No, the British state is not financially bankrupt, at least not quite yet, but thus quoth Dave Cameron…
“Because the legacy we have been left is so bad, the measures to deal with it will be unavoidably tough. But people’s lives will be worse unless we do something now […] instead of your taxes going to pay for things we want, like schools, hospitals and policing your money, the money you work so hard for, is going on paying the interest on our national debt.” ”
These remarks by David Cameron might look like something that would get a thumbs up from the Samizdata mob yes?
Well no. “Unavoidably tough”… I have no doubt whatsoever that these cuts are something Cameron would indeed prefer to avoid, and therein lies the reason I despise him just as much as I have ever done. The cuts to government spending, which should be an order of magnitude greater just as starters, are not being done because allowing the appropriative state to grow so vast is morally wrong or intellectually foolish, no, it is being done but because it cannot currently be avoided.
If it could be, what Cameron really wanted to do was increase the size of the state’s appropriation by £ 25 billion.
That is what he intended to do before he realised it was simply impossible: never ever allow that key fact vanish down the memory hole. He is not making the moral case for a smaller state, because he does not want a smaller state, he is just discussing dealing with the current economic crisis, nothing more. In this respect he is the ‘anti-Thatcher’, who at least made the intellectual case for a less pervasive state (even if she then allowed Norman Tebbit to destroy the very political cadre that sprung up to support that view).
Could it not be that what “we” want, and certainly what “we” need, is not for more skoolzanhopitalz funded by the state? What “we” need is for more wealth to be created, not more stuff to be funded by money diminished by being filtered through the wealth destroying tax system and then mis-allocated by politics.
Perry,
Can you explain how you think Norman Tebbit did this. This is news to me.
Cheers.
I’m sure he is referring to Tebbit shutting down the Federation of Conservative Students
Cameron is angling for £60 billion cuts by 2015. That is a piddling amount as it is a cumulative figure. With the £6 billion they already want to cut that would presumably be £30 billion of the £60 billion.
The BBC made a simple enough error on the 6 o’clock news concerning this – likening £60 billion to a 5% wage cut in the public sector plus doing away with the FCO and Defra plus something else and still not adding up to even half of the £60 billion.
Yet Defra’s budget is over £3 billion *a year* while the FCO gets over £2 billion *a year*. If, hypothetically, you could do away with those two departments you would find a cumulative £25 billion over the 5 years.
Even taking an unrealistic view that Government spending stays at £650 billion a year for the next 5 years what £60 billion out of £3250 billion represents is less than 2%.
Germany is commiting the same wheeze – Announcing €80 billion cuts that is cumulative.
Yeah, I’m back for the moment.
Perry (and others),
You are absolutely right about this whole situation – that the division between those who want smaller government (let alone genuinely limited government) and those who want bigger government is very lopsided.
In the US we have about 15% of the GOP, the Libertarian Party, and the Constitutionalists – maybe 20% of the US electorate, if that. In the UK, you have the UKIP, Libertarian Party and about 10% of the Conservative Party – again, about 20% of the UK electorate at most.
I am starting to believe that what we are witnessing is the failure of democracy. We have a system now where the ruling class literally has no incentive to lower the debt, slash taxes, cut regulations, or suppress spending.
Every component of federal spending from defense to agricultural subsidies to the evil department of education, there is more political pressure to increase spending on that component than to lessen it. The downsides to every major spending program are dispersed among the whole population, while the benefits are concentrated to the group that lobbies (defense manufacturers for defense spending, teachers for education spending, etc, etc, etc).
It’s a collective action problem. If every lobbyist stopped and every program were cut, everyone would be better off in the long run, but since when is the long-run relevant in a democracy!?
A hereditary monarchy has the advantage of the ruling class not having to increase spending on anything, promising a new useless program, etc to remain in power. Plus, the ruling family has an incentive to motivate people to work, save, start businesses, invent, invest, and have big families, as all these activities make them more powerful on the world stage.
Does anybody with an ounce of common sense really believe that if Thomas Jefferson (bless his soul) magically awoke from his death he would not only view armed rebellion against the ruling class as morally justifiable but eminently desirable?
I’m starting to entertain the idea that maybe the American experiment really has failed and the idea of democracies, republics, etc are not economically viable in the long run.
For example, if we made a smart and benevolent man, such as Ron Paul, dictator for life, then social security, medicaid, medicare, the IRS, the federal reserve, the departments of education, agriculture, energy, etc, and the EPA would be gone within a month. Oh, but we’d have a dictatorship! Oh, no!
Yeah, but we’d be free.
In our current system, the only major politician in the whole USA who understands Austrian economics (AKA real economics), loves liberty, desires peace, and is honest has no chance of winning the Presidency BECAUSE he is honest, loves liberty, desires peace, and understands Austrian economics.
Every few weeks, Perry, you talk about how the Conservative party is not actually conservative and wants bigger government. You’re right.
But it’s not a coincidence that the successful politicians happen to believe in bigger government. The whole system is structured so that that outcome is inevitable.
Sorry this is pretty long. Maybe you could get that Samizdata merchandise button functional again soon? 🙂
A quick follow-up:
1. The US debt is about $15 trillion now, which is about the same as the GNP.
2. A royal family would not only not have to answer to unions and other lobbyists to maintain power, but would care a hell of a lot more about 50 years from now compared to 2 or 4 or 6 years from now like most current politicians, which means they’ll honor Austrian (AKA real) economics and lower the damn debt, cut spending, and burn red tape regulations.
3. I STRONGLY recommend friends of liberty at least skim:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/
Moldbug, the blogger at Unqualified Reservations, is a genius. Probably the smartest person I have ever encountered, which is saying a lot. Almost every one of his posts is very insightful, such as this bit of gold:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/11/dire-problem-and-virtual-option.html
How can it be somehow wrong for taxpayers to spend money paying for debt that was incurred to pay for those utterly necessary social programs Cameron promises to keep going? It couldn’t be that they were unnecessary and wasteful and counterproductive, could it? If so, why does he want to continue them? And how can he say that paying off this debt for past programs is somehow irksome without casting doubt on the sanity of continuing this course?
I forget who said it but isn’t there a quote that goes something like “popular democracy will only last until the people find they can vote themselves largesse from the public purse”?
David Cameron is a mental midget, if that. He’s greedy and expectational. He thinks he somehow “deserves” to be Prime Minister because he’s him.
I thought he was a puff of thistledown when he first put his bland, petty face out and about, and heard his vapid, self-serving, centre-left drivel. (A poster going by the name of Vulture over on The Speccie blog says he has a mouth like a hen’s arse, which is so apt that I can’t get the analogy out of my head.)
He’s even so stupid that he thinks that his trite little pr tricks that he learned at Carlton TV (where he got the job through a relative – quelle surprise!) – work. The Swedish ice floe, the parka, the two A-list huskies to demonstrate his worry about “global warming”. The faux outrage at the bookshop checkout counter about the sale of chocolate oranges. Remember that? Riding his bike to work – too obvious to comment on – but remember a few months ago when his bike got “stolen”? There he was, in his shirtsleeves – doesn’t the man own a jacket? – actually scratching his head – he has a talent for pantomime – for the benefit of the press photographers who happened to be fortuitously on the site of the crime. Three square yards of London and a gaggle of press photographers just happened to have gathered in it. Inexplicable.
“Hug a hoodie”. Holding a paint brush newly emerged from its little polythene holster up against a wall to demonstrate that he didn’t approve of grafitti.
He’s never done a real job, in which he was judged on performance/profit. After his career as a Bullingdon Boy, he went on to a series of toy jobs and now he’s the prime minister of Britain. And is loathed by all thinking people.
He’s not even as intelligent as Tony Blair. Good grief!
Verity,
In our current system of government, those who rise to the top are always those who do not deserve but think they deserve the position. Those who actually deserve it never rise to the top. The system of government produces this outcome inevitably because those who promise the most goodies to special interests (bad policies) are most likely to prevail, as one example.
Most sheeple are not thinking. Most professors are not thinking (especially economics professors who do not understand Austrian economics, which is how economies work in the long run). The thinking make up about 5% to 15% of every population, depending on one’s definition. They are powerless amidst the onslaught of sheeple and special interests that infect governments like vipers.
We need a system where the rulers have an ingrained interest in seeing the populace be productive, profitable, and self-reliant. Hereditary monarchy is the answer.
The American experiment has failed.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-mises-to-carlyle-my-sick-journey.html
http://mises.org/hoppeintro.asp
Frak – Actually, I would concur, with iron-clad checks and balances.
The House of Lords was a far, far more intelligent and patriotic place when it was the hereditaries. They weren’t compulsive attendees (for the fee) or compulsive legislators. They only rolled up when a debate especially interested them, or they had something special to contribute. They contributed their say, had their lunch, maybe hung around to hear what was being talked about, maybe stayed overnight in London, or caught the train back.
They weren’t little sleazes, like Peter Mandelson, on the self-elevation circuit. They were already elevated. It wasn’t an issue in their minds.
Any sane Tory leader would clear out the lifers – stalwarts like the totally pointless “Lady” Scotland – the Attorney-General of Britain, yet – and bring back the loyal hereditaries who have roots deep, deep, deep in the soil of our country.
So I am not entire opposed to hereditary government … but then, he downside, the Prince of Wales, who gets rigged up in muslim gear and wants to be “Defender of Faith”. Dear God!
Re the PoW and, like so many of his strange ilk, there is a mad infatuation with the most wicked “religion” haunting the world today. George Osborne’s brother got married three or four months ago, in full Aladdin pantomime get up, to some islamic woman. He, a Briton, converted. She, an islamic living in Britain, didn’t.
So now George Osborne has two family members who are islamic and followers of a despotic desert “diety”. Himself and his wife. And all her relatives in Britain and all her tribe wherever.
Why do I find this revolting?
Also, the said brother, who is a doctor, seems to have had some problems in the MSM for prescribing hard drugs to someone who wasn’t his patient. Does this seem like a stable person to you? “Converted” to islam? A doctor prescribing prescription drugs to someone who isn’t his patient?
Smote by Samizdata twice on one thread! Certainly a record for me, and one I won’t be repeating.
Oh well, Verity, I have a talent for the obvious so I’ll comment upon it nonetheless: the punchline is that Stuntman Dave got his driver to follow him in the limo, carrying his briefcase…
It is a bot. Follow the link in the e-mail you were sent and read it for Christ’s sake.
It is a bot. Follow the link in the e-mail you were sent and read it for Christ’s sake.
I did. Even before your deeply patronising advice.
Yawn.
Which bit are you not understanding?
“We have a system now where the ruling class literally has no incentive to lower the debt, slash taxes, cut regulations, or suppress spending.”
Oh yes we do have such a system. It is called the Bond Market.
Someday soon, investors will stop buying “safe” government bonds that can only ever be paid off in inflated dollars. The Political Class are going to have to start living within their tax revenues and making choices — and once they do that, they are going to be the Class Formerly Known As Political.
The string is just about played out. The governmental equivalent of bankruptcy awaits.
A few years after Oliver Cromwell was honored with a State funeral, the people (Brits, no less!) dug up his bones and threw stones at them. Perhaps with Camerama, the Brits won’t have to wait until he is dead first?
Alice,
That’s true. I readily admit that I am excited to watch the SHTF and the Austrian economists be vindicated.
A royal family would mind the bond market and plan for the long-term and act for the long-term, at least to a far greater degree than our current system permits politicians to.
The story of America is the story of a failed idea. Americans have voted themselves the wealth of unborn Americans, thereby enslaving future generations to literally years of debt slavery.
Honestly, what should it take for people to admit democracy sucks? We have enormous debt, massive taxes, crushing regulations, horrendous abuse of civil liberties, a ruling class that worships, funds, and supports false theories (Keynesian economics and man-made global warming, for 2 examples) and no (legal) means of seriously reversing the harm, let alone preventing the growth of yet more government, such as, in the USA, VAT and cap and trade.
Royal families want to be strong, powerful, influential, wealthy on the world stage. To do so, they need a productive, profitable, and vibrant economy. To achieve this, they need a generally free population, at least economically free to a large extent.
This system also has the added benefit of forcing everyone to realize that those in power are enemies of their subjects, not saviors who will deliver hope and change, but rulers who oppress people. I wish more sheeple would recognize this, but, alas, in our current condition that whole mode of thinking is successfully brainwashed out of them by the public education system.
If the Thatcher group was inspired by, or an offshoot of, the Institute of Economic Affairs, or was even the same people, whatever. And which was then subverted back into “government rip-off business as usual” then I guess the same sane, sensible, wealth-generating policies can be brought back by the same people or their heirs?
Beside that, I must say I do agree with Verity. I have been thinking a suitable slogan for Libertarians could be:
Freedom Rules. OK!
As someone who was active in politics at the time (yes I am that old) I can tell people that Norman Tebbit was decieved.
Even intellgent people (and N.T. is intelligent) can be tricked – and he was.
And he (and Mrs T.) were decieved by people who understood that getting rid of FCS was only a trial run – for getting rid of Mrs Thatcher herself.
Whilst FCS existed Mrs Thatcher could not be presented as an “extremist” to Conservative MPs (as we were clearly more free market than she was) and also Mrs T. had a de facto bodyguard of thousands of young people who would protest (very loundly) if there was move against her.
But with FCS out of the way (smeared as a bunch of drug abusing, child sex fiends – oh yes, the left in the party did whisper in leadership ears that we were child sex people), all things became possible. It did not matter that, for example, that even the perpetual Vice Chairman (political – as various Chairmen came and went) of the “Leciester loonies” was a semi Puritan by the name of Paul Marks (who, at that time, did not even drink – let alone take drugs) – as long as the smears were believed.
And, in case anyone wants to know, I did not have sex with children – and nor did any other officer of FCS.
As for government spending and Mr Cameron.
“I will use the Canadian method”.
“I will protect government spending on schools and hospitals”.
The Federal government in Canada (in the 1990s) reduced its share of funding education and health.
The kindest thing that can be said of Mr Cameron is that he does not know what he is talking about.
Glenn Beck has asked whether the “Christian” Jim Wallis (in fact a Marxist) has heard of the Commandment against “bearing false witness against your neighbour” (Beck shows recordings of people speaking and cites their writings – Wallis attacks people for what they have NOT said or written).
Many years ago I also wanted to know whether the people, included people who called themselves Christians (such as John Gummer), who lied about officers of FCS had heard of this Commandment.
However, eventually they will have to explain their actions before a higher authority (indeed the highest authority) and the-end-justifies-the-means style arguments (“we had to get rid of FCS, and saying things that were not true was the only way”), will not work before this authority.
xj – Yes. I didn’t mention it because everyone and his brother had commented on, and joked about, the fact that Cameron’s driver followed his bike. It just isn’t funny any more. My point was the supposed theft of the bike and Cameron posing scratching his head in puzzlement while a gaggle of mysteriously handy press photographers took his picture.