Samizdata

Back in 1958 J. K. Galbraith’s The Affluent Society was published. The main thesis of this book was that the reason that goverment services were no good was that not enough money was spent on them, hence there was “private affluence and public squalor”.

The thesis was clearly false even when it was first published, as government spending on such things as education was at an all time record high in 1958 – both in the United States and in all other nations.

However, since 1958 the thesis has been shown to be utter nonsense. As government spending on such things as education has exploded in the United States (and in many other nations) and the standards of such things as government education have declined.

Of course one can attack the above as resting on empiricism, and I would accept that economics should not be based on empiricism (I accept the “Austrian School” view that economics is based on the logic of human action). However, J.K. Galbraith always claimed to be a supporter of empiricism – and so as the years went by (with rising government spending and falling standards in the “public services”) he should have admitted that his theory is false and he has never admitted that his theory is false.

Now J.K. Galbraith seems to have changed his name and come to live in London. In an article in thursday’s “Evening Standard” Simon Jenkins claimed that the reason that “public services” were no good in London was because not enough money was spent on them.

Simon Jenkins (previously known for his support of the London “dome” and other money wasting absurdities), thus ignored both the logical arguments against government spending and the experience of the last several decades of rising government spending and falling standards.

Instead Jenkins declared that everyone should believe him because “I am no socialist” and because he was willing to pay more money to local government himself.

Of course nothing stops this man giving government (local or national) more money now, if he wishes to do this he can – but what has that got to do with other people being forced to give government more money?

As for “I am no socialist” – well “so what?” How is this an argument? Even J.K. Galbraith came out with better stuff than this (perhaps, if they are the same man, age is taking its toll – after all I believe that Galbraith was born in 1908).

The article also made other odd claims. For example there was a claim that the government headed by Mr Blair had not increased taxes – which it has, including taxes on wealthy people (Simon Jenkins was very keen that taxes on the wealthy be increased – he seemed to be unaware that very high taxes on high earners reduce revenue over time).

The article also claimed that a “Nordic” system of collecting income taxes on a national level and then dishing it out to local governments would improve “local democracy”.

This is odd on two levels. Firstly because this is rather like what already happens in Britain – income tax is set by the national government, but much local government spending is paid for by grants from national government (there is endless argument about how fair these grants are, for example with claims that Conservative party controlled councils are discriminated against by the Labour party government, but such arguments need not concern us here).

Secondly, is it not odd to think that the above helps “local democracy”? Surely if one believed in “local democracy” the income tax should be set by local councils? Of course taxpayers (apart from Simon Jenkins) would tend to leave high government spending areas over time – and such councils would go bankrupt, but this would at least be “democratic”.

The tax eaters of London would get to democratically drive out the taxpayers (both individuals and companies) if that is what they wished to do (and the voting stats were on their side), and they would get to democratically starve.

However, central government dishing out subsidies is hardly a matter of ‘local democracy’.

A few years ago I spent a week on a small sailing yacht off England’s South Coast, training for a sailing examination which, I am proud to say, I passed. I subsequently enjoyed plenty of good times afloat, even including a gruelling but fun trip across to France and back, sailing across some of the busiest shipping lanes at night. Assuming I am not flat broke after completing my current house move (gulp), this is a hobby I intend to seriously pursue.

What anyone who has taken part in this great activity will tell you is how tough sailing can be on the human body if you have been sailing in rough weather for any length of time. After one particularly tough week, I felt more physically drained than at any time I can recall. Which makes me awestruck at the achievement today of 28-year-old Ellen MacArthur, who has just set the world record for fastest single-handed non-stop trip around the world.

Her vessel is a huge trimaran, fitted with rope winches the size of small barrels, the latest satellite navigation technology, a mast more than 100 feet tall and made of super-light material. These modern vessels are incredibly fast although they lack some of the rapier-sharp elegance of an America’s Cup 12-metre.

Will it be possible to squeeze even further speed gains from modern yachts? Is there a limit to how fast these modern boats can go? I don’t know, but I guess this amazing Derbyshire lass is going to have a lot of fun trying to find out. (Maybe she should team up with Bert Rutan).

And this being a libertarian blog, I ought to mention that of course, Miss MacArthur seems blissfully unaware that her behaviour demonstrates the sort of risk-embracing attitude increasingly frowned upon in today’s nanny state Britain, as this article makes clear.

But now is not the time to draw great cultural insights from what has happened. Instead, I am going to raise a glass to someone who has shown enormous courage, tenacity and flair.

Update: A commenter asked what my sailing qualifications are and where I got them. I am a Day Skipper, trained by this excellent sea school in Portsmouth and I recommend them. I intend to follow this course with what is called a “Coastal Skipper” course and eventually, a “Yachtmaster”, giving me the ability to sail across the ocean. Modern insurance and growing state regulations require you to have at least one person skippering a boat with proper qualifications. Alas the pastime is getting more closely regulated with time.

Oh, and for those that wonder what is the “point” of Ellen MacArthur’s trip, my reply is simple: it is the thrill of demonstrating human efficacy and daring against heavy odds. I celebrate it as much as I celebrate Messner’s climb of Everest without artificial oxygen or Rutan’s space flight feats last year.

Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil company, is reporting very healthy profits which the Daily Express sensationally reported as £300 per second and there has been a chorus decrying this as ‘obscene’ (sundry Labour MPs) and according to Martin O’Neill (chairman of the trade and industry select committee) ‘beyond the dreams of avarice’.

So let me make sure I understand this… of the approximately 80p per litre (about $5.70 per US gallon) charged for gasoline at the pump in Britain, only about 16p is what the oil company charges: the rest is all tax.

And the politicians, who are responsible for four fifths of what is paid by British motorists to fill up their fuel tanks, are stamping their feet and threatening additional ‘windfall’ taxes on the companies responsible for the remaining one fifth of what is paid.

These politicians and their baying supporters are so wrapped up in a culture of value destroying appropriation and predation that they cannot see the true obscenity. To see that they need do nothing more than look in a mirror.

The company should have a large sign on the forecourt of every single petrol station they own in Britain with the following message:

Dear Motorists,

Do you think you are paying too much for your petrol? Well about 80% of what you are paying is tax, so if you want to pay less, do not come to us, go to your MP and ask him why you have to pay so much… and remember his answer next time you get the urge to vote.

Have a nice day.

Royal Dutch Shell

The problem is not Big Oil, the problem is Big Government.

As we mark the sombre 60th anniversary of the opening of Hitler’s murder factories in Belsen and elsewhere, those prize asses at the Labour Party come up with an anti-Conservative poster portraying leader Michael Howard and shadow finance pokesman Oliver Letwin as flying pigs. Both men are Jews.

Now, I will be charitable to the Labour Party and assume that the creators of this piece of rubbish were so dumb as to fail to think through the significance of this poster and are not anti-semitic, which is an extremely serious charge to make. As I am a hardline defender of free speech, I would of course say Labour is entitled to engage in any manner of roughhouse advertising. I certainly do not think the party should be dragged before the courts. In fact I think Labour has scored a bit of own goal. Some Jewish voters may shun Labour at the national polls, widely expected later this year.

This poster may suggest something quite encouraging to the Conservatives. Maybe this government, which is not exactly shooting the lights out in the opinion polls, is rattled at the Tories’ willingness to talk regularly about cutting the State down to size and cutting taxes. The Tory plans are hopelessly cautious, in my view, but credit to them anyway for pointing out that the government’s spending binge has failed to deliver discernible results and that a major reorientation of policy is required.

Mind you, I still haven’t forgiven Mr Howard for his support for compulsory ID cards.