“At the deepest levels within our governing structures, we are committed to living beyond our means on a scale no civilization has ever done. Our most enlightened citizens think it’s rather vulgar and boorish to obsess about debt. The urbane, educated, Western progressive would rather “save the planet,” a cause which offers the grandiose narcissism that, say, reforming Medicare lacks.”
|
|||||
|
Dan Mitchell, of the CATO Institute and an excellent defender of those much-maligned tax havens, has a list of predictions for 2012 about the global scene. I agree with all of them apart from the sports one. Here are mine: Obama will be re-elected by a whisker, but the GOP will cement its control of Congress. Hopefully, a credible, free marketeer Republican will be chosen in the next election who does not carry some of the baggage of Ron Paul regarding his more unusual supporters or his flaky views (in my opinion) on foreign affairs. But in fairness to Paul, his achievement in getting the libertarian message out there on issues such as the economy, role of the Fed and the bailouts will continue to resonate, for which he deserves great praise. Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged will continue to sell lots of copies; Detlev Schlichter will continue, hopefully, to spread good sense among the financial community and among some policymakers. China’s property market and wider economy will slow down markedly, though I think it will avoid a hard landing. I am not sure that the country will fully float the yuan in 2012, although it should do so. The UK coalition government will struggle on, although at least one high-profile Lib Dem minister will resign. I hope it is Vincent Cable, who is an idiot. Brazil’s economy will continue to grow rapidly. The Latin America economy will gain momentum, apart from such wrecks as Venezuela. The London Olympics will go off largely without incident and as predicted, the British taxpayer will be paying for it for many years. Boris Johnson will try and milk it for his own political purposes, probably with some success. Sarkozy will lose the French presidential elections unless the economy improves. The French National Front will again get a lot of votes. Mobile technology will continue to change the banking industry. Italy’s public finances will remain a mess. And yet in spite of it all, the northern part of Italy will continue to be the rich, beautiful place it often is, confounding some of the doomsters. Greece will leave the euro; possbily one more country may do so. Turkey’s efforts to join the EU will continue to founder. The issue of the “education bubble” will remain one of the biggest domestic policy screwups in nations such as the UK and US. Policymakers will tinker with it. Cheap flights will remain one of the main positives about living in Europe. Pope Benedict’s failing health (he looked absolutely shattered in his Christmas address) will become more of a talking point. AGW alarmists will continue to lose ground. A major politician in a big country will take on the Green lobby. (Well, we can hope so). There will be continued big advances in areas such as nanotech and medicine, mostly shockingly under-reported. Parts of Africa will get more prosperous. Commercial space flight will loom even larger as a reality. Hooray! Piracy in the Indian Ocean might abate as countries adopt harsher methods to deal with it. More merchant vessels will be armed or escorted by vessels that are as insurance premia adjust. Argentina will occasionally make sabre-rattling remarks about the Falklands, which will be largely ignored. England might actually do quite well in the European Championships soccer tournament; England’s cricket team should have a decent year. People from Northern Ireland will continue to win lots of golf majors. Roger Federer might – as he has shown from recent form – win Wimbledon again, confirming he is the greatest sportsman of our time and the most famous Swiss person in the world. Lady Gaga will start dressing demurely as a way of shocking her fans (I am one of them). The quality of driving in Malta will continue to get worse. Latin will make a comeback as a subject in UK state schools. Finally, more of a hope than a prediction: Hollywood will make a decent hard science fiction movie this year and Ipswich Town will avoid relegation, just. Happy New Year to you all (apart from the trolls). January 1st, 2012 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
 One of the main arguments made in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the European Union is that such membership is the only way Britain can exert “influence” over European Union decision making. If we are on the outside “we” (whatever that might mean) will be ignored. So, goes the argument. I suppose this presupposes that British influence is a “good thing”, something I find rather surprising because for many euro-federalists it seems that one of the primary attractions of the EU is its un-Britishness. But I digress. Assuming they are being honest the question has to be: is it true? Do you have more influence by being inside the tent or outside? There are some pretty compelling counter-examples. I think we can agree that Britain had much more influence by being outside Nazi Europe than inside. Ditto Britain and the Soviet Empire. The American War of Independence seems to have been a spectacular example: improving life both in the United States and the British Empire – by warning the British of the likely costs of being unduly oppressive. But there are examples from other walks of life. Does anyone seriously think that Steve Jobs or Bill Gates would have had anything like the impact they have had by being corporate insiders? A lot of this assumes that Britain is in the right. What if she’s not? What if Britain is wrong? Well, that’s fine too. If we discover that the EU is right that’s fine. All we have to do is to adopt EU policies. There’s no need for membership. All of which rather puts me in mind of something that Natalie Solent wrote a few years ago, picked up here by Brian. The world needs diversity. There’s another part to this that bugs me. To have influence pre-supposes disagreement. You can’t have influence over a decision if you and every other party to it already agree. And if there is disagreement that implies that influence can only be bought at the price of others going against their perceived interests. Now, that’s all very well if you’re dealing with a bunch of tribesmen who don’t have machine guns but in the case of Europe you’re not. You are dealing with countries that are just as modern and as powerful as you are. If you succeed in exercising your “influence” and by doing so make them go against their perceived interests that is at very least going to cause resentment and probably lead to some continental “influence” against your perceived interests. Oh, and Happy New Year, by the way. January 1st, 2012 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
Romney may have just lost the election for the Republicans. If he is going to stand behind Individual Mandate, then why not vote for a real socialist? Why not just let someone who walks the walk drive things to their disastrous conclusion rather than allowing the left to point to a ‘conservative’ and blame the failures of socialism on him? If it is a given that Romney will be the Republican candidate, then come next fall I will vote for Republicans in the House and Senate and Obama for President in hopes that libertarian, tea party and conservative types can dominate the Legislative Branch and fight the Executive Branch every step of the way. If Romney were in, they would have to at least give a show of support for ‘their’ President. Let us shoot for total war between the branches of government as our best option for preserving liberty. The government which governs least is best… even if it is because they are too busy fighting amongst themselves to govern at all. January 1st, 2012 | 53 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
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. |
|||||