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]
|
Wise words from Kevin Dowd People (like Anatole Kaletsky) who have the view that large quantities of government debt somehow don’t matter and are are not potentially damaging would do well to listen to this talk given by Professor Kevin Dowd, that I was fortunate enough to attend at the Libertarian International conference in Paris last September.
An audio only version is here.
The whole talk is good, but the first half (mainly about sound ways of recapitalising banks) is drier than the second. The really good stuff gets going at about the 20 minute mark.
Update: For the first few minutes of this lecture, it seems that Professor Dowd is giving the same talk he gave at the Chris Tame lecture earlier in the year. However, this is not the case. He gets through that in the first half of the talk. It is in the second half of this that he really says exactly what he thinks, and it is refreshing to hear someone just come out and say these things. If you heard the earlier lecture, it is still worth listening to at least the second half of this one.
|
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.
|
I have to say I rather like the ‘liberte – cherie’ logo, it’s much friendlier than the austere geometry UK Libertarian Alliance logo, which always reminds me of a Swastika until I give it a second glance. These presentational things matter nowadays, I wonder if the LA would consider changing it?
Wise words, indeed. Here’s a good text version that came out a little while ago (taking both the written and the spoken version together helped my dim wits):
http://www.cobdencentre.org/2009/12/lessons-from-the-financial-crisis/
The caveat I would mention is that this is a text version of the Chris Tame lecture he gave in London earlier in the year. That is good too, but he covered more ground in Paris and was even more withering about the fools who rule us.
It’s a shame that the video doesn’t include his slides, unfortunately. That would make it easier to keep up.
Sorry for the double post, but I spoke 20 minutes too soon (I need to work on listening before speaking). The link above applies to only the first 20minutes of Mr. Dowd’s presentation, but is still excellent. The second 20 minutes, as Mr. Jennings said, is pure gold.
Again, my apologies.
I remember Kevin Dowd from the debate (some years ago) about whether all borrowing (whether for consumption or investment) should be from real savings – or whether fractional reserve (and other credit bubble) tricks could be followed without causing real harm – i.e. boom and bust.
At the time the debate was very heated – but it obscured the real issue.
This being – “what should government do if a bank (fractional reserve or not) goes bankrupt”.
Kevin Dowd has always, quite correctly, said government should say CLEARLY AND WELL IN ADVANCE that they will not bail out any bank – and they should stick to that.
And he is quite correct – and this is the most important issue.
After all even if people continue to put money into credit bubble insitutions (after being clearly told, well in advance, that they will not be bailed out if they go bust) a collapse can be recovered from.
Individual people lose their savings and that is very bad – but the economy will recover from such a terrible event.
Prices and wages (if allowed to) will adjust from any fall in broad money back to the monetary base, and after a terrible slump economic development will resume – on a more solid foundation.
The above (no bailouts – no “monetary expansion” no “stimulus” – allow malinvestments to be liquidated, wages and prices to adjust and markets to clear) is the main issue.
Even if hot tempered people (like errrr me) argued about other matters.
The ringfencing small deposits is something that Kevin Dowd (I hope) is only applying to the present situation – i.e. where governmetnt DID NOT tell people clearly and well in advance that it would not bail them out (with their own money).
Not a situation where people had been told clearly (and well in advance) by government that they would not be bailed out.
As for limited liability.
I think this misses the point – especially as it has always existed (think of Churches and other trusts).
However, what should happen is a return to the principle that a limited liability company be CLEARLY IDENTIFIED as such.
In the United Kingdom a limited liabilty company always put “Ltd” after its name (for “limited”).
And in the United States it was “Inc” (for incorporated).
Then people who trade with them will know in advance that if the company goes bust the shareholders will not be personally bankrupted – i.e. that they may drive past in big cars going off to their big houses.
“No Paul – we want all shareholders to be bankrupt like Lloyds “names” if a syndicate can not pay its debts”.
Then do not do business with a limited liability company – do not demand that the principle of incorporation (I repeat, an ancient principle) be banned.