such destitution. A destitute person, living in a free country, will not be molested by the agents of a state in the way that anyone, rich, middling or flat broke, can and will be in a society that has the sorts of restrictions that Mr Davis is opposing. Of course, in some extreme cases, a very poor, or handicapped person is vulnerable to being taken advantage of by others, which is why prosperous societies full of people willing to help the weak and vulnerable are far better places to be. But socialism makes the fatal error in conflating liberty with power. In fact that error leads to the idea that somehow, all manner of regulations are okay so long as we have a full belly and somewhere to lay our heads at night. David Kelley, the philosopher, also confronts the nonsensical idea that poverty and coercion are the same thing in his book about welfare. Here is a review of that book that is worth reading.
→ Continue reading: Getting confused on the meaning of liberty
The Irish have voted “No” to the EU Constitution, sorry, Treaty, in their national referendum.
It is turning out to be quite a week in politics.
This is very cool.. I reckon 007 should get Q to make him one with all those lovely “additional features”.
A story here which says that fans of computer games are not all weird. I have never quite understood this whole media fixation with games just because they are on a screen rather than face-to-face. A lot of games draw on all kinds of creative energies and are arguably far better for cognitive development than just passively watching TV. As for the arguments about various social pathologies, well, this book is an excellent corrective to the social scolds, pointing out that games involving superheroes and vanquishing monsters is actually a very healthy thing.
Coming next, research shows that people who like to play poker with their mates on a Friday night, play tennis on a Sunday afternoon, do the Times crossword, are also normal. (Sarcasm alert).
Of course, by some yardsticks of social behaviour, gamers, or other hobbyists, are “weird”, but then what counts as normal, exactly?
Personally, I think the world could use a bit more eccentricity, not less.
David Davis, the Tory shadow Home Secretary, has resigned over the issue of detaining terror suspects for up to 42 days. He is going to resign his seat as an MP, hold a by-election, in the hope that he can win and create a storm of public rage over this issue.
It is certainly a bold move, and a commendable one. I am glad that at least some Tory MPs have got some backbone. As a former Territorial SAS member, Davis has more guts than most.
Update: I see that parts of the right-leaning press are trying to sell the narrative that Davis is a nutcase, trying to create cover for himself in the offchance that David Cameron, Tory leader, hits any future problems. Well, I guess that is possible. Make no mistake, how the Tory party reacts to Davis’ stance will tell us quite a lot about how genuine their commitment to civil liberties, to overthrowing ID cards, etc, really is. I cannot help but believe that David Davis, a very different animal from Cameron, has probably had a very major row with his centrist boss, who I confidently predict will not repeal most of the measures this present government has passed.
I am very sorry to hear this. I could not give a damn about what his political views are. Fact is, he has been one of the acting greats. The Sting, Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, Cool Hand Luke, Harper, The Road to Perdition….that is just a few of them. And he was a pretty mean motor racing driver as well, like his old pal, Steve McQueen, who succumbed to cancer at a much younger age.
At 83, he’s already put a lot of miles on the clock, but I hope he can make a few more.
When people rack up massive credit card debts it is easy to blame the card companies for seducing us poor moppets into living life beyond our means. So it is perhaps a little surprising that the sort of hysteria that has done for “Big Tobacco” (what, as opposed to “little tobacco”?) has not caused a political clampdown on credit card firms. I guess the reason why they have escaped heavy controls is that because the majority of the adult population use them, it would be electoral suicide for politicians to call for them to be banned or heavily restricted.
Debt is clearly a serious problem for lots of people and the have now, buy later culture plays a part in this. A lot of people are also unaware that if you do not repay a card in full every month, the bill can swell alarmingly. A rising burden of taxation has not helped, either, which can hardly be blamed on wicked money-lenders. Strengthening the incentives to save and avoid indebtedness is a good thing. Cutting taxes on investments and savings products is a good start.
Yet the supposedly “conservative” columnist David Brooks comes out with the sort of panicky, “We are all dying of debt” item that you just can tell is a warm-up to calls for heavy government regulation. He places a lot of the blame on the likes of financial services firms, and avoids mentioning the role that central banks like the Fed and government-backed mortgage agencies like Freddie Mac might have played in fuelling heavy borrowing. And there is this paragraph that really raised my eyebrows:
Public and private programs could give the poor and middle class access to financial planners. Usury laws could be enforced and strengthened. Colleges could reduce credit card advertising on campus.
Huh? Ursury laws? Forgive me, but I was not aware that charging interest on loans was or is a civil or criminal offence, as it is in the Muslim world or was the case in the Middle Ages. And the line about restricting or even banning advertising of financial products like credit cards so that poor, gullible college kids do not buy them is patronising nonsense. After all, if Mr Brooks wants to use the government to help give people financial planning advice, it is pretty silly to prevent firms from advertising products that are legal, as credit cards are.
But then I remember that Brooks is not all that keen on the idea of the state leaving adults alone, even if that means their making mistakes, anyway. That’s just so Reaganite, dahling. Check out this article.
|
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.
|
