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]
|
You sometimes hear of how London’s taxi drivers like to regale their passengers with their views on matters of public affairs. Maybe it is their self-employed, independent nature that lends itself to a certain feistyness of attitude. I do not always agree with what I hear from taxi drivers but often or not, they have their fingers on the pulse. Well, it turns out that the news service Bloomberg is polling the men and women who drive the London black cabs for their views on the state of the economy. If their views are correct, the UK economy is slowing down.
To hell with the official government statistics. The cabbies have spoken.
Continuing in movie-talk vein, one force that has swept through the western film industry to greater and lesser degrees is the current hatred of tobacco and the tobacco industry. The Michael Mann film, The Insider, starring Russell Crowe and Al Pacino – with a fine performance also by Christopher Plummer – is a good example. All the pieces are in place: a big, evil ciggie firm makes its products more addictive by dark scientific means; Crowe, who plays a scientist, leaves said evil organisation and blows the whistle on its practices. He is hounded, threatened, his marriage and career collapses. Pacino, as the hero-journalist, tries to expose all this, and in the process gets leant on by his big-bucks media empire bosses. The viewer comes away from the production in no doubt that cigarette companies are just a few inches short of being Nazis.
If you take a random look at any major Hollywood production these days, you seldom see stars light up a cigarette, except possibly some of the more dubious or “troubled” characters. When I watched Steve Martin’s hilarious spoof film of 1940s film noir, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid, I was reminded of how in the movies of the time, everyone smoked. Even the pet dogs would have smoked, given half a chance. And the cinema audiences smoked like chimneys as well. This is now a distant memory. The modern James Bond in Casino Royale does not smoke his Morland Specials, whereas Connery smoked and of course 007’s creator, Ian Fleming, puffed away heroically. Bogart got through several packs of Luckies in a movie, and so did the various hot dames who acted with him. Spencer Tracy was unusual in that he did not smoke. Can you imagine Hugh Grant smoking, or George Clooney?
Of course, there is a bit of a backlash from time to time, creating wonderful satire. Thankyou for Smoking, the film based on the humorous novel by Christopher Buckley, is one such. And the great Denis Leary tries to keep the flag flying. But for real defiance of the health-obsessives, the French cannot be beaten. Last night I watched the French cop film 36, starring the usual roster of craggy-faced Jules and Jacques with their Galoises and Gitanes attached permanently to their lower lips. I counted, or tried to count, the number of cigarettes smoked in the film and gave up at about the 200 mark.
If Sarkozy is to be a great president of France, he needs to smoke.
It is has been a long-standing complaint from pro-market folk – like yours truly – that business and capitalism tends to get a pretty crummy deal in Hollywood and its equivalents around the world. Even one of my favourite movies, Wall Street, starring Michael Douglas as the corporate raider Gordon Gekko, is normally taken to be an anti-capitalist film, even though there is nothing in the magnificent “greed is good” speech with which I fundamentally disagree (it is like Ayn Rand on acid). In the main, businessmen are treated as shysters, or cold, or boring, and business is regarded as either vaguely venal or not very dramatic. The trouble is, I suppose, that the creative process of forming a business, running it and exploring a new market is not always full of obvious drama the same way that a crime story is, or at least not obvious to people who tend to view business in a hostile light. Some processes of bringing a new product to market might actually be very dramatic, and it is surprising that the arts world has not picked up on this more.
People have of course speculated why business tends to get treated like this. In part, artistic people, including extremely intelligent and creative ones, will regard the process of raising funds for a film or play as a chore, and often resent the process of getting money and having to suck up to people to get it. Also, creative people often do not get close to the grubby necessity of having to pay bills, meet salary payrolls and so on. As a result, a lot of people in the arts world do not really understand business all that well. The results tend to bear this out. Take UK soap operas on television, like the terrible Eastenders, Coronation Street or the US shows Dallas and Dynasty. (The latter two cases were admittedly self-parodies to a degree). In almost every case, the businessman – it is usually a man – is presented as a crook, or brutal, shallow, uninteresting and generally unpleasant. And even in so-called “reality” business tv shows like The Apprentice, starring the Amstrad computer firm boss Alan Sugar, the impression is that being a great businessman means being a total wanker, which alas is the impression that Sir Alan conveys, although for all I know he is a much nicer man in real life and is just hamming it up for the cameras.
So is there any hope? Well, this interesting blog item suggests that things might be brightening up. Why does it matter? It matters, I am afraid, because people these days seldom form their views by reading long books like Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt or Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom. For better or worse – and it is usually the worse – we get our opinions, our prejudices and our ideas from watching visual media.
On a qualifying note, I should add that I do not, of course, want television dramas or films to become propoganda for the views that I like, as a reaction to propoganda for views that I detest. Rather, it is just that it would be nice to see entrepreneuriship given a bit of a fairer shake from the luvvies, once in a while.
I can unreservedly plug this film, however, I can also repeat my admiration for this film as well. This old movie, Cash McCall, is worth a look although it might be hard to get hold of easily.
Rather like the current mania for ‘socially responsible investment’ (not investing in ‘sinful’ industries), and carbon emissions trading, another strong trend in the financial world these days is sharia-compliant finance. There are sharia-focused hedge funds (I kid you not), sharia bonds, sharia companies. It all boils down to how devout Muslims who want to raise finance or invest in business can do so while negotiating the complexities of their religious code and its ban on usury.
On one level, I have no quarrel with any of this so long as no coercion is involved and there might even be unintended benefits. If the capital markets can make it possible for people to live their lives in ways they feel ethically comfortable with, then that surely demonstrates the enormous flexibility and benefits of the market (it is as well to remember that anti-capitalist ideologies, be they religious or secular, rarely return the compliment in this way). Of course, in as much as sharia financing does screen out interest on loans, one suspects that the returns on such investments must logically lag behind those of regular capitalist activity, if certain money-making practices are deemed off-limits but then if Muslims wish to surrender some money to comply with their own beliefs, they are entitled to do so, just as environmentalists sacrifice some returns by refusing to put money into businesses such as oil or whatever.
I cannot help but feel there is something rather rum about all this sharia financial wheeler-dealing. Many of the financial instruments that are used for the purposes of sharia-compliant finance look awfully similar to regular capitalism to me. In fact, it is hard to see what is really the difference on ethical grounds between speculating on certain types of assets, such as gold, and lending money to a company in the hope that the firm will profit and repay the interest. It strikes me as being the financial equivalent of splitting hairs.
I also suspect, as this article at Bloomberg lays out, that a lot of people putting themselves around as sharia ‘experts’ are making a huge amount of money out of this trend and yet their motives appear in some ways to be as ‘selfish’ as that of any regular capitalist, not that I have a problem with the honest pursuit of long-term self interest, quite the opposite.
The moral prejudice against usury always struck me as irrational. Here is a good piece on the subject.
He is an admirable character in many ways. He has achieved tremendous success in his professional life; he is by all accounts a devoted husband and I have read that he is good company. It therefore rather a shame even for the most one-eyed follower of Chelsea FC that Jose Mourinho is such a petulant jerk. It takes quite a lot to make me sympathise with Alex Ferguson, the long-standing manager of Manchester United, or for that matter, his highly-paid football stars, but I think the Chelsea boss has achieved that feat.
Class continues to be a sore point in English sport (I am not really qualified to know about how this works in Scotland or Wales). Football has traditionally been thought of as a working-class game although these days the cost of buying a season ticket are beyond the reach of all but the fairly affluent. Cricket is a mixture; rugby union is thought of as middle class, tennis is the same, yachting is for the posh, ditto polo, etc. (I am not quite sure if Formula 1 fits a neat mould any more. It used to be quite posh, since only rich people could afford to drive fast cars). But in football, there is still a strong working class aspect. So I really do not understand why, if the Chelsea manager is going to insult someone, he brings up poverty and humble origins as a reason to abuse someone. In fact, if a person comes from humble origins and becomes an international sports star, like George Best, Tom Finney or Bobby Charlton, that usually counts in their favour.
Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.
– Mark Twain
I have just got back from sitting in a discussion about how far should journalists go in chasing a story. It is a good question to ask and not as easy to answer as one might think. Is a journalist justified, for example, in breaking and entering a person’s property without consent to obtain facts even if the story is one of supposedly major importance? Can a journalist eavesdrop on confidential phone calls between X and Y in order to get a story and does that story have to pass some sort of “public interest” test? In my own hazy thoughts on the matter, I tend to take the view that the public interest test has to be very rigorous indeed, ie, life has to be at stake. It is not enough to say that “X is a famous man who is interesting to lots of people” sort of yardstick. It has to involve the exposure of murderous, criminal behaviour by the person(s) being investigated to justify breaking into a private home or breaching a confidential document.
Of course, as the discussion unfolded, it became pretty clear that the world of the internet and blogs, that a lot of media laws, as well as the whole idea of journalism being a licenced profession, is under threat. On the whole, I think this is a good thing. If journalists want to form their own trade associations to promote best practice and carry emblems on their news channels or newspapers saying that Mr J. Pearce is a member of the Journalist Society, well and good. It will be rather like plumbers, electricians or bricklayers forming such bodies, bodies that stand for reputation and high standards. Miscreants can and will be thrown out. Being a member of such a club will be a big deal, except that it will not be a state-approved body, but a genuinely private one.
Anyway, the weather is too glorious for me to write further. Time to light the barbecue and open some wine.
What is your favourite passage from a novel?
I think mine is that superbly-written scene in Moonraker when Ian Fleming describes how Bond deals out a sequence of cards that in Bridge is known as a Yarborough and as a result, takes the villain Drax to the cleaners. I never thought that a writer could make the game of Bridge sound exciting, but Fleming achieved it.
For second place in this quiz, I think I have to go for the scene in Scoop when William Boot, the hapless correspondent, files his first despatch for the Daily Beast. I still grin whenever I think about it.
Sufferers from epilepsy might – just might – have a cure for their condition thanks to this piece of medical technology. I know one person who has epilepsy and it has had a hugely disruptive impact on her life (she is not allowed to drive, for instance).
As the late musician Ian Dury used to sing, there ain’t half some clever bastards.
Some people get disgusted – I guess it is the ‘yuck!’ factor – at the idea that a person can sell his or her own kidney for money, for example. We seem to live in an era of warped values about the donation and use of human body parts, as this article in Reason makes clear. It appears that in some jurisdictions, just about everyone is allowed to make money from the business of using human tissue and bone for medical purposes – except the people from whom the tissue and bone is taken (I think we can take it as read at a liberal blog like this that killing people for their body parts is wrong).
Virginia Postrel, the US-based writer, underwent surgery to give one of her own kidneys to a friend and made sure said friend is alive today (what a great woman Virginia is). As a classical free marketeer, Postrel does not understand why it is so terrible that such acts should be done for financial gain. She has a long and typically thoughtful piece on the subject here. She responds to those who fear that poor or gullible people might be led into selling their body parts out of financial desperation, but that is an argument about curbing poverty, not reducing human freedom. Ultimately, I own my body, and not the state, not the rest of the UK population, not Tony Blair, not god or the Great Cheese Monster in the sky. Of course, a “market in organs” may attract shysters and unscrupulous doctors, but as the Reason article I alluded to makes clear, there are plenty of shysters in the system now.
Of course, in a country like Britain where a lot of the population drink like fish, it is debatable whether anyone would want to buy our kidneys, or even take them for free.
Somehow, I do not think this line of argument is going to work with my employer. I know this sounds harsh, but aspects of Greenery are starting to resemble a form of mental illness.
For finance geeks and stock market punters, here is an article about the growing use of computer programmes to trade the equity, bond and other markets. Even as early as 1987, when equities fell dramatically – was it really nearly 20 year ago? – I vaguely recall reference to ‘programme-trading’, a process whereby orders to buy or sell a bunch of stocks was automated. Banks and hedge funds now use what are called algorithmic trading systems, which, in plain English, make use of recognisable patterns of behaviour that can be expressed mathematically in order to give out ‘buy’ or ‘sell’ signals in a market, spot trends, etc.
The usual worriers, not all of them anti-market people, may fret that all this mathematical wizardry, aided by the powers of modern computing, will make markets dangerously volatile, but as Iain Dey’s Telegraph article suggests, this does not appear to be the case. In recent years, in fact, global equity and bond markets have been pretty calm, although punctuated by the occasional sharp selloff, as happened in late February and early March. The last really big blowup was when Russia defaulted on its sovereign debt in 1998, triggering the meltdown of Long Term Capital Management, a hedge fund. When last year the fund Amranth nearly collapsed in the natural gas market, it hardly caused a wider ripple.
In fact, contrary to what the Will Huttons of this world might have us believe, the growing use of financial derivatives to offload risks seems to be making markets more, not less, able to deal with risk and ultimately, makes the whole financial system safer. That is not, of course to say that all is well. It is not. In Britain, a profligate government could yet put the market into a spin if the inflation problem gets worse (UK retail price inflation is nearly at 5%). House prices could, if interest rates rise as expected, take a nasty fallback. So there are gremlins in the systems. But the blame, as usual, should be pinned on the real culprits, and not computers or strange-sounding things like collateralised debt obligations.
Of course, this also explains why some of the best science graduates and post-graduates now work in the City, rather than making space rockets. Money talks.
(I have corrected the spelling of Iain Dey).
|
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.
|
