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 think I smell another variant of the real-work-unreal-work fallacy. You know the one I mean. It said, a few centuries ago, that making real, edible food was real work, but fiddling about with bits of metal was unreal. Then when fiddling about with metal starting to move to faraway places, fiddling about with metal (especially if it was heavy enough or hot enough to do you serious damage if you mishandled it) was real, but shovelling paper this way and that was unreal.
But now, hear this, a comment from Neal of Margate on a BBC report about the rise in Britain of working at home, made possible by the rise of broadband. I have already commented on this report at my Education Blog, because it will surely make home education easier, but that is another story. Here is Neal of Margate:
This infuriating subject is back, is it? Please do tell me, how should dustmen work from home? Street sweepers, can they work from home? Factory workers? District nurses? Casualty department staff?
The only people who can work from home are those who do an unnecessary job. Can surgeons work from home? Ambulance drivers? Firemen? If you can work from home full time, you have a pointless job.
Maybe not, yet. (Although, give it a century or two …) But an offshore banker can work for the whole world from a West Indian island, on the beach, let alone at his mere home. But according to Neal, pure information manipulation counts for nothing. It has to be combined with, you know, doing something.
This Neal character has just got to be rabidly anti-capitalist. You couldn’t believe in the benefits of markets and of the division of labour and believe stuff as daft as this.
So, it is good to know that something as seemingly benign as some people being able to get a day’s work done without spending a couple of hours of what is left of the day stuck in traffic jams or crammed into metal tubes makes this particular anti-capitalist’s brain hurt.
Nigel Meek draws the attention of readers of the Libertarian Alliance Forum to this leader in yesterday’s Guardian. He is right to do so. It is short enough and good enough to be worth reproducing in full, which he does for LAF, and which I do for Samizdata now:
It is difficult to find anything in the European Union more perverse than its continuing subsidy of sugar. It fails every test miserably. It is economic madness since the EU is shelling out hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money – that could be used to reduce its growing budget deficit – to grow crops at a loss that could be better grown elsewhere. It is immoral because subsidies prevent poor countries from growing sugar that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is also unhealthy because it is encouraging the subsidised output of a product that the World Health Organisation, courageously – in view of the vested interests attacking it – says we should be cutting back on.
If the figures – published in a new Oxfam report, Dumping on the World, this week – were applied to any other industry, they would be laughed out of court. Oxfam claims the EU is spending €3.30 to export sugar worth €1, an almost unbelievable support of more than 300% – and that is only part of the elaborate welfare package bestowed on the industry. These hugely subsidised exports are dumped on developing countries, snuffing out potential economic growth that could enable them to work their way out of poverty. All they want is a level playing field. Is that too much to ask for? Oxfam – quoting World Bank figures – also claims that sugar costs 25 cents per pound weight to produce in the EU compared with 8 cents in India, 5.5 cents in Malawi and 4 cents in Brazil. The world price for raw sugar is 6 cents a pound. It is bizarre that European governments reconciled, albeit reluctantly, to call centres being subcontracted elsewhere will not let go of sugar output which, left to market forces, would long ago have migrated to the third world. Sugar producers, with twisted logic, use Brazil’s low cost of output as a reason for retaining subsidies on the grounds that it will not be really poor countries benefiting, only the medium poor.
The simplest solution would be to abolish all agriculture subsidies, even though it would, in the short term, hurt a minority of poor countries that might lose out to the likes of Brazil. Once exceptions are granted, then everything is up for grabs, and trade and talks would be dragged down by interminable bargaining. If complete abolition is deemed impracticable in the short term, then at the very least Europe should commit itself at once to the complete abolition of all export subsidies, direct and indirect. Apart from the huge relief it would bring to poor countries, it would also restore Europe’s long-lost moral leadership.
It would take more than one measure of this sort to “restore Europe’s long-lost moral leadership”, but if such an unattractive delusion is what it takes to get rid of these vile and murderous subsidies – yes murderous, because economic failure is a matter of life and death, especially when inflicted upon the very poor, then so be it. Apart from that, I see nothing here to disagree with.
I posted here last summer about this blog. It is still going strong, and the ideas embodied in it still seem to be having an impact.
A cynical attempt to reach out to the pro-free-trade blogosphere, which has to get a nod from the real operation, the Guardian itself, otherwise it just looks ridiculous? Maybe, but who cares? And I am sure that Mr kick-AAS means every word of it. Ancient proverb say: window dressing often take over shop. What matters is that this kind of thing is being said, right across the political spectrum.
One of the great things about blogging is that you can make a very small and modest point about a very large and immodest matter. Maybe X has something to do with Y, possibly. Maybe a large truth could be found by combining P and Q. I don’t know what that something is, nor what that large truth might be. I’m just saying: maybe something, maybe some truth.
In that spirit, and provoked by this article about the rights and wrongs of genetic cloning, may I offer the thought here that the elaborate and highly developed tradition of thinking associated with the notion that the central planning of a national or even a global economy is not such a good idea as it once seemed to intelligent people, because of … all the usual reasons that readers and writers here are familiar with, might have something to say about the wisdom, and in particular the unwisdom, of genetic engineering.
Michael J. Sandel senses that there is something dodgy about going beyond the elimination of specific genetically inherited badnesses, that is to say illnesses, and into the territory of genetically programmed goodnesses, in the form of such things as greatly enhanced musical ability or much stronger muscles. I think he may well be right. Genetic goodness may turn out to be a lot more tricky – a lot more problematic, as modern parlance has it, to induce than many perhaps now assume.
I have always thought that genetic engineering will enable us to learn a lot. I now suspect however, that much of what we learn will of the sort that goes: “Well, that we should not have done!”
This distinction between genetically induced badness and angenetically induced goodness reminds me strongly of the distinction, familiar to most of us here, between the idea that government is okay when it sticks to removing or restraining obvious badnesses from society, such as crimes or foreign aggressions, but a lot less okay when it moves into the territory of encouraging goodnesses, in the form of such things as economic success, and (the big one now) health (by which I mean “public” health, a general disposition to be healthy in the whole population). Encouraging goodness in individual human bodies and minds by genetic means seems to me likely to be a process which will turn out to be illuminated by rather similar intellectual categories.
In short, our books about political philosophy may turn out to be great not just on the subject of political philosophy, but also to have a great and rather unexpected future in the area of “genetic philosophy”.
Please do not misunderstand this as the claim that individuals do not have the right to genetically engineer their own genes. It is not that sort of statement. What I am getting at is that certain sorts of genetic alteration may prove to be extremely unwise, in the same kind of way that ‘positive’ planning of the economy has proved unwise. Economies are too complicated to be planned. Individual human bodies (and minds), I surmise, might, for genetic engineering purposes, prove similarly complex and intractable.
(As far as individual rights are concerned, one of the reasons I favour the right to genetically engineer is precisely to enable the world to discover the dangers of genetic engineering on a small scale, rather than on the kind of scale that might result from centralised government control of the process. Positive government planning, of societal goodness, plus genetic engineering done in a similarly optimistic spirit, strikes me as a uniquely toxic combination of policies, and “toxic” might not even be a metaphor there. The usual argument nowadays is that genetic engineering is too dangerous to be left to individuals. I say it may be too dangerous not to be.)
In my head, this is not even a half-baked idea. Insofar as it has merit, I am sure that others have had the same sort of idea. Insofar as it does not, I say in my defence: it was just a thought.
It is not often I quote Nikita Khrushchev in any context, but Al Qaeda is quite correct that western civilization poses a clear and present danger to their cherished notions of a universal social life centred on submission to God. An economically successful western civilisation underpinned by severalty and free intellectual enquiry is caustic to a civilisation based on the submission to non-rational ideas which are propagated by force. To put it bluntly, we will enervate them and eventually destroy them by gradual assimilation.
The best and brightest muslims are already hard pressed to not see the glaring practical and intellectual flaws in their societies and want better for themselves, and as a result there is already a small but fairly well integrated middle class of secularized American and Euro-Muslims who can be observed in the markets, cinemas, offices, pubs and bars of the west. But far more dangerous to the broader Islamist project is the example not of western thought but of western affluence and the ease and secular self-direction it yields.
The sheer material wealth of the more advanced west is almost guaranteed to subvert the broad masses who come in contact with it. The current difficulties in assimilating the lower parts of the socio-economic western muslim population should not blind us to the fact that western culture’s corrosive effects on the Islamic world view really counts far more when they are felt in Peshawar, Ankara and Cairo than in Marseilles, London and Chicago. In that theatre of the war of civilisations our truly effective weapons are not the gunship helicopters, laser guided bombs and 5.56mm small arms being used in Iraq right now, but rather our cheap DVD players, Internet connections, music/porn/action videos and smorgasbord of good, accessible but inexpensive Tex-Mex, Thai, Italian and Lebanese foods that globalisation has brought us, etc. etc. I have made this point before but as we concentrate on the more local and violent issues being resolved in the streets of Iraq, it does not hurt to put it all in the broader context within which our enemies certainly see things.
It is the horror of this viral characteristic of western consumer culture which really lies at the heart of the antipathy of the Islamists to the west: as secular society and severalty is the true heart of our civilisation, by our very nature we cannot and will not just ‘leave them alone’. It is not a matter of what western governments want to do, because western businesses and cultural influences will go wherever there are receptive markets and audiences. It is not a western ‘conspiracy’ to subvert Islam, merely the very nature of western civilisation at work. Short of turning the entire Islamic world into a hermit empire like North Korea writ large, the mullahs and ayatollahs cannot avoid their flocks hearing our siren songs.
Our weapons are varied and effective
How international trade works has always been a difficult sell for promoters of economics. Explaining Comparative Advantage is easy if you are holding a lecture, but less easy if you have only a sentence or two. I am reminded of the catchphrase of my economics teacher who would say: “Not everything in economics is intuitively obvious.”
This is unfortunate. Mercantilism – and the neo-mercantilism put forward today by many NGOs – is deeply damaging, especially to the world’s poorest who are “protected” by high import tariffs.
The current buzz-word in trade policy is “offshoring”. Many people in Britain and America think it bad for their country. Yet offshoring jobs is nothing new. It is merely the specific jobs that are moving abroad is different. In the past, the jobs moving abroad were always changing. There is nothing new now. And each time people campaigned against losing jobs to overseas countries, Britain and America kept on increasing the total number of jobs in their economies. Opponents of offshoring do not have the evidence of history on their side.
Further reading: Offshoring service jobs is advantageous
No doubt many readers of this site are of the libertarian persuasion after reading scholarly tomes by Ayn Rand, or Karl Popper.
Not me, though. I simply observed governments in action, and compared them to the workings of the free market.
One interesting thing I have observed over the years is that even governments who present themselves as ‘friends’ of the free market get the political urge to regulate, with the purest of motives, to ‘help’ the market along.
Markets aren’t like that, though. Even the best intentioned meddling by governments have consequences that are undesirable. Consider the Australian government’s well intentioned meddling in the Australian property market… → Continue reading: The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
It would appear from yesterday’s UK budget, before my accountant gets through the smallprint, that Gordon Brown has decided one million small UK businesses hold just too many awkward voters to browbeat in one go. So he has only smacked us with a light tap rather than the full hammer of state retribution he was muttering about earlier in the month.
There is still a Section 660 court case, with a judgement due in June, where he may yet succeed in fully wrecking the small business sector, just as he managed to do recently with the UK film industry, and the IT contractor sector several years ago, with his IR35 measure, but I’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.
What really puzzles me, however, is why whenever he deliberately introduces tax loopholes, to apparently encourage small businesses, instead of financial journalists just praising him in newspapers the damned small businesses actually take advantage of his faux largesse. Which means he has to get all moody and pompous before closing his own damned loopholes down again. → Continue reading: The cleverest man in the world
You may not have noticed, but in the UK this week is Fairtrade Fortnight – that time of the year when we are encouraged to buy ‘fair trade’ coffee and other ‘fairly priced’ products. I spent Monday going on TV and radio shows explaining why the scheme is counter-productive, much to the fury of its supporters.
For a start, we should be realistic about the scheme’s potential. In Britain, despite ten years of advertising, 97% of coffee sold is not on the scheme. Most consumers are likely to continue buying coffee according to cost and quality. Its potential for increasing wealth among coffee producers is thus extremely limited. Some argue that the scheme is taking us away from thinking about more radical solutions to poverty.
Secondly, the real problem with ‘fair trade’ is that it is based on economic illiteracy. The low price of coffee is caused by production increasing by 15% since 1990, and supply is bigger than demand. This cannot be blamed on multinational buyers of coffee. There are simply too many people employed in coffee production. With new technology, the price may well decline further. In Brazil, five people and a machine can do the work of 500 people in Guatemala. The low coffee prices are a signal to exit the market, or switch up to higher value coffee.
‘Fair trade’ – though it helps some farmers – encourages people to stay in the coffee market and gives them confidence to increase production. That is all very well, but this has a downside. More supply means a lower price on the world markets. Perversely, ‘fair trade’ makes matters worse for the vast majority coffee producers.
Criticism of the multinational buyers of coffee abounds, but these people have probably done more to help the lives of coffee producers than ‘fair trade’ has – by promoting coffee drinking to members of the public, and putting trendy coffee shops everywhere.
Instead of ‘fair trade’, we should concentrate on real solutions. Like getting rid of the Common Agricultural Policy and EU tariffs, which limit the goods overseas producers can diversify into. And coffee producing countries need to make the economic reforms that enable enterprise to flourish. ‘Fair’ pricing schemes may sound like a good idea, but they fail the market test.
Alex Singleton can be contacted via his personal website.
Equitable Life is a mess, that is for sure. The responsibility of making sure the people who look after your money can be trusted ultimately lies with the owner of the money… the pensioners, the beneficiaries of what Equitable Life actually does. However if fraud or other gross misrepresentation is involved, and not just incompetence, ineptitude or misfortune, then things do change somewhat as it becomes a criminal matter.
However Equitable Life is massively regulated, so many of its weird business decisions must be seen within the context of the weird distorted environment within which it operates…
So yes, there is an argument that as the state should therefore also be liable for the mess. But then if you accept that, given that the British economy grows more regulated by the day, that would suggest investors should be lining up to claim tax money from the state every time anything goes bust. After all, what makes Equitable Life’s casualties any different from the casualties of any other business cock up?
Occasional Samizdatista Malcolm Hutty recently emailed me thus:
Re your post on Samizdata a little while back about the fixed quantity of programming fallacy: if you’re interested in an intelligent discussion amongst programmers about whether outsourcing programming to India is actually a successful commercial strategy (and under what conditions it might work or not work) look here.
Sample quote:
In my opinion you rarely can separate design and implementation, especially if it’s not a totally standard system that you are going to implement, e.g. when your customers don’t know exactly what they want. You have to have a very clear and quality design in order to be able to send the specs overseas for implementation. Most of the time you have a half-baked design when you start coding. You make a prototype, you try out this and you try out that, and you correct your design in the process. After a while you get confident in your design, and then you start coding full-speed. At this point you have stable specs, and you can outsourse things but it’s too much of a hassle and overhead at this point, and maybe not worth the trouble at all. Most of the software projects have this kind of loosely structured overlapping design and implementation processes. It’s not automated yet, we are still too chaotic.
As someone unburdened by much detailed knowledge of these matters, I say that a reduction in price will always have consequences. Pile it high and sell it cheap, and you will be amazed by the number of new purchasers who come forward, seemingly out of nowhere. Remember the days when there would only be demand for six mainframe computers. As cheaper computers materialised, people thought of steadily more things to do with them. And it will be the same with outsourcing. My guess is that outsourcing will not so much make certain already familiar types of software cheaper, but will make new kinds of software possible. The big impact will come not from the people asking: how can we do our stuff more cheaply? It will come from those asking: what software can we now do that will make use of outsourcing, which we could not do before?
But what do I know? Meanwhile, I am quite prepared to believe that making profitable use of outsourcing is a skill that has to be learned, and that outsourcing definitely has its pitfalls.
Scott Wickstein takes a look at how farmers in so many parts of the First World get away with distorting trade at other people’s expense, both via pocketing taxes and inflating prices in the supermarkets of Australia, Britain, Europe and North America
To the list of certainties in life, such as death and taxes, we can add the fact that farmers will clamour for protection and subsidies. That is not surprising, but what is surprising is that around the globe, governments of all persuasions, whatever their nature, are willing to obey the demands of their farm lobbies.
A typical example of this is the recently concluded free trade agreement between Australia and the United States. Much of the agreement is actually devoted to excluding certain products from free trade. One such product is sugar, which was excluded at the behest of the US sugar producers lobby. That exclusion, in turn, provoked such an outcry by Australian sugar producers that the Australian government felt obliged to provide subsidies for the Australian sugar farmers.
From these actions, one can conclude that the political clout of the US sugar producers is much greater then that of sugar consumers, such as confectionery manufacturers. And yet, this is but a manifestation of a trend which is global. All over the world, governments are all too willing to knuckle down and obey the demands of their farm lobbies. That politicians do this, and run the risk of enraging urban electorates, speaks volumes about the organization of farm lobbies, and, indeed, it also shows how disorganised free trade proponents are. → Continue reading: First blast of the trumpet against the Monstrous Regiments of Farmers1
The Office of Fair Trading (the name being a splendid example of British irony in action) has ordered 60 private schools in the UK to hand over documents for an inquiry into alleged fee-fixing in violation of the 1998 Competition Act.
The OFT’s move provoked protests from the Independent Schools Council, which said it had “serious concerns about the protracted nature of this investigation and the effect it may have on schools”.
However, the ISC appeared to acknowledge that some schools may have fallen foul of a change in the law, but blamed the Government for failing to keep them informed.
Yet again we see that the scope and burden of state regulation is such that it is almost impossible for businesses to avoid breaking some laws unless they employ a ruinously huge staff of lawyers and ‘compliance officers’. Of course the very notion that the state, which imposes vast distorting pressures throughout the economy, can be an arbiter of ‘Fair Trading’ is almost beyond parody. As the Angry Economist said the other day:
Now, I would be the last person to claim that markets always produce good results. Some problems are hard for markets to solve simply because they are hard problems. Pointing to a problem which is hard for markets to solve doesn’t automatically mean that solution-by-government will be better. It may turn out to be that government interference will produce a better result (pareto optimal) than peaceful cooperation. I allow that as a possibility at the same time that I doubt it will ever happen, once all costs are accounted for.
The trouble is, as economies are complex networked systems, that it is not always obvious how this law over here buggers up that market over there. The distortions are often not a single causal step away and thus might as well be completely unrelated unless you are willing to take the time to really look at why things happen the way they do… and in most political systems, it is usually easier to just pass another law.
|
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.
|
