Any decisions on what to do about Afghanistan and Pakistan should be made in the light of the ruinous cost to the ailing US and UK economies of these wars.
The Iraqi surge was morally the right thing to do, given the bloodshed there, and the fact that the allies had broken the previous status quo; the surge gave military backing to the political alliances and avoided unequivocal defeat. To what extent a surge will have the same short-term effect in Afghanistan is the burning question, to which I don't have an answer.
But we need to get out as soon as is practical, because even America, never mind the UK, can't afford to play world policeman anymore. When America had a strong industrial base, it could have done so. Incursions into Pakistan will undermine the Pakistani state rather than support it; a political solution will involve some form of compromise with uncongenial Islamic social systems.
At least we have learned to stop talking about liberal democracy. Not much comfort in this situation, but the West is becoming a little more attuned to the political, cultural, demographic and economic realities.
Tuesday 31 March 2009
Economic man vs Political man
My blog of yesterday is really about the disconnect between on the one side "the man is an economic individual" theory of the world, shared by neo-classical economics and the humanitarianism lobby, and the "man is a political animal" theory of Aristotle. The "man is a political animal" theory was dominant of most of western history and is pretty much obvious to everyone apart from liberals.
From the economic individualism perspective, the fact that China with its billion-strong population and ever-more dominant production-based economy, is simply a relatively poor country, because individual incomes are lower than in the West. From the political animal perspective, China is simply a very powerful country, possibly more powerful than the United States in the economic arena due to its holding of American reserves and very real status as factory to the world. It is a little like the United States saying to Scandinavians, who have a higher per-capita income than Americans, that the US should be treated as a relatively poor country rather than a superpower.
From the economic individualism perspective, the fact that China with its billion-strong population and ever-more dominant production-based economy, is simply a relatively poor country, because individual incomes are lower than in the West. From the political animal perspective, China is simply a very powerful country, possibly more powerful than the United States in the economic arena due to its holding of American reserves and very real status as factory to the world. It is a little like the United States saying to Scandinavians, who have a higher per-capita income than Americans, that the US should be treated as a relatively poor country rather than a superpower.
Monday 30 March 2009
China, bank manager for the US
The Chinese ambassador to the UK has appeared yesterday on the Andrew Marr show (20/3/08) and today (29/03/08) on Channel 4 news, interviewed by John Snow. She was at pains to say that China was still a developing country, that China's dollar reserves are not very much given the number of Chinese people - $1000 or £1000 (I forget which, but it didn't sound like much) per person. No need to worry: China is still poor and is just trying to make its way in the world.
Yet I have blogged recently on the Chinese monopolising of raw materials for industrial production and remarked on the obvious fact that with industrial capacity and trade surpluses comes economic and military power as well as influence. More important than China's increasing strength is our increasing weakness: the lack of ability to pay our way, the lack of a production-based economy leading to impoverishment and a loss of independence, even basic security. In my inexperience as a political blogger, I thought the new phase of China's influence over the US was new, given America's immense debts and financial troubles.
Not so. Paul Craig Roberts, and others no doubt, made this clear two years ago in August 2007. He argued even then that China's holding of American reserves meant that the US had no influence on China, that the Chinese could precipitate a dollar crisis; that offshoring has eroded American living standards and pushed up deficits, and that America is as dependent on Chinese imports as it is for imported oil. The media don't discuss it; economists adhere blindly to Free Trade orthodoxy.
How can the West have been so stupid? Well, a drunkard will justify his drinking binges by various rationalisations. We cling to the notion that there is a privileged developed world and a (formerly oppressed) less privileged developing world, including China, that Free Trade leads people out of poverty, that trade reduces tensions, helps to create a better, more unified future. The West, by leading on trade liberalisation, is helping to save the needy. They rationalise our indebtedness as a kind of post-imperial largesse for the world's poor.
The weakness of the US and most of Europe should be apparent; an aging population, a debt-based economy and no signs of addiction to consumption abating; social decay; an inability to protect our borders; the military capacity of many European countries is laughable; those countries with a military budget are struggling to pay for it. Yet white guilt and one-world ideology has led us to a belief that our liberal trade policies are helping save the world. Why not save ourselves?
We are in denial. the US and Europe are in terminal decline. Maybe Africa is still poor enough for us to continuing patronising that resource-rich and demographically vital continent, although I wouldn't be suprised if Africans were richer than Europeans in 30 or 40 years. But the Chinese have already surpassed us; by raising the idea of a new reserve currency, they are telling the US that they veto US decision making, even while the Chinese ambassador in London, on being asked about trade imbalances, tells us that China is still a developing country. She is just passing the drunk another drink.
Yet I have blogged recently on the Chinese monopolising of raw materials for industrial production and remarked on the obvious fact that with industrial capacity and trade surpluses comes economic and military power as well as influence. More important than China's increasing strength is our increasing weakness: the lack of ability to pay our way, the lack of a production-based economy leading to impoverishment and a loss of independence, even basic security. In my inexperience as a political blogger, I thought the new phase of China's influence over the US was new, given America's immense debts and financial troubles.
Not so. Paul Craig Roberts, and others no doubt, made this clear two years ago in August 2007. He argued even then that China's holding of American reserves meant that the US had no influence on China, that the Chinese could precipitate a dollar crisis; that offshoring has eroded American living standards and pushed up deficits, and that America is as dependent on Chinese imports as it is for imported oil. The media don't discuss it; economists adhere blindly to Free Trade orthodoxy.
How can the West have been so stupid? Well, a drunkard will justify his drinking binges by various rationalisations. We cling to the notion that there is a privileged developed world and a (formerly oppressed) less privileged developing world, including China, that Free Trade leads people out of poverty, that trade reduces tensions, helps to create a better, more unified future. The West, by leading on trade liberalisation, is helping to save the needy. They rationalise our indebtedness as a kind of post-imperial largesse for the world's poor.
The weakness of the US and most of Europe should be apparent; an aging population, a debt-based economy and no signs of addiction to consumption abating; social decay; an inability to protect our borders; the military capacity of many European countries is laughable; those countries with a military budget are struggling to pay for it. Yet white guilt and one-world ideology has led us to a belief that our liberal trade policies are helping save the world. Why not save ourselves?
We are in denial. the US and Europe are in terminal decline. Maybe Africa is still poor enough for us to continuing patronising that resource-rich and demographically vital continent, although I wouldn't be suprised if Africans were richer than Europeans in 30 or 40 years. But the Chinese have already surpassed us; by raising the idea of a new reserve currency, they are telling the US that they veto US decision making, even while the Chinese ambassador in London, on being asked about trade imbalances, tells us that China is still a developing country. She is just passing the drunk another drink.
Friday 27 March 2009
The Lancet, the Pope and condoms
A supposedly objective Lancet article, which is really an editor's press release (so read "opinion", not "science"), criticises the Pope on condoms. Yet, beyond the liberal dogma on condoms and AIDS prevention, we find that scientific support for the Pope's warning against reliance on condoms.
An article on mercator.net concludes that multiple partnerships are the main reason for the spread of AIDS in Africa. The view that condoms are the answer is attacked by Harvard AIDS prevention expert, Dr Edward C. Green; also by James Shelton, who in a brief article references by case studies and published by the Lancet (you need to register - for free), exposes various myths about HIV infection, including the one that condoms help in generalised epidemics such as Africa (they help with sex workers in some circumstances), that poverty and discrimination are factors or that sexual behaviour does not change. He identifies concurrent partnerships as the main driver. The Mercator.net article also cites a book by Helen Epstein,which notes that infection is spreading despite increased condom use. In an article on Dr. Green's home page at Harvard, behaviour changes are more effective than medical-technical ones. He cites a previous study to support this.
The mantra that condoms are the answer is symptomatic of the fact that liberals like technical solutions such as condoms rather than moral solutions, such as behaviour change. The condoms controversy in Africa is a proxy-battle for the sex education/sexual liberation battle going on still in the West. Just as liberal sex education is failing to stop family breakdown, unwanted pregnancies and abortions in Europe and America, so over-reliance on condoms is failing to protect Africans from Aids. Yet liberals and Westerners stick to their sanctimonious bullying of dissenters in spite of the failure of their own dogmatic solutions. The views of the Catholic church correspond much more to the evidence. Isn't that what Science is supposed to be based on: evidence, not liberal prejudice?
Condoms work for prostitutes, I'm sure. They were first used as part of Government policy by the British in World War I to fight venereal disease on the Western Front. There is no relationship of intimacy between a prostitute and client and it as forms of sexual activity go, it is a clinical business. To use this as a template for sex in marriage or sex between inexperienced teenagers, or most other scenarios, is very misguided. It assumes that married people do not want to have children, it ignores the effect of spontaneity or inexperience. It ignores the various social pressures which operate in the real world.
If you created a controlled laboratory experiment with two equally experienced couples, and asked one pair to use condoms and the other not to do so, you would no doubt find that condoms "work" to protect the users against conception or whatever disease you are fighting. To pretend that such ideal conditions exist in the real world is naive in the extreme. Yet this is received wisdom in enlightened circles.
An article on mercator.net concludes that multiple partnerships are the main reason for the spread of AIDS in Africa. The view that condoms are the answer is attacked by Harvard AIDS prevention expert, Dr Edward C. Green; also by James Shelton, who in a brief article references by case studies and published by the Lancet (you need to register - for free), exposes various myths about HIV infection, including the one that condoms help in generalised epidemics such as Africa (they help with sex workers in some circumstances), that poverty and discrimination are factors or that sexual behaviour does not change. He identifies concurrent partnerships as the main driver. The Mercator.net article also cites a book by Helen Epstein,which notes that infection is spreading despite increased condom use. In an article on Dr. Green's home page at Harvard, behaviour changes are more effective than medical-technical ones. He cites a previous study to support this.
The mantra that condoms are the answer is symptomatic of the fact that liberals like technical solutions such as condoms rather than moral solutions, such as behaviour change. The condoms controversy in Africa is a proxy-battle for the sex education/sexual liberation battle going on still in the West. Just as liberal sex education is failing to stop family breakdown, unwanted pregnancies and abortions in Europe and America, so over-reliance on condoms is failing to protect Africans from Aids. Yet liberals and Westerners stick to their sanctimonious bullying of dissenters in spite of the failure of their own dogmatic solutions. The views of the Catholic church correspond much more to the evidence. Isn't that what Science is supposed to be based on: evidence, not liberal prejudice?
Condoms work for prostitutes, I'm sure. They were first used as part of Government policy by the British in World War I to fight venereal disease on the Western Front. There is no relationship of intimacy between a prostitute and client and it as forms of sexual activity go, it is a clinical business. To use this as a template for sex in marriage or sex between inexperienced teenagers, or most other scenarios, is very misguided. It assumes that married people do not want to have children, it ignores the effect of spontaneity or inexperience. It ignores the various social pressures which operate in the real world.
If you created a controlled laboratory experiment with two equally experienced couples, and asked one pair to use condoms and the other not to do so, you would no doubt find that condoms "work" to protect the users against conception or whatever disease you are fighting. To pretend that such ideal conditions exist in the real world is naive in the extreme. Yet this is received wisdom in enlightened circles.
Catholics, the Act of Succession and Evan Harris
Evan Harris, friend to Catholicism, known as Dr Death for his extreme pro-abortion views, wants to scrap the Act of Succession, on the basis that it discriminates against Catholics. This is rather ironic since he believes that Religion (in practice, dissent from failed progressive policies) should give way to "Science" (aka liberal ideology) on matters relating to abortion, euthanasia, the family, education, etc..
We have to put up with the misrepresentation of the Catholic (really the most consistently Conservative) viewpoint on social issues such as the family, abortion, sex education and euthansia; these views are either ignored, or ridiculed. We have the attack on faith-based schooling in the name of social cohesion and British values. Like most people, I don't want teenagers or pre-teenagers to receive that trojan-horse, a value-free education on sex and be lectured on the easy availability of contraception,emergency contraception
I would like my children to be educated in the Catholic faith, and be brought up in a Christian environment; such a truly liberal education would help protect them from the culture of death promoted by a combination of Government policy, liberal dogma and commercial profit - and Dr. Harris. Yet, I am supposed to care about the Act of Succession. In any case, liberal morality is destroying the West. The Death of the West really does matter and the Catholic church is fighting it. But I digress.
Returning to the issue, our concern should be the Constitution of Britain, not treating Catholics as yet another minority to be used as a wedge for a liberal attack on our traditions. By "reforming" the Act of Succession, you tinker with the constitution, and in the process may weaken the monarchy, which is no doubt the real intention. It doesn't make any difference to the lives of Catholics, except to make another spiteful and otherwise pointless gesture against the traditions of this country. It of courses matters a lot to the left because that is their stock-in-trade. They say it is an anomaly. So? History is full of anomalies, they are part of our past, the settlement handed down to us by our ancestors - which it is much easier to destroy than to replace. There is a lot of ideology here but no injustice?
Cardinal Keith O' Brien calls it "state-sponsored sectarianism". I guess from a West-Scotland perspective, he could be forgiven for this statement, given the Catholic and Protestants divisions there; but attacking the monarcy won't do much to improve community tensions, as far as I can see. Interestingly, he is referred to as a "critic" rather than by name by BBC Radio 4. Though Cardinal O' Brien is to the left of the Government on nuclear disarmament, immigration and other issues, he was recently demonised by the left for his robust pro-life remarks. For the left, being pro-abortion is an article offaithpolicy-based evidence
The government won't back the private members bill because it is a constitutional quagmire; but true to the jacobin leanings of New Labour, Gordon Brown "is in discussions with the palace", is worried about "exclusion" and says that "there shouldn't be discrimination". His role as progressive world leader means that he must at least pay lip service to this faux equality and diversity issue.
We have to put up with the misrepresentation of the Catholic (really the most consistently Conservative) viewpoint on social issues such as the family, abortion, sex education and euthansia; these views are either ignored, or ridiculed. We have the attack on faith-based schooling in the name of social cohesion and British values. Like most people, I don't want teenagers or pre-teenagers to receive that trojan-horse, a value-free education on sex and be lectured on the easy availability of contraception,
I would like my children to be educated in the Catholic faith, and be brought up in a Christian environment; such a truly liberal education would help protect them from the culture of death promoted by a combination of Government policy, liberal dogma and commercial profit - and Dr. Harris. Yet, I am supposed to care about the Act of Succession. In any case, liberal morality is destroying the West. The Death of the West really does matter and the Catholic church is fighting it. But I digress.
Returning to the issue, our concern should be the Constitution of Britain, not treating Catholics as yet another minority to be used as a wedge for a liberal attack on our traditions. By "reforming" the Act of Succession, you tinker with the constitution, and in the process may weaken the monarchy, which is no doubt the real intention. It doesn't make any difference to the lives of Catholics, except to make another spiteful and otherwise pointless gesture against the traditions of this country. It of courses matters a lot to the left because that is their stock-in-trade. They say it is an anomaly. So? History is full of anomalies, they are part of our past, the settlement handed down to us by our ancestors - which it is much easier to destroy than to replace. There is a lot of ideology here but no injustice?
Cardinal Keith O' Brien calls it "state-sponsored sectarianism". I guess from a West-Scotland perspective, he could be forgiven for this statement, given the Catholic and Protestants divisions there; but attacking the monarcy won't do much to improve community tensions, as far as I can see. Interestingly, he is referred to as a "critic" rather than by name by BBC Radio 4. Though Cardinal O' Brien is to the left of the Government on nuclear disarmament, immigration and other issues, he was recently demonised by the left for his robust pro-life remarks. For the left, being pro-abortion is an article of
The government won't back the private members bill because it is a constitutional quagmire; but true to the jacobin leanings of New Labour, Gordon Brown "is in discussions with the palace", is worried about "exclusion" and says that "there shouldn't be discrimination". His role as progressive world leader means that he must at least pay lip service to this faux equality and diversity issue.
Wednesday 18 March 2009
Pope comments on condoms
The pope said condoms are not the answer to HIV aids, they may even add to the problem. Westerners who think that throwing condoms are the answer, are fighting a proxy-battle for sexual liberation in the west, where condoms have also failed to solve social problems.
At the time of the death of John Paul II, the left accused the late pontiff of murder. See the guardian obituary. But the most intelligent comment was by Brendan O' Neill, not a pro-catholic by any means.
At the time of the death of John Paul II, the left accused the late pontiff of murder. See the guardian obituary. But the most intelligent comment was by Brendan O' Neill, not a pro-catholic by any means.
Tuesday 17 March 2009
China buys US and monopolises rare earth metals
An article in the Times of 9 March says that China will be the “'ultimate monopolist' in the supply of rare earth metals — a dominance that industry experts say could give Beijing control over the future of consumer electronics and green technology.”
The article states that: China controls 95% of these metals; it has resources and refinery capacity to satisfying growing world demand but has limited its export capacity to 38,000 tons, less than Japan alone needs. According to Jack Lifton, an expert on rare earths, Deng Xiaoping set out this agenda 15 years ago, saying “China would be for rare earth metals what the Middle East was to oil”. He added, “The world has to wake up and start thinking of this group of elements as the ‘technology metals' without which there will be no technology.” It will give Chinese companies a competitive edge as they move into high-technology industries [sc: didn't the free traders promise that the West would be predominant in high-tech?]; and 2) may force foreign companies to move to China, putting at risk their industrial secrets. The Chinese can engineer a drop in prices, to make development of alternative supplies unprofitable; recently an Australian company, Lucas, dropped out of a project that could have supplied Japanese Industry. While China has only 42% of these metals within its territory, it has virtually all the refining capacity. Chinese investment companies are intensifying expansion into this area.
No doubt to the pan-glossian vision of free trade devotees, this is part of the great march of progress, but it worries me. A search for rare earth metals in Google found a preponderance on physics and chemistry based pages with the Times article one of the few politics-based entries. The
wikepedia entry confirms the times article discussing japanese pleading with the Chinese in 2007, chinese villages suffering from pollution and GM moving its staff to China. Now I am not an expert, but our so-called experts are blissfully unconcerned about the dangers of China monopolising key industrial raw materials. That this has been going on for years without a mention exemplifies Charles Handy's adage that if you put a frog in a saucepan of cold water and heat it slowly, the frog adapts its body temperature to the water until it eventually boils alive. If it were a bomb, even a bomb attempt, or tinpot dictator threatening destruction, the media would be all over it, politicans would protest, they might even go to war.
There is hope as 58% of these metals are outside China; but the Chinese will keep buying these resources up, and putting pressure on any company or country that tries to break their lock on this type of metal.
You might expect the West to complain against this intentional distortion of the Free Trade system. Well, in spite of "soft power", no-one takes the Europeans seriously, who listens to them? But the US will protest surely? Maybe they can't, now that they are so dependent on Chinese money to finance the debt that they daren't complain. Apparently the chinese premier is worried about US debt; and according to another Telegraph strapline, Hilary Clinton had to plead with China to buy US treasuries. Looks like China has influence over the United States. The US has been fighting military wars, but the American colossus has economic feet of clay. The irony is that American military security is already compromised by dependence on Chinese manufacturing, which I blogged on previously.
Maybe our current leaders are saying that if the West plans to get out of manufacturing, then it won't need to compete for the world's resources with an industrial giant like China. Certainly, it won't be able to afford to do so. The specific worry with resource mercantilism is that if the West comes to its senses, it may be locked out of industrial activity altogether because China guards its monopoly supply.
That China could have influence over American policy has been registered by conservatives such as the Heritage institute, who say that China has nowhere to go at the moment except to buy US Treasuries, but the balance of power would shift if the US keeps stacking up deficits. That kind of nuance make sense, I suppose, if you see the world through the prism of finance rather than looking first at the supply of the world's resources, on which all economic activity ultimately depends.
The article states that: China controls 95% of these metals; it has resources and refinery capacity to satisfying growing world demand but has limited its export capacity to 38,000 tons, less than Japan alone needs. According to Jack Lifton, an expert on rare earths, Deng Xiaoping set out this agenda 15 years ago, saying “China would be for rare earth metals what the Middle East was to oil”. He added, “The world has to wake up and start thinking of this group of elements as the ‘technology metals' without which there will be no technology.” It will give Chinese companies a competitive edge as they move into high-technology industries [sc: didn't the free traders promise that the West would be predominant in high-tech?]; and 2) may force foreign companies to move to China, putting at risk their industrial secrets. The Chinese can engineer a drop in prices, to make development of alternative supplies unprofitable; recently an Australian company, Lucas, dropped out of a project that could have supplied Japanese Industry. While China has only 42% of these metals within its territory, it has virtually all the refining capacity. Chinese investment companies are intensifying expansion into this area.
No doubt to the pan-glossian vision of free trade devotees, this is part of the great march of progress, but it worries me. A search for rare earth metals in Google found a preponderance on physics and chemistry based pages with the Times article one of the few politics-based entries. The
wikepedia entry confirms the times article discussing japanese pleading with the Chinese in 2007, chinese villages suffering from pollution and GM moving its staff to China. Now I am not an expert, but our so-called experts are blissfully unconcerned about the dangers of China monopolising key industrial raw materials. That this has been going on for years without a mention exemplifies Charles Handy's adage that if you put a frog in a saucepan of cold water and heat it slowly, the frog adapts its body temperature to the water until it eventually boils alive. If it were a bomb, even a bomb attempt, or tinpot dictator threatening destruction, the media would be all over it, politicans would protest, they might even go to war.
There is hope as 58% of these metals are outside China; but the Chinese will keep buying these resources up, and putting pressure on any company or country that tries to break their lock on this type of metal.
You might expect the West to complain against this intentional distortion of the Free Trade system. Well, in spite of "soft power", no-one takes the Europeans seriously, who listens to them? But the US will protest surely? Maybe they can't, now that they are so dependent on Chinese money to finance the debt that they daren't complain. Apparently the chinese premier is worried about US debt; and according to another Telegraph strapline, Hilary Clinton had to plead with China to buy US treasuries. Looks like China has influence over the United States. The US has been fighting military wars, but the American colossus has economic feet of clay. The irony is that American military security is already compromised by dependence on Chinese manufacturing, which I blogged on previously.
Maybe our current leaders are saying that if the West plans to get out of manufacturing, then it won't need to compete for the world's resources with an industrial giant like China. Certainly, it won't be able to afford to do so. The specific worry with resource mercantilism is that if the West comes to its senses, it may be locked out of industrial activity altogether because China guards its monopoly supply.
That China could have influence over American policy has been registered by conservatives such as the Heritage institute, who say that China has nowhere to go at the moment except to buy US Treasuries, but the balance of power would shift if the US keeps stacking up deficits. That kind of nuance make sense, I suppose, if you see the world through the prism of finance rather than looking first at the supply of the world's resources, on which all economic activity ultimately depends.
Sunday 15 March 2009
Saturday 14 March 2009
G20 dreams: Free Trade and Facile internationalism from the CBI
Richard Lambert, director general the CBI, wrote an article for the Business section of the Times on 5/3/09 with recommendations for leaders at the forthcoming G20 conference. On first read, I dismissed it as pie in the sky; but the defenders of the old economic system are taking this agenda seriously. In fact it is more or less the consensus, supported by the BBC, Financial Times and other pillars of the liberal ascendency. Lambert has argued cogently and honestly, albeit for something which is unrealistic.
I shall leave aside that financial liberalisation led to the E. Europe debt crisis, and trade imbalances are the underlying reasons for the world crisis - let's say the past is the past. But here I gloss what he is really saying or omits to say.:
To me, Lambert’s position is an example of how economic liberalism and free-trade, after 1989 became the new vehicle for the internationalism of the liberal-left. They believe in one world, that nationalism, nation states, and ethnic rivalries should, and can, be made to disappear. Implicit in Lambert's argument is the belief that we are merely individual economic units with no national affiliations.
In the real world, powers will be powers; it is sensible for each nation to co-operate where possible, but be prepared to defend its interests when necessary. Unlike Lambert, I am not arguing for Utopia, but for a strategy to survive in the real world.
Summary of Lambert's article.
The G20 countries comprise 85% of world output. Their problem is the pernicious feedback loop between the real economy and financial markets, which:
Leaders have talked free trade and walked protectionist policies (tariffs, industry subsidies, exchange rate interventions and bailouts to favour home market); nor has there been progress on Doha. The task of the G20 is to DO WHATEVER IT TAKES to restore world's financial system.
Tactically, London should adjust the Washington programme, not get bogged down into details of financial regulation.
In conclusion, transparency and independences are necessary: IMF needs greater responsibility to identify stress points in global economy and be free to criticise US; as are co-ordinated efforts to rebuild financial stability and to check the fall in global demand
END.
Or to summarise more succintly: pass me that slice of apple pie. Make sure it is laced with opium, because I can't face reality yet.
I shall leave aside that financial liberalisation led to the E. Europe debt crisis, and trade imbalances are the underlying reasons for the world crisis - let's say the past is the past. But here I gloss what he is really saying or omits to say.:
- There is no mention of debt and solvency. If you don't have the money, you can't spend it, except by incurring more debt, which leads to paying more for credit, due to low credit-worthiness.
- He thinks that “confidence” can help us out of recession; yes, psychological factors may have some impact, but ultimately confidence has to be based on something real. When you know you are exposed financially, it is unlikely you will feel confident enough to spend more. Nor should you: from the outset, the argument starts to look grossly immoral, because it encourages us to keep piling on debt indefinitely.
- No mention of trade imbalances. According to free Trade orthodoxy, every country must benefit from unrestricted free trade, based on the principle of comparative advantage, which unfortunately for the West, no longer applies. And the de-industrialisation of the west means generally lower wages to pay for those cheaper Chinese goods
- Lambert is calling for strengthened world governance; more mechanisms to make governments unaccountable to their own peoples, it is time for the economic guardians to rule - in order to soothe populist tendencies and curb the protectionist spirit. Free Trade in the end relies on a loss of democratic Freedom.
- There is a touching faith in the ability of government summits to successfully implement top-down solutions to the world. Lambert sounds like an internationally minded socialist
- There is the usual mantra about free trade pulling people out of poverty in the world; nothing about how it damages western interests and impoverishes us. Again this ambassador of economic liberalism sounds like a member of Socialist International. But I don't buy this free trade helps poverty argument, even though I believe that Capitalism and some trade help alleviate poverty. For example, if China were less export-driven, it might produce more for its own consumers and allow its currency to appreciate, increasing the purchasing power of its people. China’s export drive is encouraged by the unlimited free trade system. [There are also social and environmental externalities.] .
- Most important of all: there is no mention of the political realities, namely that the world is made up of nation states and ethnic units: some of these will benefit more from the free trade system than others and consequently be more powerful in relative terms, the obvious case being China, whose surplus- and-production-based economy has increased its wealth, bargaining power, military capacity relative to the debtor-consumer nations. Lambert talks as if the world is one homogenous entity where the interests of all countries coincide.
To me, Lambert’s position is an example of how economic liberalism and free-trade, after 1989 became the new vehicle for the internationalism of the liberal-left. They believe in one world, that nationalism, nation states, and ethnic rivalries should, and can, be made to disappear. Implicit in Lambert's argument is the belief that we are merely individual economic units with no national affiliations.
In the real world, powers will be powers; it is sensible for each nation to co-operate where possible, but be prepared to defend its interests when necessary. Unlike Lambert, I am not arguing for Utopia, but for a strategy to survive in the real world.
Summary of Lambert's article.
The G20 countries comprise 85% of world output. Their problem is the pernicious feedback loop between the real economy and financial markets, which:
- causes asset prices to fall and cost of capital to rise; which
- impacts consumer and business confidence; which
- reduces demand for consumer and capital goods; which
- slows economy, increases credit risks; which
- lead to uncertainty in financial system
Leaders have talked free trade and walked protectionist policies (tariffs, industry subsidies, exchange rate interventions and bailouts to favour home market); nor has there been progress on Doha. The task of the G20 is to DO WHATEVER IT TAKES to restore world's financial system.
- Governments must agree on common approaches, so that actions of one country (e.g., Ireland propping up banks) does not undermine other countries;
- Governments must reverse collapse in demand for goods and services. Fiscal stimulus can do this ( e.g., US committed to stimulus = 5.5% of GDP; surplus countries have need and responsibility to do the same: china is on the way, while Germany and japan must do more; )
- a) a growing number of countries need international help e.g., central/eastern europe;
- urgent priorityis reform of IMF, in order to:
a) to increase resources and therefore lending capacity to deal with multiplying problems;
b) to give greater prominence to the emerging economies in its governance structures - To counter protectionism we need transparent mechanisms that will monitor commitments and highlight abuses [sc: world government]
b) it is in the interest of international community to do this to avoid serious economic and political strains to europe and beyond;
Tactically, London should adjust the Washington programme, not get bogged down into details of financial regulation.
In conclusion, transparency and independences are necessary: IMF needs greater responsibility to identify stress points in global economy and be free to criticise US; as are co-ordinated efforts to rebuild financial stability and to check the fall in global demand
- support for increased resources and governance reforms for multilateral institutions;
- practical steps to push back protectionism and complete the trade round;
- start a process to reform financial markets.
END.
Or to summarise more succintly: pass me that slice of apple pie. Make sure it is laced with opium, because I can't face reality yet.
Friday 13 March 2009
Rich and Poor is not the important divide
The much posited divide between rich and poor is much less important than the tripartite distinction between the very rich, the striving classes and the underclasses.
The very rich can afford taxes, or they can avoid most of them. The striving classes pay the taxes and get very little benefits. The underclass do nothing and keep getting the paychecks from the state.
By maintaining the pretence that there are the poor, needing state largesse, and the rest of the population, who are the "rich", you legitimise punitive tax rates on low- and middle-earners; you obscure the obvious fact that welfare dependency is rife; you do nothing to address the problem of tax avoidance. You punish the virtuous and reward vice.
The very rich can afford taxes, or they can avoid most of them. The striving classes pay the taxes and get very little benefits. The underclass do nothing and keep getting the paychecks from the state.
By maintaining the pretence that there are the poor, needing state largesse, and the rest of the population, who are the "rich", you legitimise punitive tax rates on low- and middle-earners; you obscure the obvious fact that welfare dependency is rife; you do nothing to address the problem of tax avoidance. You punish the virtuous and reward vice.
Housing and inequality
Jeff Randell, while comparing Bernie Madoff and Gordon Brown, cites Hector Sants, chief executive of the FSA, who "pointed to the Prime Minister's complicity in the economic criss. He said there had been ' a prevailing mindset of Government and society prmoting the benefits of credit and asset inflation, notably in housing'".
Let us consider how housing inflation undermined the fight for equality, on which struggle New Labour based much of its legitimacy. Under Blair and Brown, the government introduced numerous taxes to pay anti-poverty initiatives such as working tax credits, sure start, etc; but in allowing house prices to rise, an ever-increasing proportion of the working poor were cut out of the housing market: first postman, policeman, nurses in London, but then teachers, doctors, engineers spreading to the south-east and then throughout the country. The explosion of the City of London meant that financiers bid up the prices of housing, as did foreign investors. Key professions qualified for new government assistance schemes (funded by taxation), which had the added effect of fuelling house inflation further. It became increasingly difficult for young people to afford to set up as a family and bring up children, which has had an effect on the birth rate amongst some sections of the population.
The trickle-down theory of wealth distribution from rich to poor failed to work here because resources like housing are fixed. We should mind if a certain proportion of people get filthy rich because they price the rest of us out of the market. Note that other pillars of liberal economic orthodoxy also fall down due to scarcity of resources: even without trade imbalances, the Free Trade system will be have to be abandoned because countries like China monopolise sources of raw materials; even those previously committed to Free Trade will be forced to secure their own commodity sources as a defensive measure.
Add to this the effects of immigration, which put downward pressure on wage levels while putting upward pressure on the price of resources, housing being the most significant, and the striving classes were faced with a double bind. Meanwhile council housing increasingly went to asylum seekers and immigrants, because on the basis of pure need (having nothing when they came to this country), as well as single mothers and other categories that were without means of supporting themselves. People prepared to work were less poor in absolute terms so they were left to fend for themselves in the private housing market.
To what extent did the Government encourage immigration simply to keep the asset-boom going? treachery for a few extra points on GDP. Ideology had something to do with it, but you can see how the anti-racism agenda legitimised a situation where immigrant labour undercut the wages of the British worker, while driving up the price of housing. Yet I have heard people on the left say that immigration is good because it provides a more competitive labour market and british workers will have to work harder. The egalitarian left had embraced social Darwinism.The business lobby liked the low wages and flexibility of immigrant labour; the externalities, British people staying on the dole or earning so little that they qualified for welfare, were paid for by the taxpayer. It wasn't the responsibility of companies to provide a living wage, that was for government. Socialist redistribution and unscrupulous business practices worked hand in hand.
The rich could afford to buy houses; the underclass got council housing, based on need rather than entitlement; the rest of us had to work much harder to afford their homes, or fall off the housing ladder. Many were priced out. The most important division between haves and have-nots was one primarily of houseowners and people who could not afford to own their home; but oddly this did not register with the government, because the have-nots in this case, being willing to work, did not aim to claim state benefits and were not beneficiaries of the redistributive measures.
The housing crisis stayed off the political agenda for long after it became obvious that this was hurting ordinary people, because the connection with immigration meant that to cite housing as a problem was tantamount to racism. Political correctness won out over natural justice. Yet poverty initiatives continued apace, poverty being something that applied to people in absolute need that could be addressed by state action. The only inequality the redistributionists cared about was the type that could benefit from state handouts provided by beneficient left-wing politicians; inequality ameliorated by individual effort left them out of the picture. The worst effects of our unequal society were felt by those who were prepared to work rather than take government handouts.
The mainstream political parties dared not challenge the City of London, so the housing bubble continued. This is stark contrast with their lack of support for manufacturing, one of the most successful activities for wealth creation and therefore employee welfare: a large manufacturing sector helps fight inequality. All three parties allowed Rover to fail and supported a deal with the Chinese, which allowed the Chinese to take the company's IPR at a knock-down price.
Yet the government encouraged the bonus culture and immigration because both increased asset prices, which gave the government a source of tax income to finance their redistributive schemes. This was a bargain between a redistributive state, the Business lobby and the various politically correct agendas, struck at the expense of the virtuous low- and middle-income worker.
Let us consider how housing inflation undermined the fight for equality, on which struggle New Labour based much of its legitimacy. Under Blair and Brown, the government introduced numerous taxes to pay anti-poverty initiatives such as working tax credits, sure start, etc; but in allowing house prices to rise, an ever-increasing proportion of the working poor were cut out of the housing market: first postman, policeman, nurses in London, but then teachers, doctors, engineers spreading to the south-east and then throughout the country. The explosion of the City of London meant that financiers bid up the prices of housing, as did foreign investors. Key professions qualified for new government assistance schemes (funded by taxation), which had the added effect of fuelling house inflation further. It became increasingly difficult for young people to afford to set up as a family and bring up children, which has had an effect on the birth rate amongst some sections of the population.
The trickle-down theory of wealth distribution from rich to poor failed to work here because resources like housing are fixed. We should mind if a certain proportion of people get filthy rich because they price the rest of us out of the market. Note that other pillars of liberal economic orthodoxy also fall down due to scarcity of resources: even without trade imbalances, the Free Trade system will be have to be abandoned because countries like China monopolise sources of raw materials; even those previously committed to Free Trade will be forced to secure their own commodity sources as a defensive measure.
Add to this the effects of immigration, which put downward pressure on wage levels while putting upward pressure on the price of resources, housing being the most significant, and the striving classes were faced with a double bind. Meanwhile council housing increasingly went to asylum seekers and immigrants, because on the basis of pure need (having nothing when they came to this country), as well as single mothers and other categories that were without means of supporting themselves. People prepared to work were less poor in absolute terms so they were left to fend for themselves in the private housing market.
To what extent did the Government encourage immigration simply to keep the asset-boom going? treachery for a few extra points on GDP. Ideology had something to do with it, but you can see how the anti-racism agenda legitimised a situation where immigrant labour undercut the wages of the British worker, while driving up the price of housing. Yet I have heard people on the left say that immigration is good because it provides a more competitive labour market and british workers will have to work harder. The egalitarian left had embraced social Darwinism.The business lobby liked the low wages and flexibility of immigrant labour; the externalities, British people staying on the dole or earning so little that they qualified for welfare, were paid for by the taxpayer. It wasn't the responsibility of companies to provide a living wage, that was for government. Socialist redistribution and unscrupulous business practices worked hand in hand.
The rich could afford to buy houses; the underclass got council housing, based on need rather than entitlement; the rest of us had to work much harder to afford their homes, or fall off the housing ladder. Many were priced out. The most important division between haves and have-nots was one primarily of houseowners and people who could not afford to own their home; but oddly this did not register with the government, because the have-nots in this case, being willing to work, did not aim to claim state benefits and were not beneficiaries of the redistributive measures.
The housing crisis stayed off the political agenda for long after it became obvious that this was hurting ordinary people, because the connection with immigration meant that to cite housing as a problem was tantamount to racism. Political correctness won out over natural justice. Yet poverty initiatives continued apace, poverty being something that applied to people in absolute need that could be addressed by state action. The only inequality the redistributionists cared about was the type that could benefit from state handouts provided by beneficient left-wing politicians; inequality ameliorated by individual effort left them out of the picture. The worst effects of our unequal society were felt by those who were prepared to work rather than take government handouts.
The mainstream political parties dared not challenge the City of London, so the housing bubble continued. This is stark contrast with their lack of support for manufacturing, one of the most successful activities for wealth creation and therefore employee welfare: a large manufacturing sector helps fight inequality. All three parties allowed Rover to fail and supported a deal with the Chinese, which allowed the Chinese to take the company's IPR at a knock-down price.
Yet the government encouraged the bonus culture and immigration because both increased asset prices, which gave the government a source of tax income to finance their redistributive schemes. This was a bargain between a redistributive state, the Business lobby and the various politically correct agendas, struck at the expense of the virtuous low- and middle-income worker.
Monday 9 March 2009
George W Bush is a socialist
Barrack Obama, on being asked if was a socialist, suggested that George W Bush was: "it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn't on my watch. And it wasn't on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement - the prescription drug plan without a source of funding."
Too right - and conservatives need to say this often: it is clear that George W was not a "conservative". In promising to cut taxes while maintaining spending, he violated the rules of fiscal conservatism. The ever increasing trade deficits were funded by debt and the sale of american assets. This was a long time before the financial crisis. By maintaining high levels of spending, he did nothing to cut back the role of the state in the US.
His foreign policy foray in Iraq had much in common with the liberal humanitarianism of Tony Blair; neo-conservativism in general is a progressive agenda, it central idea being that freedom is the ultimate force in the world, trumping tradition, culture, conservative prudence; many of its cheer leaders such as Christopher Hitchens, Neil Ferguson and Thomas Friedman, are firmly on the liberal left. David Frum has said that he is quite happy with big government - of course he is, as long as (or because) it can finance foreign wars: the "welfare-warfare" state attacked by conservatives like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. For all its supposed Christian character, the Bush administration promoted a war for dogmatic liberalism, based on what Buchanan called "the gospel of democratic fundamentalism".
As noted by Lou Dobbs in his book, "The war on the middle class", the Bush administration promoted policies that attacked the social and economic base of America. They continued the Free Trade policies of Clinton and its liberal immigration policies, leading to businesses going bust, welfare costs increasing and gang-crime continuing to go through the roof. Not much different to New Labour. Under Bush, the de-industrialisation, outsourcing, offshoring and unpeopling of America accelerated, as did the foreign exchange deficit. New jobs were created - but they paid less than the old ones, being service-oriented rather than production-based.
"Socialist" may be too kind a word for the Bush administration. More apt is "latter-day jacobin" or "liberal bolshevism". The bailout of the bankers, driven through without proper democratic debate, was the final betrayal of conservative America in favour of neo-liberal orthodoxy - yes, they talk about Keynes, but they really want to save international finance, the free-trade system and debt-based capitalism. This is all at the cost of unprecedented debt and America's economic (therefore also military) standing. I suspect that the independence of the United States is compromised because they rely on the Chinese funding the debt. The destructive effects will be felt for a long time. As Jacques Chirac said before the Iraq War, in the heyday of liberal hubris, "extreme economic liberalism is the new Marxism".
Too right - and conservatives need to say this often: it is clear that George W was not a "conservative". In promising to cut taxes while maintaining spending, he violated the rules of fiscal conservatism. The ever increasing trade deficits were funded by debt and the sale of american assets. This was a long time before the financial crisis. By maintaining high levels of spending, he did nothing to cut back the role of the state in the US.
His foreign policy foray in Iraq had much in common with the liberal humanitarianism of Tony Blair; neo-conservativism in general is a progressive agenda, it central idea being that freedom is the ultimate force in the world, trumping tradition, culture, conservative prudence; many of its cheer leaders such as Christopher Hitchens, Neil Ferguson and Thomas Friedman, are firmly on the liberal left. David Frum has said that he is quite happy with big government - of course he is, as long as (or because) it can finance foreign wars: the "welfare-warfare" state attacked by conservatives like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. For all its supposed Christian character, the Bush administration promoted a war for dogmatic liberalism, based on what Buchanan called "the gospel of democratic fundamentalism".
As noted by Lou Dobbs in his book, "The war on the middle class", the Bush administration promoted policies that attacked the social and economic base of America. They continued the Free Trade policies of Clinton and its liberal immigration policies, leading to businesses going bust, welfare costs increasing and gang-crime continuing to go through the roof. Not much different to New Labour. Under Bush, the de-industrialisation, outsourcing, offshoring and unpeopling of America accelerated, as did the foreign exchange deficit. New jobs were created - but they paid less than the old ones, being service-oriented rather than production-based.
"Socialist" may be too kind a word for the Bush administration. More apt is "latter-day jacobin" or "liberal bolshevism". The bailout of the bankers, driven through without proper democratic debate, was the final betrayal of conservative America in favour of neo-liberal orthodoxy - yes, they talk about Keynes, but they really want to save international finance, the free-trade system and debt-based capitalism. This is all at the cost of unprecedented debt and America's economic (therefore also military) standing. I suspect that the independence of the United States is compromised because they rely on the Chinese funding the debt. The destructive effects will be felt for a long time. As Jacques Chirac said before the Iraq War, in the heyday of liberal hubris, "extreme economic liberalism is the new Marxism".
Friday 6 March 2009
Damage done to women by late abortion
Given the almost deafening silence on abortion now that it is off the parliamentary agenda, it is worth revisiting Edward Leigh's entry on the Cornerstone blog on the Abortion debate last year, especially for the comments from a midwife on the damage and the lack of information given to women.
The discrepancy between the views of the British people on the prevalence of abortion, especially late abortion, is entirely at odds with the scale of the victory in the parliamentary vote for the anti-life lobby, which dominates Labour and Libdems. As mentioned in that scourge of our unrepresentative elites, the Daily Mail, two out of three people and three out of four women believe the 24-limit must come down. Note that women are more likely to be against the current high limit than men. Unfortunately, progressives and feminists have a different role for women in mind; abortion is part of the battle for gender equality - so unsex women here and stop the milk of human kindness. To these MPs, women damaged by abortion - and their dead children - are cannon fodder for the revolution.
The cowardice, or more likely the ambivalence of the Conservative front-bench, suggesting only a reduction to 22 weeks, bodes ill for the chance of another parliamentray vote after the election. Many have said that Cameron will avoid the issue, should the tories win; but he must not be allowed to do so.
The discrepancy between the views of the British people on the prevalence of abortion, especially late abortion, is entirely at odds with the scale of the victory in the parliamentary vote for the anti-life lobby, which dominates Labour and Libdems. As mentioned in that scourge of our unrepresentative elites, the Daily Mail, two out of three people and three out of four women believe the 24-limit must come down. Note that women are more likely to be against the current high limit than men. Unfortunately, progressives and feminists have a different role for women in mind; abortion is part of the battle for gender equality - so unsex women here and stop the milk of human kindness. To these MPs, women damaged by abortion - and their dead children - are cannon fodder for the revolution.
The cowardice, or more likely the ambivalence of the Conservative front-bench, suggesting only a reduction to 22 weeks, bodes ill for the chance of another parliamentray vote after the election. Many have said that Cameron will avoid the issue, should the tories win; but he must not be allowed to do so.
Tuesday 3 March 2009
Though embryonic stem cell applications have been a failure ...
Another Telegraph article that fails to mention that not all stem cell research is embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has given us no successful medical applications - none whatsoever; it is also deeply unethical because it involves the destruction of human individuals at the embryonic stage.
Those successful treatments you have heard about all involve adult stem cells: for example, the Bristol University work on a bio-engineered trachea. Adult or own stem cell research is completely ethical, as it involves the use of stem cells found naturally in our bodies, the harvesting of which does no harm to the person from whom they are taken. As mentioned in a November posting, adult stem cells work because they are stable (being past the embryonic stage) and do not encounter immunity problems because they are taken from the patient receiving the therapy; embryonic stem cells are involved in the development of the embryo and are therefore unstable; they have a tendency to create tumours in the patient receiving the treatment.
Throughout November I blogged on this, noting firstly that the scientists involved in embryonic research were fishing for state funding because, apart from the occasional rich philanthropist, all the private investors were going into adult stem cell research; and second that there is a certain element of gesture politics here: people want to be seen as "on the side of science", to "be enlightened": for these people, it is probably enough that the Catholic Church opposes something for them to support it. Thirdly, the use of embryonic stem cells for medical purposes is a bulwark for the abortion culture, because destroying embryos can be portrayed as having good effects: this de-sensitises people to the rights of the unborn.
The irony of all this is that the claims for embryonic stem cell resarch are bad science: embryonic stem cells haven't led to any cures; liberal types support this immoral research for ideological reasons without basis in evidence. The money spent on this research is money not spent on a viable therapy.
The use of embryo-like stem cells, which do not involve the embryo, seems to be a postive development however; so all to the good if scientists avoid destroying life for supposedly medical reasons. Note that that word, "potential" crops up again in the Telegraph article: people invest a lot of hope in this treatment for some reason without evidence. Even if this unstable type of stem cell can be harvested ethically, the barriers to therapeutic applications will be the same as for embryonic stem cells; though the immunity problem presumably will be solved, the instability problem will not.
Those successful treatments you have heard about all involve adult stem cells: for example, the Bristol University work on a bio-engineered trachea. Adult or own stem cell research is completely ethical, as it involves the use of stem cells found naturally in our bodies, the harvesting of which does no harm to the person from whom they are taken. As mentioned in a November posting, adult stem cells work because they are stable (being past the embryonic stage) and do not encounter immunity problems because they are taken from the patient receiving the therapy; embryonic stem cells are involved in the development of the embryo and are therefore unstable; they have a tendency to create tumours in the patient receiving the treatment.
Throughout November I blogged on this, noting firstly that the scientists involved in embryonic research were fishing for state funding because, apart from the occasional rich philanthropist, all the private investors were going into adult stem cell research; and second that there is a certain element of gesture politics here: people want to be seen as "on the side of science", to "be enlightened": for these people, it is probably enough that the Catholic Church opposes something for them to support it. Thirdly, the use of embryonic stem cells for medical purposes is a bulwark for the abortion culture, because destroying embryos can be portrayed as having good effects: this de-sensitises people to the rights of the unborn.
The irony of all this is that the claims for embryonic stem cell resarch are bad science: embryonic stem cells haven't led to any cures; liberal types support this immoral research for ideological reasons without basis in evidence. The money spent on this research is money not spent on a viable therapy.
The use of embryo-like stem cells, which do not involve the embryo, seems to be a postive development however; so all to the good if scientists avoid destroying life for supposedly medical reasons. Note that that word, "potential" crops up again in the Telegraph article: people invest a lot of hope in this treatment for some reason without evidence. Even if this unstable type of stem cell can be harvested ethically, the barriers to therapeutic applications will be the same as for embryonic stem cells; though the immunity problem presumably will be solved, the instability problem will not.
Monday 2 March 2009
Abortion wasteland helps keep down teenage mother statistics
The willingness of the progressives to accept a rise in abortion statistics among teenagers as a positive measure against under-age pregnancy shows how warped their morality is. See Madeleine Bunting's defence of current sex education policy as a way of stopping teenage pregnancy. Bunting says "the proportion of teenage girls choosing to abort rather than take the pregnancy to term has risen significantly. The fall of just over 24% in teen mothers is dramatic. In other words, teenage girls increasingly understand the enormous responsibility of motherhood and know they are not ready. "
References to such teenagers taking "responsibility" seems to have replaced "autonomy" in the feminist schoolbook; the right to abortion becomes a duty to abortion for those teenagers who have been "educated" to have safe sex at a young age, but then fail the condom exam in the heat of the moment.
References to such teenagers taking "responsibility" seems to have replaced "autonomy" in the feminist schoolbook; the right to abortion becomes a duty to abortion for those teenagers who have been "educated" to have safe sex at a young age, but then fail the condom exam in the heat of the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
