“David Cameron is determined to make as much noise as he can, and for as long as he can, to the effect that every unpleasant thing the coalition needs to do is solely the consequence of the criminal improvidence of its predecessor. No new prime minister, especially in these circumstances, would act any differently. I wonder how long this card will remain trumps, however. After all, when Margaret Thatcher’s government cut the unsustainably vast subsidies to public sector industries – from coal-mining to car manufacturing – which her Labour predecessors had not dared to confront, it established her reputation among millions as a cruel and heartless prime minister. It will be fascinating to see if the much more soothing rhetoric of a Conservative government in coalition with the Liberal Democrats can convince the electorate that they are caring cutters; how extraordinary it will be if they carry that off while reducing public expenditure on a scale which Margaret Thatcher never even attempted.”
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
29 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
How much more extraordinary it will be if they actually reduce public expenditure at all.
Convince Brits to be realistic? I doubt it very much – there is a whole section of the British public that thinks the rest of us owe them a living – well, not me! I’ll pay for me and mine as I’ve always done and I don’t mind helping those who really cannot help themselves, but the wasters and the idle? No way!
Still, you never know, maybe the message with get through…
I shall in future keep a wary eye out for airborne pigs and cattle.
The moral courage and vision (love of truth?) that was around among some, few, people in the time that Thatcher was elected is simply not around now in any significant amount.
And probably will not be until the consequences of the current duplicity really begin to bite.
What will we get then?
How long can reality be held at bay?
He must be joking. Thatcher actually *wanted* a smaller state, Camerclegg are just dealing with a crisis in the hope that big state business as usual can resume as soon as possible.
Yes I agree that Mrs Thatcher did want a smaller state (there is a faction of libertarians in Britain who hate Mrs Thatcher – but I am not part of this group, indeed I believe that their leading members are not libertarians at all).
And it is also true that Mrs Thatcher FAILED – government spending went up every year (both in money terms and in “real” terms), indeed in the early years of the government that Mrs Thatcher led government spending exploded.
One of the terrible things about British recent history (and something that I was very much aware of at the time) was how events in and after 1979 were systematically falseified by the media – led by the BBC.
In every radio and television news and current affairs show (and many of the entertainment shows also) the “cuts” LIE was banged home. Government spending kept going UP, and the media (led by the BBC) kept reporting that it was going DOWN.
It was in 1979 and after that I became aware of the power of the left to present a version of events that was not only not true – but was the OPPOSITE of the truth. There were dissenting truthful voices (such as the ex LABOUR MP Brian Waldon – whose “Weekend World” ITV show tried to report the truth) but they were overwhelmed by the tidel wave of lies.
This has also been the false “meta context” in which the the Thatcher period has been presented at schools and universities.
It effects so many political debates in Britain and elsewhere – with (for example) the terrible recession of 1979-1982 being blamed on the MYTHICAL “cuts” and so on.
For example, today we are told (by Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister “Nick” Clegg) that there can not be Thatcher style savage “cuts”. This shows a total disconnect from reality.
Those who do not understand history (indeed have an inverted view of it) are likely to make the same mistakes again. In this case thinking that reducing govenrment spending is easy (when, in fact, it is very difficult indeed) and the only thing one need be worried about is the need to avoid doing it in a “savage” or “unfair” way.
Government is very different from business yet perhaps a commercial example will help.
The management of Tesco (both the retiring top man and the new top man) are very clever British retailers – they are not infalible (for example they persist in stocking magazines that are not really of interest to British readers – such as Time and Newsweek), but they generally have a good record.
However, they seem to not know the history of British ventures into the American market (in various sectors) – indeed they seem to think investing in the American market is a good way to make money.
In reality going into the American market has cost many British companies a fortune – it is normally a terrible mistake to go into the American market. But the top managers at Tesco (perhaps because they have only ever worked for Tesco and have no experience of working in a company that has previously tried to get into the American market) seem totally unaware of this.
Such lack of awareness may have unfortunate results.
As for the new British government……
I agree with Perry that there is no real desire to roll back the state – my friend Antoine Clarke insists I do not understand the Liberal Democrats (on my side I think he does not understand the great majority of LDs), but we both agree that Mr Cameron and co are not impressive people.
The present government seems to have hitched its star to the Canadian methods of the 1990s – yet it has no UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
First of all Canada has relied on a natural resources boom (just as Australia did – before the present, Economist magazine supported, government decided to kill the mining industry with an insane new tax regime). North Sea oil or not – this simply is not an option for Britain.
Also Canada followed a policy of peace in the 1990s – whereas the present government is committed to an unending war in Afghanistan.
But most importanly of all – the “Star Chamber” Candadian method was largely a cover for reductions in Federal government HEALTH and EDUCATION spending.
And the British government has RULED OUT overall reductions in national government health and education spending.
In short – it appears to me that the plan has failed before it has even started.
One can not have a “Canadian” method whilst not having reductions in central support for health and education – because that was at the heart of what the Federal government in Canada did.
Minor quibble, but as I understand it the nationalised coal industry was basically solvent and productive. The problem with it was political agitation by the Unions, not the drain on the public purse associated with, say, British Leyland.
The sheer fact that the public has to be cajoled into agreeing that borrowing three billion quid a week is a bad thing is the root of the whole problem.
Having said that, you might as well ask Cameron to reduce public spending by 90% as 25%, it’s politically impossible. Trim the fat, hit the freeze ‘n’ inflate button and pray for growth is his only option.
“pray for growth”
Agreed that economic growth is the only viable way to cut the deficit & reduce unemployment. But economic growth will mean more industry, more services, more production of evil Carbon Dioxide.
Camerama has a choice – roll back pointless goverment regulation and grow, or add more pointless regulations and kill any chance of success. For Camerama and the Clegster, the choice is clear.
Paul:
You are right about that. My dad always used to sell any shares he had in companies that decided to go into the US, especially if they were buying up US companies. The Americans are good business men, if running a business there was so easy, they wouldn’t be selling out to a bunch of gullible limeys. America destroyed the Midland Bank, and if the Manchurian Candidate has anything to do with it, it will destroy “British Petroleum”.
Ian, I don’t think the coal industry, in its nationalised form, was solvent in the 1970s or 80s, since otherwise it would not have needed to be subsidized by the taxpayer. It was the subsidies that Mrs T. wished to end.
Of course, nuclear and other forms of energy have been subsidized. We haven’t had a completely laissez faire market in energy since the 19th Century.
Many people said exactly the same about Tesco’s attempt to break into the South Korean market – especially considering that both Wal-Mart and Carrefour tried to do so and failed miserably. But Tesco have been extremely successful here.
They knew that other foreign retailers had all failed, so they started off in a joint venture with Samsung (Tesco now own 94%, according to wikipedia. Not sure what they started with.), who had a better idea of what Korean consumers wanted, it’s now the second biggest retailer in Korea, is making a lot of money and expanding.
So maybe they know what they’re doing in the States too? Maybe not, of course, but I get the impression they’re a very well run business and if anyone can break into the US market, it’s Tesco.
No, the Nationalised Coal industry was never profitable, in fact it was hardly profitable in the last days of private ownership. My grandfather was a Colliery Manager by the way, who oversaw the transision between the Private and Nationalised industry between 1948 and 1952, when he was finally allowed to retire, aged 70.
In 1948, Labour nationalised everything they possibly could, for purely idealogical reasons rather than sound common sense. The main purpose being that if everyone works for the State they will keep voting for the party who pays their wages, irrespective of whether they are productive or not and can compete with the cheaper imports from the rest of the world.
It was cloud cuckoo land, but it is still working a treat in S Wales and Scotland isn’t it?
As for this lash up of a Heath Robinson Govt, they propose a public consultation on what cuts to impose!
You can imagine all the self sacrificing and common sense thinking replies they are going to get, cant you?
Well not MY Dole/Quango/Civil Service Fiefdom/ NGO and Fake Charity obviously.
We are essential!
During a BBC lunchtime news vox pop today a Bristol woman was asked about the proposed consultation on where cuts should fall and she responded by saying that she wanted more subsidised childcare.
Not sure the cuts message has really sunk in…
During a BBC lunchtime news vox pop today a Bristol woman was asked about the proposed consultation on where cuts should fall and she responded by saying that she wanted more subsidised childcare.
Not sure the cuts message has really sunk in…
…or perhaps it has, if one defines “cuts” according to the way we’ve lately seen in the US under Obama, i.e., massive long-term spending/subsidy increases disguised/distracted from by short-term relatively small actual cuts, which end up being redistributive in nature, and all sold as middle-of-the-road centrism.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/spend-all-the-money-on-me%2c-everyone-tells-osborne-201006082797/
Paul,
Perhaps I am losing the ambition or zealotry of my former years, but I would hesitate to criticise a goverment that proposes to do the right things for the wrong reasons.
Likewise can we criticise politicians for the practise of the art of the possible, which is, after all their chosen profession.
Paul,
Perhaps I am losing the ambition or zealotry of my former years, but I would hesitate to criticise a goverment that proposes to do the right things for the wrong reasons.
Likewise can we criticise politicians for the practise of the art of the possible, which is, after all their chosen profession.
Cutting back the state by only a small fraction of what needs to be done is the “right thing”? It is a bit like thinking well of a rapists for only raping three people rather than four.
Johnathan and RAB, I’m wroking from memory here, but some time back I was in an argument with a “liberal” about this and was myself banging on about the subsidies to coal, so finally I did some research and found that in fact I was basically wrong; the nationalised coal industry was actually efficient and as productive as its competitors; bearing in mind other nations were subsidising their coal industries too (and still do). It made a loss only because of the burden of interest payments on the original purchase costs of nationalisation, if not for them it would have made a profit.
Mrs Thatcher wanted it destroyed to destroy Scargill and his merry marxists, which was fair enough. It wasn’t the cost of it that was the problem, it was its union’s habit of shutting the country down for political reasons.
I’m not defending nationalised anything btw, just pointing out that the NCB wasn’t a productivity disaster like Leyland or the railways.
Well a loss is a loss whatever way you slice it Ian, but no Coal wasn’t the disaster that British leyland was.
Though they were barely turning a profit pre Nationalisation, they could have struggled on.
My gramp was put in an awful position. The Private owners practically forced him to capitalise the mines assets way above what they were worth, so that their compensation payments, your interest payments on Nationalisation, were way above what they should have been.
Then he had to cope with all the Labourite clowns who were parachuted in to run the industry, who didn’t know a pick from a shovel, let alone a Davey Lamp.
The industry steadily lost money from then on. Pits were closing long before the Miners strike.
There is still loads of coal down there by the way. We may be needing it again soon the way things are going.
I hope the British electorate doesn’t kennett Cameron. Kennett was the Premier of Victoria, an australian state. When the Lefties had put Victoria into massive debt, with little to show, the voters gave Kennett a mandate, twice, to correct things. As soon as Victoria started to recover, the voters kicked Kennett out- they found that they hated austerity.
Let’s hope that your voters don’t re-elect Labour once the necessary pain starts to kick in.
As long as you accept the definitions and terminology of the collectivist state, there is no possibility of reducing the state in any significant way.
The critical phrase re: Mrs Thatcher is the description of her as being “cruel and heartless”. It is this mindset, i.e., that less government is cruel and more government is compassionate, that must be defeated.
The catastrophe of “compassionate conservatism” in the US is another example of allowing the statists to define the terms, and therefore win the debate, before there is any possibility of ever attempting a non-statist solution.
There was a fascinating article I ran across earlier in which the author argues, facetiously, that the world must be correct in its oft proclaimed belief that Israel is the most evil and dangerous entity on earth, otherwise the world has gone mad.
In much the same way, it must be true that ever more state power and state expenditure is the correct path, else one is left with the woeful conclusion that the political structures of the modern world, as they clamor hysterically for more, more, and forever more, have lost all contact with reality.
For well over a century, the statist movement has fought back against the concept of individual liberties by relentlessly categorizing anything from the private sector as being cold, cruel, callous, and cutthroat, while the actions of the state are extolled as caring, compassionate, helpful, and generous.
Until this set of impressions is reversed, which would be a supreme act of sanity, given the track records of the various statist and collectivist regimes that have plagued the peoples of the world for millenia, and with an especially venomous result during the last century, no progress in reducing the power of the state cadres, while increasing the power of the individual, will be possible.
Hercules had 12 tasks. Free men and women, in order to preserve and expand their freedom, must undertake 12 times 12 times 12, and still more.
My youngest son just graduated high school. For him to be able to pass his heritage of freedom along to his sons and daughters, and guard it for their children, will mean a lifetime of disciplined effort and committment, both intellectually and morally.
The battles we are facing are for the minds and souls of humanity. If we do not change the definitions now ascendent in their minds, and overturn the moral inversions being peddled as ethical behaviors to their hearts, we cannot defeat the collective.
If, however, we do the work that needs to be done, then our children’s children may still walk in the “sunlit uplands” a gruff old man once spoke of, and not descend into the dark abyss of a world in which all is forbidden to the free and independent mind.
Resistance is not futile—it is required.
I strongly suspect that even if the ConDem Coalition do half of the things the need to do then they are going to be lambasted and thrown out. It might be in the terms of a 5-year fixed term parliament or it might be sooner. However, the reality is that if Labour can find somebody electable to lead them, probably one of the Millipede’s and doesn’t disintegrate into fighting and tribalism as happened post-1979, then I expect to see Labour back in 2015, either with some form of majority or in coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
The reason I believe this is that the last election was too marginal, with the electorate unsure as to what they wanted. Unless the ConDem Coalition can do a sterling performance balancing cuts (and more importantly managing growth), I suspect the reaction at the next election will be:
So the UK will be stuck on this political Merry-Go-Round until at some point the IMF comes in and does the cutting for us and then we can have a nice riot and blame them.
I’d like to believe the ConDem Coalition could do what they say their going to do, but I just don’t think they have the stomach for it. Porcine aviation is more likely.
I’m so glad that I left the UK last year, having left the UK for good. However given the ever escalating problems, I may need to look further afield –
Kev – The Republic of Korea is not the United States.
Inspite of all their many faults the Grand National Party are basically on the side of free enterprise.
Barack Obama is not – and nor is the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi or Majority Leader Harry Reid (or rather the people who control the senile puppet Harry Reid).
Breaking into the American market is difficult at the best of times – but going into America now (with the government under the control of nutjobs) is a terrible error.
The present consumer boomlet is financed by a credit money bubble (yet another one) and will end in tears – with a couple of years (at most).
Nick.
“Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons”.
They are NOT doing the right thing Nick.
The Canadian Federal government in the 1990s cut its education and health spending.
The Cameron/LibDem government has boasted that it plans to INCREASE central government health and education spending.
It is not “the right thing” it is the OPPOSITE of the right thing.
Oh, and of course – “overseas aid” is off limits for any reduction.
As is “climate change” spending.
And the war in Afghanistan must carry on – but we are not allowed to even plan for VICTORY – because “victory” is a dirty word.
We must not even try to defeat Islamic terrorism – in fact we must not even use the words “Islamic terrorism”.
Instead we must just carry on spending money (and LIVES) in Afghanistan as some sort of game – without any intention what so ever of winning the war.
Any of the above sound like “the right thing” to you?
It astonishes me that Cameron and co are able to con intelligent people with such ease.
I see what you mean, I thought you were talking more about Tesco not knowing what American consumers were looking for and thus failing – so I was pointing out a situation where Tesco had entered a difficult market, very different to their main market, judged well, and succeeded.
But you make a fair point, and I would agree with your assessment of the current Korean and American governments there. That said, when Tesco started doing business in Korea, the GNP were not in power, and, unless I am mistaken, when they started in America, Obama and the Democrats were not in power. It may be a reasonable argument to say it would be foolish for them to continue expanding in America at the moment, but I suppose if business is currently going well, it’s hard to convince a businessman to stop doing what he’s doing.
And you never know, if the economy gets even worse, it might be a good opportunity for a company that built it’s fortune on selling food cheaply. After all, everyone needs food, and if the economy is bad, I’d rather be a shareholder in Tesco than Whole Foods (not suggesting their business is badly run or anything, I have no idea, just that when times are hard, people are more likely to cut out the grassfed organic steaks than the tesco value corn flakes!) or some such company. Just my 2 cents!
Yes Obama was not in power when Tesco came to the United States – but the credit bubble was well under way.
Even with knowledge of a credit bubble it is very difficult to profit from it – take the example of Peter Schiff (he knew what would happen, and was a professional investor, yet could not profit from events).
What chance do you think a retailer has got?
And remember that it is not just “macro” stuff like a credit money bubble – under the present regime (even before Obama came) arbitrary regulations can hit a business at any time.
Even the largest business.
Why do you think Walmart is running so scared?
Even endorsing Obamacare and Cap and Tax (against the wishes of the vast majority of its customers).
They are trying to gain favour with the govenment Kev.
It is despicable (Sam Walton would have rather died than crawl like this), but it is also STUPID.
Do you think that Barack Obama (or Barny Frank or …..) care that Walmart support any crackbrained scheme they come up with?
They will use Walmart (or Tesco or anyone) and then throw them away like a used condom the moment some political interest (say doing a favour for a union) dictates.
On even just on a whim.
How can one do business under an arbitrary system of government – one in which the “rule of law” is just empty words (ask the pension funds who were “secured creditors” of General Motors).
If you have any wealth – hide it.
Do not invest – not in the United States or places which are following the same road.
Well, Paul, there were a few people who made quite a lot of money from the credit bubble; Steve Eisman for one. You may have seen this article before, but even it so it’s worth another read. (You can skip down to the part about Eisman, which starts in the middle of Page 2.)
Laird this was seven pages of MISSING THE POINT.
It was like watching Bloomberg and MSNBC. If fact EXACTLY like it – as I have seen the writer of this article say this stuff on these networks.
The financial crises caused by naughty “Wall Street culture” (the bonus system and so on).
Nothing about the flow of funny money from the Federal Reserve (the base of the credit money bubble) and nothing about government polices – policies specifically designed to put this money into housing, especially SUBPRIME mortgages.
“But these people made a lot of money Paul”.
Yes they made money by playing along – not denouncing the policies.
Had they denounced the policies (not “Wall Street culture” or whatever) they would have been guarding car parks.
Of for God’s sake how many times do I have to explain all this?
Paul, I wasn’t addressing “funny money from the Federal Reserve” or “government policies”, and in your earlier post neither were you. I was specifically replying to your statement that “Even with knowledge of a credit bubble it is very difficult to profit from it – take the example of Peter Schiff (he knew what would happen, and was a professional investor, yet could not profit from events).”
Your statement had nothing to do with “playing along” versus “denouncing the policies”; merely whether someone who understood that there was a credit bubble could profit from it. You specifically said that it was very difficult to do so, and I provided an example of someone who actually had. If that is “missing the point”, it’s only because whatever point you had intended to make was absent from your actual post.