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]

Samizdata quote of the day

A new study shows first-born children are more able and ambitious. So, why have we been ruled by a succession of younger siblings as prime ministers? So, why have we been ruled by a succession of younger siblings as prime ministers?

Because the able and ambitious go off to do something more interesting than tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

I mean seriously: where’s the sodding ambition in straining to reach a position that Gordon Fucking Brown managed to gain?

Tim Worstall

13 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Regional

    The great majority of politicians are effwits who can’t get a high paying job in the real world. Merchant banking is populated by effwits, witness how they had to be bailed out by Left wing Governments in Britain and America when they propped up Left Wing governments mad housing schemes, housing doesn’t create wealth.
    There’re a lamp posts in London and New York that could be put to better use.

  • Merchant banking is populated by effwits

    A lot of Merchant Bankers are very smart people who operate in a system in which politicians provide extremely perverse incentives to do things that are stupid, vis a vis the economy in general, but which are more or less required either by law or by intentional structural distortion if said Merchant Bankers want to play the game. But there are also a few who are indeed effwits 😀

  • Regional

    Perry,
    The point is while they’re intelligent they ignore the consequences of getting involved with politicians who’re their biggest clients, it’s like priests being chummy with the devil, without whom they’d be out of a job.
    Merchant Bankers hate governments who don’t borrow, big loans, big commissions.

  • they ignore the consequences of getting involved with politicians who’re their biggest clients, it’s like priests being chummy with the devil,

    Indeed. That is what those “perverse incentives” look like 😉

    without whom they’d be out of a job.

    No, they would just be doing a different sort of Merchant Banking. And we would all be better off for it.

  • Laird

    Merchant bankers have always dealt (and been intimately involved) with politicians and governments. Read the histories of Barings, Lehman Brothers, the Rothschilds, etc. The difference is that in the old days they controlled the politicians; today the reverse is true. But not all of them realize it (yet).

  • Well speaking as someone who worked in merchant banking, I assure you that lots of what get done is investment banking for projects that have nothing much to do with politicians and governments 😉 But at one time I also worked for the EIB, which is entirely about politicians and governments and it would be fair to say it is what drove me into the libertarian world view.

  • Regional

    Perry,
    I apologise for offending you.
    But as you say Merchant Banking is necessary to finance substantial projects that expose banks to too much risk. But it’s politicians who fuck things up. The SMA is a classic example how big projects should be managed, not borrowing to fund largess.

  • I am not offended at all Regional! Indeed merchant banking and finance generally is so fucked up that seeing the reality it up close turned me into a libertarian! 😀

  • bloke in spain

    As I commented on Tim’s site, access to the world of career politics is largely controlled by the political circle. And there’s little incentive for those in the political circle to encourage entrants who would provide competition to the incumbents. So the entire system selects for mediocrity.

  • Mr Ed

    A new study shows

    Words that precede an assertion that was surely in the minds of the ‘researchers’ before they even started looking at data, and is in fact a methodology of ‘hypothesis formulated for no obvious reason – evidence that suits hypothesis selected – hypothesis confirmed’ rather than, say, an examination of the stoichiometry of the combustion of ethane in chlorine by experiment and any attempt to understand what the ‘research’ shows.

    You may note the complete absence of a mechanism, no positive control, no negative control, no standard material, no caveats.

    I also note that the Grauniad piece hints at the FT suggesting that succession planning including provision for selecting first-borns.

    The lesson, according to the Financial Times this week, is that those involved in succession planning should therefore take care to give the top jobs to first-borns too

    Which is of course, arguably discrimination on the ground of age, and therefore may be unlawful. Naughty FT.

  • Nick (natural genius) Gray

    Perhaps we need affirmative action for the last-born! There’s a whole new field for bureaucrats to explore! Juniority can be the next cause.

  • It is said that those who can’t do, teach. I suppose those who can’t teach, run for office, and those who can’t learn, elect and re-elect them.

  • Julie near Chicago

    I suppose those who can’t teach, run for office, and those who can’t learn, elect and re-elect them.

    I nominate that quote from Billll as SQOTD!