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]
|
I happened to catch the BBC Radio 5 sports punditry show Fighting Talk on Saturday. One topic under discussion was whether soccer’s FA Premier League should “do something” about dominance of the current top three teams in the league, it being alleged that their success made the rest of the league boring. One of the pundits was against this notion, making the point that, as little as 15 years ago, there were different dominant teams. Those who celebrated Liverpool’s invulnerability in the mid 1980s could hardly have imagined that that club’s place would be taken by Manchester United in the 1990s. Indeed, barely six months ago, nobody could have predicted the emergence of oligarch-funded Chelsea as title contenders. She argued that the league had evolved “organically” – any problems would tend to correct themselves – and lamented the prospect of a “genetically engineered” league with structures designed to hobble the successful teams and boost the mediocre.
I thought it was interesting to hear those specific terms used to support a laissez faire position and it struck me that there is a paradox about environmentalism. That is that, while it holds that organic processes are desirable in food production and any kind of “artificial engineering” is bad, it holds that the reverse applies to society and the economy. Capitalism has developed without a plan. Nobody had to sit down and design civil society. Yet these natural phenomena are scorned by the likes of the Green party whose underlying premise is that society should be re-engineered so that it can become “more natural”.
This week’s Economist has an article on online retailing in the UK. The basic gist of the story is simply that in the last six months it has really taken off. Online sales in November-December were 60 percent greater than in the lead in to Christmas 2002. Forrester Research forecasts that 5.7% of the British retail market will be online sales in 2004, compared to 5.6% in the US. (Actually, the difference is greater than this, as the US number includes travel and auctions, and the British number does not).
This is entirely consistent with my own impressions of the situation, and indeed my own behaviour in the last six months. I have been buying certain things (most prominently books) online for quite a few years now, but the number and more importantly the diversity of the things I have been buying has exploded in the last twelve months. Okay, my personal tastes in shopping perhaps aren’t that of the average consumer – I buy too many electronic products, no doubt – but I have found that the number of websites I can find selling almost any of the things I want to buy has increased enormously.
Whereas in the insane dot com boom years there were lots of large capitalised businesses without that good an idea of their business model and with few customers, a second wave of internet retailers seem to have come into being that are small, focused, and lean. For electronics there suddenly seem to be lots of little garage based stores, selling a good selection of one very specialist type of product. The credit card handling is outsourced to a company that specialises in handling credit card transactions for small internet retailers, off the shelf software is used to run the website and keep track of inventory, suppliers have to be found, orders have to be packed and presumably the post office has to be asked to send a truck round once a day to collect the filled orders. No expensive retail premises have to be rented, and there are no losses to shoplifting. The honesty of such retailers is generally not an issue. The level of consumer protection given to credit card holders is such that the retailer will be dropped instantly by the company to which it outsources its credit card processing if it fails to deliver what it promises. And in any event other web sites exist that provide feedback on online retailers.
What does all this mean? → Continue reading: Thoughts on the online retail business, and why Britain leads the world.
Bruce Bartlett has one of the most thought-provoking columns on economic history that I’ve seen in a while. In recent months, we’ve seen a number of lame attempts to compare Bush to Hitler. (Blogger Stephen Green is doing a good job of documenting these things.) I’ve seen a number of sites that display a series of Bush photos, each juxtaposed with a photo of Hitler in a similar pose … Bush is seen here eating a ham sandwich, and here’s Hitler eating a ham sandwich in 1937. Here’s Bush talking to some children, and here’s Hitler doing the same. See? Bush = Hitler! QED. Self-indulgent celebrities and hard-left ideologues have picked up on this tiresome Bush = Hitler meme, and the wave of moral equivalence crested with the recent controversy over MoveOn.org’s anti-Bush ad contest.
Meanwhile, Bartlett is seizing on this theme to take issue with some, both on the left and on the right, who want to compare Keynes to Hitler. He starts with Alexander Cockburn, quoting his most recent effort in The Nation:
Hitler, genocidal monster that he was, was also the first practicing Keynesian leader. … There were vast public works, such as the autobahns. He paid little attention to the deficit or to the protests of the bankers about his policies. … By 1936, unemployment had sunk to 1 percent …
Then, to pick an example from the opposite end of the spectrum, he points to an August 2003 column by Llewellyn Rockwell, longtime chairman of the Mises Institute. Here is the full text of the Rockwell piece that Bartlett is citing.
While I admire the Mises Institute and enjoyed the time that I spent at the Mises annual seminar in ’96, my take on Rockwell is that his writing style often loses focus due to its underlying anger. This is a classic example. And note that even he can’t help but juxtapose images of Keynes and Hitler, striking similar poses, just as those sophomoric “Bush = Hitler” websites do.
The money quote from the Rockwell piece, which Bartlett cites in his column, is this non sequitur:
Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: “[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”
I don’t see how the quote from Keynes is tantamount to “admiration of the Nazi economic program.” Taken in full context, Keynes is just pointing out that it would be much easier to implement an activist fiscal policy in a state that is already centralized and forceful than in a state that was characterized by decentralization and federalism, a point that I would take to be obviously true. How this is supposed to represent Keynes’ “admiration” of the Third Reich is not clear.
Yes, Nazi Germany, in a roundabout way, did employ policies that Keynes would have prescribed if he had been running Germany at the time. This does NOT mean that Keynes’ idea of “public works” was building prison camps. Bartlett is correct in concluding that there are enough substantive problems with Keynesianism that we don’t need to resort to ad hominem criticisms of the man himself — just as there are plenty of ways that one can oppose the policies of Bush without resorting to the same. I disagree with a lot of the policies of the Bush administration (campaign finance reform, Medicare “reform”, on and on) but I have better things to do than try to fit this opposition into some tortured “Bush = Hitler” framework.
To put the shoe on the other foot — Rockwell was against the war in Iraq, and so was Noam Chomsky, but that doesn’t mean that “Rockwell = Chomsky!” or anything close to it. It doesn’t mean that Rockwell “is an admirer of” Chomsky, or that Rockwell also agrees with Chomsky’s denial of the holocaust, or even that Rockwell would use his brakes if Chomsky was crossing the street in front of his car.
Now, when are we going to see the article that says, “Bush used Keynesian fiscal policy, and so did Hitler, therefore Bush = Hitler!”
Given the global prominence of this brand, I find it quite surprising that only now are Starbucks about to open their first branch in Paris:
When Disney arrived with its theme park they called it a cultural Chernobyl. Many Parisians will view as an even bigger disaster the opening today of the city’s first branch of Starbucks.
Six years after it served up the first decaf cappucino in Europe, the Seattle-based global coffee giant is ready to take on the nation that invented café society.
They better hire some burly security guards as well. If they manage to get through the first month without succumbing to a Jose Bove-led sit-in protest they will be able to consider themselves fortunate.
Despite the global success, purists are predicting that in France, where ordering an express (often consumed with a cigarette) is a sacred tradition, the brand will flop. Bernard Quartier, spokesman for the organisation that represents French café owners said: “I don’t believe this concept is going to work because nothing can replace the conviviality and sociability of the French café.”
Now this is a different matter. If Starbucks fails to ignite the interest of the Parisians then so be it. The market rules and, in as much as he is basing his dismissal on his understanding of local market conditions, then Monsieur Quartier has got a point.
After all, if your idea of a good night out is lashings of Sartre and dollops of Foucault washed down with litres of bitter café noir and a lungful of Gitanes then the child-friendly play areas and sanitised chirpiness of Starbucks is probably not for you. → Continue reading: Would you like guilt with your coffee, sir?
Just before Christmas I rang up a friend of mine and asked if she had taped a television program that I had missed, and if she had whether she could send me the tape. She had, but she was due to fly off to Italy the next morning and I hadn’t realised this. I told her to worry about it when she got back, but she decided to be nice to me and send it anyway. There is no post office in the terminal at Stansted airport but there are a couple of post boxes, and she put what she thought was correct postage (from the limited selection of stamps she had) on the package and posted it to me. As it happened she made a mistake. She put stamps worth 68 pence on the package. Correct 2nd class postage was 69 pence.
Now, what did the post office do? They actually noticed that the postage was one penny short. Rather than receiving the package I received a card on December 30 saying that insufficient postage had been paid on a package for me and that I had to come to the local post office parcels office to pick it up. I attempted to pick it up on December 31, but the office in question was closed due to it being New Year’s Eve (not actually a holiday, but a good enough reason to close the post office parcels office). I came back on the second of January, and the office was open. I took the card to the counter, and the man behind the counter took close to ten minutes to find the package. I was then charged one penny additional postage and a £1.00 “handling charge”. Total wasted time for me due to two trips to the parcels office: a couple of hours. Total wasted time for post office staff: probably about 15 minutes. Plus I was inconvenienced by not receiving my video tape until three days after it should have arrived.
And this is all about a single penny not paid, which was clearly a mistake and not a genuine attempt to defraud anyone. I tend to think a certain amount of flexibility could be shown in cases like this. In fact I think I would prefer to send my mail via one of the Royal Mail’s competitors that is more concerned with providing good service to customers and less concerned with inconveniencing both customers and themselves with idiotic bureaucratic inflexibility.
However, I can’t. Such competition is illegal. → Continue reading: Two tales of customer service, or If only McDonald’s ran the post office
It was recently announced that after talks between the British and Hong Kong governments, Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic Airways had won its long desired rights to fly from London to Sydney, Australia. In return for this, Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific Airways were given the right to fly from London Heathrow to New York and other cities in the United States. Various observations were made about how an additional competitor on each route would increase competition and give passengers lower fares and more options.
While this is true as far as it goes, this is a pretty bizarre paragraph if you think about it. Why does the British government have to negotiate with the Hong Kong government before a private company can fly to Australia? In what parallel universe is the quid pro quo you must offer to get your airline permission to fly to Australia the permission for another airline from a third country to fly to New York?
And if additional competitors are good on routes, why were these airlines not allowed to fly on them already? And why did Singapore Airlines, Delta Airlines, and Continental amongst others object strenuously to the deal?
To answer these questions, we have to look at just how international aviation is regulated. This is bizarrely anachronistic. This most global of industries is regulated by a web of bilateral treaties between nations that dramatically limits competition. And to find this out, we have to look back into the dim depths of the past, to 1944. → Continue reading: The insane world of bilateral international aviation regulation
Taxation is in the news just now in Britain, because the word is that Middle England is finally getting fed up with Gordon Brown and his relentless drizzle of sneaky tax increases and failure or refusal – it doesn’t really matter which, does it? – to keep a lid on public spending. Which is perhaps why, when I supped last night with Alex Singleton, we fell to talking about Tax Freedom Day. And I heard myself saying, the way you do, that there is another way to dramatise the scope and nature of the British tax burden, which is to ask: How many taxes does Britain now have?
Frankly I have almost no idea at all of what the answer to this question is, for Britain. But to ask it might achieve many benefits, I surmise. → Continue reading: How many taxes does Britain have?
I am in Antwerp. As well as being a city of great economic importance as one of Europe’s largest ports, and also one of those great Dutch trading cities in which modern capitalism was invented in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Antwerp is today a very cool city: full of great bars, interesting shops, jazz clubs, assorted types of cafe, you name it. This afternoon, after drinking two or three glasses of fine Belgian beer while listening to a piano and bass jazz duo, I got on the metro to go back to my hotel. (The Belgians are the first people I have encountered who have managed to make a single line metro system confusing to use, but I digress). I found myself sitting in a seat on the metro platform, waiting for a train.
Suddenly, quite softly, I heard a familiar song being sung. It was one of the songs from the famous musical epsiode of Buffy, The Vampire Slayer. As I do happen to count knowing the lyrics (and far too much dialogue) of Buffy amongst my many skills, I paused for a moment or two and (perhaps it was the beer) joined in. After a few seconds, the girl noticed that there was somebody else singing and stopped, and seemed slightly embarrassed to be caught doing this. However, I mentioned that as someone who personally owned six seasons of Buffy on DVD, I was unlikely to think less of her for singing songs from Buffy. (There is also the minor matter that she was quite beautiful, and few guys mind it if a beautiful girl is a little embarassed).
She said that she was still waiting for the DVDs of season 5, as she is buying the US versions. (It is a point of dispute amongst Buffy fans as to whether the US or European DVDs are better. The European ones have been released first and are in widescreen, but the US ones are cheaper and have more special features, including a particularly hilarious commentary track on one episode from Seth Green. So we discussed this briefly. But once again I digress).
She expressed her surprise about the whole thing: she said that she sings that song when walking the dog, but that nobody had ever recognised it before. She said this in an accent I couldn’t quite place: it sounded sort of posh English, but it wasn’t quite that. So I asked her. She said that she was Argentine, but that she had lived in England for a time, and also had spent a while in Germany. I could sense that there was more to the story than this, But that was as much as I got.
If I was writing this in a film script, this would have been a wonderful example of what Roger Ebert calls a “meet cute”, and I would have no doubt used the whole episode as an excuse to invite her back to the jazz club, and it would have ended up being a wonderfully amusing story to tell our grandchildren.
But, sadly, there is something that I have left out of this story, which is that the girl in question was not alone. She was with a young Belgian man, obviously a boyfriend. So, I chatted with them a little until my train came, wished them goodbye and boarded my train.
I am not sure that there is a point to this story, other than that a globalised world in which I, an Australian who lives in London, can spontaneously start singing a song from a musical episode of a television series of light gothic horror set in a Californian high school with a beautiful somewhat anglicised Argentine woman in an underground train station in Antwerp is something I like immensely. And also, Joss Whedon is a genius.
Just how long will the European Union last? Unarguably it is well dug in. Will it hang in there just long enough to condemn an entire continent to a painful and lingering death?
Few people are prepared to confront such a possibility or even entertain any such notion. Fortunately, one of those few is Ruth Lea:
The tectonic plates of the global economy are shifting. After a gap of several centuries, India and China are re-establishing themselves as major economic heavyweights. China, in particular, is becoming the “workshop of the world” and its economic rise will be as significant as the USA’s arrival on the global scene in the 19th century.
We may complain as jobs are “exported” to these emerging colossi but, whether we complain or not, this seismic shift is occurring and we cannot ignore it. The need to remain internationally competitive is becoming ever more critical for all the “western” economies.
I have little doubt that the US, with its “can-do” entrepreneurial attitudes and enormous economic power will continue to make the grade. But I am increasingly unsure that this can be said about the major euro-zone economies or even, in my darkest moments, Britain. After all, over the past five to six years, Britain has been slipping down the competitiveness league tables compiled by the World Economic Forum and the International Institute for Management Development reflecting higher taxes, heavier regulations and poor public services.
Government policymakers, while singing the praises of enterprise, competitiveness and high productivity, have undermined them all. The EU’s regulatory zeal has undoubtedly played a significant role in damaging British competitiveness. Over the past six years, one of British business’s greatest complaints about Government policy has been the rapid increase in the number and complexity of employment regulations.
And, as if right on cue, yet another set of Brussels-mandated employment regulations comes into effect in the UK today. → Continue reading: Laughable
Here’s a quiz. The UK government is squandering money all over the place. That’s what governments do, after all. Just look at National Rail, The Dome, Government Department IT projects… If you could choose one government project that was the most appalling of all, what would it be? Are there ones that we don’t know about?
I bought the paper version of the December 2003 issue of Prospect yesterday, and was all set to quote from the two pieces I’ve already been reading with particular interest, while apologising for not supplying any links. Well, I can, but in the case of the longer article only to an introductory excerpt. How long even these links will last, I cannot say.
From Michael Lind’s review of D. B. C. Pierre’s Vernon God Little, which won the Booker Prize.
At one point Pierre’s cartoon Texas sheriff says: “How many offices does a girl have that you can get more’n one finger into?” The comic malapropisms of pompous black characters were a staple of racist minstrel-show humour of the Amos ‘n’ Andy kind. If Pierre, purporting to unveil the reality of black America, had depicted a leering, sex-obsessed African-American police officer unable to distinguish the words “office” and “orifice,” would jury members like AC Grayling – a distinguished philosopher whose work I have long admired – have voted to award such bigoted trash the Booker prize?
But I don’t want to be too hard on the Booker jury. They’ve democratised literature by proving that a book doesn’t have to be any good to win a prize, so long as it exploits socially acceptable national and ethnic stereotypes. …
Assuming Lind is right about the crassness of this book, and although I’ve not read it I have no particular reason to doubt him, the next question is: why? What gives? Why this animus against Americans, and especially against those most American of Americans, the Texans. → Continue reading: Market-dominant minorities of the world unite!
George Monbiot has had a revelation… a few decades later than it should have been, but hey, better late than never. Having had the rare pleasure of meeting George Monbiot in the flesh, I was somewhat incredulous to read of his sudden insight that the only plausible way to end capitalism is with totalitarianism rather than caring sharing ‘democracy’:
Whenever anyone in Paris announced that capitalism in all its forms should be overthrown, everyone cheered. But is this really what we want? And, if so, with what do we hope to replace it? And could that other system be established without violent repression? In Paris, some of us tried to tackle this question in a session called “life after capitalism”. By the end of it, I was as unconvinced by my own answers as I was by everyone else’s. While I was speaking, the words died in my mouth, as it struck me with horrible clarity that as long as incentives to cheat exist (and they always will) none of our alternatives could be applied universally without totalitarianism.
Of course the choking weed of ‘democratic’ regulatory statism will continue to bugger up that great impersonal global capitalist wealth generation machine for quite a while yet. However in the long run Monbiot is quite right that the only way to actually kill off that protean virus-like thing called capitalism is to kill 20 or 30 million people in the developed world… and that ain’t gonna happen. Nevertheless, do not expect Monbiot to abandon his attempt to replace as many several social interactions as possible with collective political interactions any time soon (euphemistically called ‘making the world more democratic’). In many ways, his sudden realisation that he cannot wish capitalism out of existence by calling for a show of hands will make him more keen on gaming the system to achieve his ends, much the same way Ralph Nader holds himself up to be a ‘consumer advocate’ (and what could be more ‘capitalist’ that a ‘consumer’, right?) and speaking outside the tradition left wing meta-context.
|
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.
|
