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]
|
City Journal, the New York-based magazine, is rapidly turning into one of my favourite reads (many of its articles are now on-line). It carries writers of wit and grace on all manner of issues, many on education, urban life and business. It is now, in my view, streets ahead (‘scuse the pun) of the Spectator, which lost the plot under the editorship of Boris Johnson, whom I now regard frankly as a twerp. City Journal ranks alongside the rejuvinated Atlantic Monthly and Prospect magazine as a place to go for having one’s views challenged and stretched.
I strongly recommend the latest issue, which has an appreciation of the late writer, Jane Jacobs, who helped take apart the case for centralised planning of towns, and a review of the life of Robspierre, and a must-read piece on Iran by Mark Steyn, who happily is still churning out great material despite parting ways with the Telegraph Group.
One of the oldest refrains of those who bash capitalism is that speculators are bad people, inflating the ‘true’ price of X or Y from its supposed ‘correct’ level. It is no surprise that at the moment, those who speculate in the market for oil and other sought-after commodities like copper and gold are getting a lot of abuse. I guess they can take it. As I mentioned in this post on the same issue of the oil price, the level that crude oil is fetching in the market has been pushed to high levels for a whole host of reasons, with speculation playing a part, but not necessarily the major part.
In any field of endeavour where there are different appetites for taking on risk, you will get speculators. Speculators take the risk of a price going up or down that others are unwilling, for whatever reason, to shoulder. If it were not for speculators trading in those mysterious things like interest rate swaps or futures, I would not be able to have a fixed-rate mortgage on my house, for example. At the moment, hedge funds and other operators are willing to bet that the price of oil will go higher, and presumably could get cleaned out if the price turns, on say, a sudden discovery of a major oil reserve, an outbreak of peace in the Middle East, return to political sanity in Venezuela, or whatever. So just as one should not weep over the losses speculators make, it would be equally foolish to carp about the gains they are making now.
As for the Greens, they ought to be praising those strange-sounding investment vehicles called hedge funds. By pushing up oil to near $75 per barrel, they are doing their bit to show the folly of taking one’s children to school in those small trucks called SUVs, leaving the lights on all day and shunning alternative forms of energy. No wonder the share prices of alternative energy firms and even the nuclear sector are looking promising.
UPDATE: And this guy does not think much of the economic grasp of New York legal blowhard Elliot Spitzer, on a related topic.
I believe there is something out there watching us. Unfortunately, it’s the government.
– Woody Allen
Today is local council election day in England and Wales. As a voter in the area of Westminster, I decided to stick to my local Conservative councillors since whatever I think of the national party (not all that much), the local lot seem to have done a reasonably decent job, and I know them reasonably well as sane individuals, so I duly put my cross against their names. At a national level, meanwhile, it is hard to figure out quite what the Tories are doing. They are confronted by a ruling Labour establishment in meltdown mode, corrupt, incompetent, arrogant and, on the field of civil liberties, positively dangerous. Yet so far leader David Cameron prefers to romp around in the Artic Circle to prove his supposed Green manliness to Guardian Man. All very unimpressive.
Oh well. At least Boris Johnson is honest about the future of the Tory Party: a sports club. Maybe Dave and Boris should pack up their bags and run a light entertainment show. They might even make a decent go of it.
Few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated.
Isaiah Berlin, reminding us of the value of stating truths over and over, even if you fear you are just preaching to the converted.
The Ukraine is not exactly famed for its high standards of probity and decency in the field of business, as this article suggests. It was certainly a bit of an eye-opener to see this failed, disgraced British cabinet minister, Stephen Byers, on the slate to opine at a conference all about the marvellous business opportunities out in that country. Great. The man who confiscated the assets of Railtrack shareholders – in retrospect a key point signalling the true intent of New Labour towards investors – is considered worthy to share his thoughts about encouraging enterprise in the Ukraine. Riiiight.
Perhaps in a fairer spirit, though, there may be a good case to make for economic opportunities in that country, and I could not help noticing that the organising firm of the conference goes by the moniker Adam Smith (no relation, it seems, to the Adam Smith Institute). It does strike me as mighty odd that a character like Byers should be prime billing at such an event, though. The citizens of that nation surely deserve better.
Events in UK politics are moving so fast at the moment that it is hard to know what will be the composition of the British cabinet by the end of this Bank Holiday weekend. Reuters, along with other news media is reporting that five of the foreign nationals released from British gaols – who should have been deported back to their original countries – have re-offended. The scandal of the released overseas prisoners back on the British streets looks set to send Charles Clarke down the political U-bend.
All very bad and I weep no tears for the jug-eared Home Secretary. A thought does occur to me, though. We make a fuss about foreign prisoners being released onto the streets rather than being deported, and of course a primary duty of a government is to protect its citizens from foreign menaces. But many thousands of British-born prison inmates who are released from often pathetically short sentences re-offend too. A few years ago I was mugged, an experience all too common in London, and it is frankly no difference to me whether the person was a foreign re-offender or British.
The negligence of Clarke’s department means he must resign, in my view. But let us not, in our understanderble desire to send these creeps, fools and knaves to the political dustbin, ignore some rather basic facts of penal life. My problem is not simply that we should send offenders back to their country of origin, it is that we send them to prison for often insanely short sentences in the first place.
Well, I guess one has to admire the guts of these fellows:
A group of 100 shopkeepers in Palermo, the nerve centre of the Sicilian Mafia, have staged an unprecedented rebellion against the Cosa Nostra by refusing to pay protection money. Until now, almost every business in the Sicilian capital has quietly paid off the Mafia or faced retribution. But since Bernardo Provenzano, the 73-year-old “boss of all the bosses”, was arrested two weeks ago after decades in hiding, the island’s anti-Mafia movement has gathered momentum.
This may end badly, I fear.
In his classic demolition of Big Government, Parliament of Whores, P.J. O’Rourke explains that one of the keys to explaining how govermment can spread its tentacles and prove so hard to roll back is that its very size makes it hard for anyone, even a smart reformer, to understand. The bafflement that one experiences when looking at the extent of the state is part of why it stays big, he argues.
I was reminded of this by the sheer contrast with what used to be the case. As William Hague points out in his excellent biography of 18th Century UK statesman Pitt the Younger (now out in paperback), Pitt had hardly any resources at all in his brief spell as Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were no civil servants or secretaries, no armies of bureaucrats. Nothing. Nada. Zip. And when Pitt entered 10 Downing Street, the actual size of the state engine at his command was just as meagre, even though this was a government that was to wage war against Bonaparte, deal with the growth of an empire in India and the effects of the Industrial Revolution.
Ponder on that, Gordon Brown.
When people in public offices start bleating about a conspiracy of private firms to screw the public, it is usually a sign that said public official is trying to spread a profound misunderstanding of market forces, or is an idiot, or is trying to name a scapegoat to shore up public support. In the case of President George W. Bush – not exactly the brightest light in the harbour – it may be just be a combination of all three.
Anyway, veteran libertarian scholar and free marketeer Tibor Machan is having none of it.
Oil prices are high – though in inflation adjusted terms, not as high as in some periods. The reasons for this have nothing to do with the nefarious activities of Big Oil. It is caused by rising demand from the expanding Chinese and Indian economies; a lack of supply caused by low investment during the 80s and 90s when crude prices fell to below $10 per barrel at one stage; a lack of refining capacity for the same reason; regulations designed to cut pollution, which raise production costs, the interruptions to supplies from the Middle East because of the conflict there, and finally, an element of speculation from hedge funds and the like.
Adam Smith famously warned of the dangers of firms forming cartels to prop up the price of a particular good or service, although in practice such cartels tend not to last very long unless they can enlist support from governments in some ways to prevent new companies from entering a market. If Exxon, say, tried to do a deal with Shell to rig the price of gasoline at X dollars a gallon (not litres, dammit) then sooner or later another firm would see a market opportunity to undercut that price, and in an age when motorists can check prices on the internet, it is hard to see how this process could be stopped without State intervention.
Conspiracy theories are great fun, and I hate to be a party-pooper, but in 99 times out of 100, they are bunk.
The other day I received a letter which contained this message: “Darling, I adore you and I cannot live without you so if you don’t marry me I’ll kill myself”. I was rather disturbed by this and even more so when I saw that the letter was addressed to “occupant”.
The inimitable Tom Lehrer, composer of ‘Poisoning Pigeons in the Park’ and other gems.
Gary Jason – a writer I had not heard of before, has an interesting review about a book chronicling how filthy rich some prominent American leftists are. The usual collection of intellectual gargoyles are on show: Ralph Nader, Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore. I must admit I was taken aback as to how much money Nader is worth, although that is probably my naivete. Jason asks the interesting question about how leftists who decry business are so easy with a life of affluence, and takes a stab at a few answers.
For example, I rather liked this paragraph:
I suspect that there is also a subtler phenomenon at work, one that I would call “warding off the evil eye.” I suspect that some successful people — here I have in mind certain businessmen who have become enormously rich — fear that the envious lower classes will possibly do them harm. Considering the long history of class warfare politics, this is not an irrational fear. To ward off envy, these captains of industry make a conspicuous show of being kind and caring, setting up foundations that prominently feature their names.
This sort of ground has been trodden a few times before. What intrigues me is why there are so few seriously, stinkingly, rich folk on the libertarian side of the street, so to speak. There are a few libertarian friends of mine with decent jobs, nice houses; some have inherited fairly serious money and do not have to work; but I don’t know any of our number who has the sort of wealth described in Jason’s book review. It is a paradox that celebrants of capitalism and market economics are often on their uppers, financially, in my experience, although my impressions are just that, impressions.
I guess it may be partly down to the fact that folk who are good at handling ideas and making arguments for this and that tend not to have the sort of skills to make pots of money. It may also be that, in today’s largely corporate world, being known as a holder of controversial ideas (such as legalising heroin, zero state welfare, etc) is not good for the prospects of a person trying to clamber up the corporate ladder. And if a person wants to create their own business, they tend not to have the time to ponder the Big Questions, write The Road To Serfdom or Atlas Shrugged.
Even so, it remains for me a bit of a puzzle why so few of us are not rolling in cash, given our views about the benefits of the marketplace.
On a related theme, I can recommend this article on why intellectuals often hate capitalism, by the late Harvard University professor, Robert Nozick, and this book, by Ludwig von Mises.
|
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.
|
