Greek leftism becoming a global parasite
Imagine, if you will, a close cousin or younger brother who just can't seem to live within his means.
Once a year, every year, he comes with his hand out, begging for a not-insubstantial amount of money to sustain his grandiose lifestyle.
After several years of indulging them, hoping they'll get their shit together, you finally decide enough is enough. You tell him that you'll only help him if he stops going to the pub every night, and drinking himself into a stupor while his bills go unpaid.
Stunned by the ultimatum, he instead tells you that he'll have to take a referendum of his barfly buddies before he's willing to make that kind of a commitment. Bankrolled by your generosity, he frequently buys rounds for the bar. They like that. One thing firmly in his favour is that he has a guarantor for all his bills, and that someone else will ultimately be on the hook if they go unpaid. From his point of view, his worst case scenario is that you and his other creditors go unpaid.
Substitute Greece for the bum in question and you have precisely what happened in Greece today. After the European Union worked tirelessly to come up with a bail out package and a stabilization plan for the Greek economy, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou told the EU that he and the people of Greece will have to think about it.
The Socialist Party has already declared the deal "dead".
So it's time for the EU to take a different approach: kick Greece out of the Eurozone and the European Union, direct their bailout package toward cutting the losses of Greece's creditors while they foreclose on every debt-backed piece of property or capital in Greece.
Enough is enough. It's time to let the far-left parasites in Greece burn in the economic fire they started. Far-left socialism, as it's manifested itself in Greek politics, has become a cancer on the global economy. It's time to excise the tumour.
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Desperation is Not the Answer
NDP running on rent control in Saskatchewan
With his leadership already a disaster and an election already in progress, there's nothing Saskatchewan NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter can do but try to put an optimistic face on it.
Although he tried to fire his supporters up by forecasting an NDP victory in the 2011 election, Lingenfelter and the NDP are simply desperate.
They were desperate when they produced a campaign advertisement that fabricated an anti-labour quote by Premier Brad Wall. And they're desperate when they turn to rent control as a key campaign plank.
The party has pledged to throw $320 million at a housing strategy in Saskatchewan which will basically combine government-funded housing developments with rent control.
This is remarkable, when all they really have to do is leave the market alone to work; which is something that, for all its occasional frustration, is something that has always worked far better than government intervention.
As a policy, rent control has been destructive everywhere it's been implemented. It discourages property owners from offering housing units for rent, and discourages the construction of additional units. It produces a social loss.
Of course, with the levels of support in Saskatchewan being what they are, this isn't a policy the NDP has a prayer of ever being able to implement. It's simply desperate pandering to its own base, to the crowd who turned out for events such as Occupy Saskatoon.
By offering up a policy such as rent control, Lingenfelter has certainly boosted his chances of getting those people out to vote. But the average citizen of Saskatchewan, who are quite pleased with the job Wall has done as Premier, is the vote that Lingenfelter needs. He's just guaranteed he won't be able to get that vote.
If Dwain Lingenfelter really wanted to lead the NDP to victory in Saskatchewan, he would have dispensed with this policy as quickly as it was dreamed up. But Lingenfelter must, by now, know that he can't win this election.
He's simply embraced the politics of desperation, clearly did so long before this election, and should have resigned as NDP leader the second he did.
With his leadership already a disaster and an election already in progress, there's nothing Saskatchewan NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter can do but try to put an optimistic face on it.
They were desperate when they produced a campaign advertisement that fabricated an anti-labour quote by Premier Brad Wall. And they're desperate when they turn to rent control as a key campaign plank.
The party has pledged to throw $320 million at a housing strategy in Saskatchewan which will basically combine government-funded housing developments with rent control.
This is remarkable, when all they really have to do is leave the market alone to work; which is something that, for all its occasional frustration, is something that has always worked far better than government intervention.
As a policy, rent control has been destructive everywhere it's been implemented. It discourages property owners from offering housing units for rent, and discourages the construction of additional units. It produces a social loss.
Of course, with the levels of support in Saskatchewan being what they are, this isn't a policy the NDP has a prayer of ever being able to implement. It's simply desperate pandering to its own base, to the crowd who turned out for events such as Occupy Saskatoon.
By offering up a policy such as rent control, Lingenfelter has certainly boosted his chances of getting those people out to vote. But the average citizen of Saskatchewan, who are quite pleased with the job Wall has done as Premier, is the vote that Lingenfelter needs. He's just guaranteed he won't be able to get that vote.
If Dwain Lingenfelter really wanted to lead the NDP to victory in Saskatchewan, he would have dispensed with this policy as quickly as it was dreamed up. But Lingenfelter must, by now, know that he can't win this election.
He's simply embraced the politics of desperation, clearly did so long before this election, and should have resigned as NDP leader the second he did.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sack Balls, Screw the Unions
Ed Balls helped create British fiscal mess, cannot remain Shadow Chancellor
If Labour leader Ed Miliband has a single, overriding problem, it comes in the embodiment of his Shadow Chancellor of the Excchequer, Ed Balls.
As a former Secretary to the Treasury -- charged with heloing manage Britain's public finances -- Balls had a direct hand in the profligacy that has led to the current state of the UK's finances.
Yet he has the temerity to stand as Shadow Chancellor, even as he continues to avoid admitting his part in the ballooning of Britain's public debt.
Terry Smith, the President of Tullet Prebon, has had enough. He says it's time for Balls to depart from Ed Miliband's shadow caucus.
“He is in total denial about the fact that Labour was running a deficit years before the financial crisis struck and seems to think that we can borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by excessive debt,” Smith declared. "There is no avoiding the fact that Labour ran a growing deficit from 2002 as the economic boom was heading towards its peak”.
Smith charges that Balls, as well as Gordon Brown and those others tasked with keeping Britain's finances on the rails, put political expediency far ahead of responsible fiscal management.
“Moreover, the government spending which led to this deficit before the banking crisis struck was wasteful, unproductive and cynically aimed at buying the loyalty of a growing dependent section of the population to the Labour Party,” Smith continued.
Ed Balls wasn't the only thing on Smith's mind. He also declared the pensions owed to public service employees to be unviable, and suggested they should be cut back.
"Unviable because we cannot sustain a system in which people can retire and live for another 20 years at the expense of the state,” he explained. “This was never the intention of the original social security systems and it has been made unviable by improvements in health care and life expectancy.”
Smith has presented Ed Miliband with some difficult choices. Certainly, labour unions will never tolderate a Labour leader who pushes back against their unsustainable pensions. Certainly, the left wing of the Labour Party will bristle at Ed Balls being relieved of his duties.
Smith suggests that Balls should be shuffled to the most junior shadow cabinet post in existence. Ed Miliband would be better off shuffling Ed Balls out of politics altogether.
Balls, and his allegiance to the unions, are relics of an old left-wing politics that has catastrophically failed in Britain. If the Labour Party is to survive -- and its survival is far from guaranteed -- they will need to find a new brand of left-wing politics that can account for and repair the damage done by Ed Balls and his associates.
If Labour leader Ed Miliband has a single, overriding problem, it comes in the embodiment of his Shadow Chancellor of the Excchequer, Ed Balls.
As a former Secretary to the Treasury -- charged with heloing manage Britain's public finances -- Balls had a direct hand in the profligacy that has led to the current state of the UK's finances.
Yet he has the temerity to stand as Shadow Chancellor, even as he continues to avoid admitting his part in the ballooning of Britain's public debt.
Terry Smith, the President of Tullet Prebon, has had enough. He says it's time for Balls to depart from Ed Miliband's shadow caucus.
“He is in total denial about the fact that Labour was running a deficit years before the financial crisis struck and seems to think that we can borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by excessive debt,” Smith declared. "There is no avoiding the fact that Labour ran a growing deficit from 2002 as the economic boom was heading towards its peak”.
Smith charges that Balls, as well as Gordon Brown and those others tasked with keeping Britain's finances on the rails, put political expediency far ahead of responsible fiscal management.
“Moreover, the government spending which led to this deficit before the banking crisis struck was wasteful, unproductive and cynically aimed at buying the loyalty of a growing dependent section of the population to the Labour Party,” Smith continued.
Ed Balls wasn't the only thing on Smith's mind. He also declared the pensions owed to public service employees to be unviable, and suggested they should be cut back.
"Unviable because we cannot sustain a system in which people can retire and live for another 20 years at the expense of the state,” he explained. “This was never the intention of the original social security systems and it has been made unviable by improvements in health care and life expectancy.”
Smith has presented Ed Miliband with some difficult choices. Certainly, labour unions will never tolderate a Labour leader who pushes back against their unsustainable pensions. Certainly, the left wing of the Labour Party will bristle at Ed Balls being relieved of his duties.
Smith suggests that Balls should be shuffled to the most junior shadow cabinet post in existence. Ed Miliband would be better off shuffling Ed Balls out of politics altogether.
Balls, and his allegiance to the unions, are relics of an old left-wing politics that has catastrophically failed in Britain. If the Labour Party is to survive -- and its survival is far from guaranteed -- they will need to find a new brand of left-wing politics that can account for and repair the damage done by Ed Balls and his associates.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Britain Can't Afford Any More PFIs
Britain can't afford any more debt
Writing in an op/ed in The Guardian, Colin Cram demonstrates a very real gift for missing the point.
Writing on the topic of Private Finance Initiatives, Cram questions the critical attitude of the current Conservative Party government toward PFIs.
For the uninitiated, Private Finance Initiatives were largely used by Labour Party governments to hide billions of pounds in public spending effectively off the national books.
Cram writes:
And there's a very good reason for them to reject PFIs:
Britain simply can't afford any more debt. As of July 2011 the UK's public debt was 61.4% of its GDP. If the government were to expropriate everything produced on the Isles this year to pay down the public debt Britain would not be able to feed its population.
Cram goes on to suggest that PFIs had given Britain more up-to-date hospitals, schools, and other public assets than otherwise would have been possible. But this is actually flagrantly untrue. If anything, PFIs simply gave the British government a means to escape accountability for running up the public debt.
Any of the goals accomplished by PFIs -- such as attracting private investment in public assets -- can be done better under a system that doesn't serve to evade public accountability.
Colin Cram shouldn't be criticizing the David Cameron government for discarding PFIs as a means of funding public projects. They should be commended for it, and any philosophical contradictions are purely of Cram's own imagination.
Writing in an op/ed in The Guardian, Colin Cram demonstrates a very real gift for missing the point.
Writing on the topic of Private Finance Initiatives, Cram questions the critical attitude of the current Conservative Party government toward PFIs.
For the uninitiated, Private Finance Initiatives were largely used by Labour Party governments to hide billions of pounds in public spending effectively off the national books.
Cram writes:
"The criticism of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) being levelled by some government ministers is ironic in that it was introduced by the previous Conservative government.Apparently Cram has failed to discern even the most basic distinction: the Labour Party opposed the use of PFIs while they were in opposition, then promptly set to using them while in government. The Tories opposed PFIs while in opposition, and maintained that opposition while in government.
Norman Lamont was chancellor of the exchequer at the time, closely followed by Ken Clarke, under whom the initiative prospered. As Professor Colin Talbot points out, PFIs were created to address a very big and real problem.
When in opposition in the 1990s, the Labour party was critical of the initiative, expressing some similar concerns to those of some of today's government ministers. However, when Labour came to power, it realised that if it wished for infrastructure improvements to schools, roads, prisons and hospitals, for example, it had little option but to adopt it. It therefore re-badged the scheme the Private Public Parternship (PPP) and accelerated its use."
And there's a very good reason for them to reject PFIs:
Britain simply can't afford any more debt. As of July 2011 the UK's public debt was 61.4% of its GDP. If the government were to expropriate everything produced on the Isles this year to pay down the public debt Britain would not be able to feed its population.
Cram goes on to suggest that PFIs had given Britain more up-to-date hospitals, schools, and other public assets than otherwise would have been possible. But this is actually flagrantly untrue. If anything, PFIs simply gave the British government a means to escape accountability for running up the public debt.
Any of the goals accomplished by PFIs -- such as attracting private investment in public assets -- can be done better under a system that doesn't serve to evade public accountability.
Colin Cram shouldn't be criticizing the David Cameron government for discarding PFIs as a means of funding public projects. They should be commended for it, and any philosophical contradictions are purely of Cram's own imagination.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Folly of Michele Bachmann's Minimum Wage Campaign Bomb
Bachmann stands by abolishing minimum wage
In 2005, Republican Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann made a bold declaration. She suggsted that the United States should abolish the minimum wage.
In 2005, Bachmann declared that abolishing the minimum wage “could potentially wipe out unemployment because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.”
There was plenty to object to in this statement in 2005, and there remains plenty to object to now. For Bachmann's taste for free-market economics to crowd out any role for anything as basely protective as a minimum wage signals a lack of serious consideration of the issue.
In many regards, the United States has already effectively abolished the minimum wage. In failing to properly address the issue of illegal immigration and the undocumented labour they provide, the US has opened a de facto loophole through which anyone who doesn't wish to pay a worker minimum wage actually doesn't have to.
When asked about the minimum wage, Bachmann responded by explaining her position on job-killing regulations. It doesn't seem unfair to conclude that Bachmann thinks of the minimum wage as just such a regulation.
But it isn't merely in this regard that Bachmann has mis-interpreted the minimum wage issue -- if there in fact is such an issue. But it isn't merely Bachmann who is misreading this issue.
Consider a candidate like Herman Cain, who is campaigning on an economic program that includes steep corporate tax cuts. These cuts would certainly benefit the US economy, making it more competitive with other countries for investment. The job creation benefits are clear.
But there is one criticism of corporate tax cuts that cannot be overlooked: it does absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earner.
Left-wing Democrats can be counted on to oppose corporate tax cuts and support raising the minimum wage. On each count they are miscalculating.
For one thing, a minimum rage hike actually does very little -- almost nothing -- to help minimum wage earners. Nor do higher corporate taxes do much to help the average American.
The reasoning is simple: corporations are not, by any stretch of the imagination, nice guys. They are businesses. Large, monolithic industries with an ownership structure that diffuses responsibility across various individuals and groups. Their goal is to earn profit, so they ensure they can do this by passing their costs along to the consumer.
The costs associated with a higher minimum wage are passed along to the consumer. Costs associated with higher taxes are passed along to the consumer. In each case, everyone pays. But some will pay more than others.
Minimum wage workers will see their additional costs offset by their wage increases. Those not earning minimum wage do not. Because a minimum wage increase is infationary, everyone loses. It's a social loss.
But imagine if the Republicans were to counter the Democrats offer to raise the minimum wage and maintain high rates of corporate taxation with a plan to actually increase the minimum wage, and do it in real terms by offsetting it with accompanying cuts to taxes on businesses, across the board, and to pass these changes with legislative provisions that would allow government to punish any businesses that raise prices to recoup their minimum wage "losses" with a fine or a tax increase.
There is clear peril in this. If not properly constructed, such a law could become a means by which "progressive" political forces within congress or the judiciary could increase taxes at the first sign of price increases. The idea is not to fix the price level, but to ensure that price increases are linked to actual inflation or to actual unoffset cost increases.
That would be an approach to minimum wage that is vastly superior to Michele Bachmann's reckless approach to the issue. It would be an eminently resposnible approach that nearly any Republican -- including Herman Cain, excluding Donald Trump -- could win with.
In 2005, Republican Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann made a bold declaration. She suggsted that the United States should abolish the minimum wage.
In 2005, Bachmann declared that abolishing the minimum wage “could potentially wipe out unemployment because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.”
There was plenty to object to in this statement in 2005, and there remains plenty to object to now. For Bachmann's taste for free-market economics to crowd out any role for anything as basely protective as a minimum wage signals a lack of serious consideration of the issue.
In many regards, the United States has already effectively abolished the minimum wage. In failing to properly address the issue of illegal immigration and the undocumented labour they provide, the US has opened a de facto loophole through which anyone who doesn't wish to pay a worker minimum wage actually doesn't have to.
When asked about the minimum wage, Bachmann responded by explaining her position on job-killing regulations. It doesn't seem unfair to conclude that Bachmann thinks of the minimum wage as just such a regulation.
But it isn't merely in this regard that Bachmann has mis-interpreted the minimum wage issue -- if there in fact is such an issue. But it isn't merely Bachmann who is misreading this issue.
Consider a candidate like Herman Cain, who is campaigning on an economic program that includes steep corporate tax cuts. These cuts would certainly benefit the US economy, making it more competitive with other countries for investment. The job creation benefits are clear.
But there is one criticism of corporate tax cuts that cannot be overlooked: it does absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earner.
Left-wing Democrats can be counted on to oppose corporate tax cuts and support raising the minimum wage. On each count they are miscalculating.
For one thing, a minimum rage hike actually does very little -- almost nothing -- to help minimum wage earners. Nor do higher corporate taxes do much to help the average American.
The reasoning is simple: corporations are not, by any stretch of the imagination, nice guys. They are businesses. Large, monolithic industries with an ownership structure that diffuses responsibility across various individuals and groups. Their goal is to earn profit, so they ensure they can do this by passing their costs along to the consumer.
The costs associated with a higher minimum wage are passed along to the consumer. Costs associated with higher taxes are passed along to the consumer. In each case, everyone pays. But some will pay more than others.
Minimum wage workers will see their additional costs offset by their wage increases. Those not earning minimum wage do not. Because a minimum wage increase is infationary, everyone loses. It's a social loss.
But imagine if the Republicans were to counter the Democrats offer to raise the minimum wage and maintain high rates of corporate taxation with a plan to actually increase the minimum wage, and do it in real terms by offsetting it with accompanying cuts to taxes on businesses, across the board, and to pass these changes with legislative provisions that would allow government to punish any businesses that raise prices to recoup their minimum wage "losses" with a fine or a tax increase.
There is clear peril in this. If not properly constructed, such a law could become a means by which "progressive" political forces within congress or the judiciary could increase taxes at the first sign of price increases. The idea is not to fix the price level, but to ensure that price increases are linked to actual inflation or to actual unoffset cost increases.
That would be an approach to minimum wage that is vastly superior to Michele Bachmann's reckless approach to the issue. It would be an eminently resposnible approach that nearly any Republican -- including Herman Cain, excluding Donald Trump -- could win with.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Capitalism Has No Soul
Paul B Farrell questions mix of Christian morality with economics
Writing on Marketwatch.com, Paul B Farrell takes a comparative look at the beliefs of Ayn Rand and increasingly-influential Republican Senator Rand Paul.
Drawing heavily from the works of Rand herself, Farrell draws a stark conclusion: that Christian morality and Rand-ian self-interest are incompatible with one another.
But Farrell overlooks an important question: that of whether or not Rand's take on capitalism is morally or ethically permissable to someone who holds conservative beliefs, even if they favour individualism and self-reliance.
“When I say ‘capitalism,’ I mean a pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, with a separation of economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as a separation of state and church,” Rand once remarked. “Capitalism is the only system that can make freedom, individuality and the pursuit of values possible in practice because capitalism demands the best of every man, his rationality, and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him.”
In other words, capitalism is the only economic system that can be truly democratic. It allows -- nyet, demands -- individual choice and individual responsibility.
That isn't to say that capitalism is inherently democratic. Democracy is more about individual choice, voting and majority rule. Democracy demands the existence of a system of rules, within which negotiated agreements can be reached. Democracy requires laws and institutions in order to function. In other words, democracy requires some sense of regulation.
The perils of allowing capitalism to roam without some sense of regulation has been well-established. As Farrell notes, this can be seen in The Fountainhead in which a frustrated real estate magnate destroys property being constructed by a competitor who profits by undercutting quality to the degree of sacrificing safety. (Right now, this breed of capitalism runs rampant in China.)
At the other extreme, portrayed in Atlas Shrugged, is that of over-production; one wherein ideolically-vain leftists seek to derail the wealth-producing classes by relentlessly imposing production quotas on virtually everything. When frustrated capitalists decide to stop producing, society incurs massive social losses (the term used in economics when government policy supplants market forces and increases the opportunity cost of producing or consuming particular products, leading to lags in the use of productive resources).
Farrell also invokes the comments of Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero, who in USA Today declared that Rand -- although tremendously influential with the modern crop of GOPers -- is increasingly at odds with some of the moral concerns of conservatism.
"I am somewhat surprised at how few GOP thinkers seem to see how hostile her philosophy is to conservatism itself," Prothero wrote. "Real conservatism is first and foremost about conserving a society's traditions, including its religious and political traditions. But Rand's Objectivism rejects in the name of reason appeals to either revelation or tradition. The individual is her hero, and God and the dead be damned."
“Idolatry of the conservative icon should lead to some soul-searching within the GOP," he continued. "After all, Christian morality has no place in an ‘Atlas Shrugged’ world.”
Arguably, Farrell and Prothero miss one extremely salient detail: respect for the ideas of Rand doesn't necessitate exclusion of all others, including or excluding religion.
It's entirely possible to separate Rand's belief in self-reliance from Christian concerns of morality; this is particularly the case when moral issues, such as abortion, have little bearing on matters of economics. (Stephen Levitt and Stephen Dubner disagree on this matter, but set that aside momentarily.)
It's a very simple idea: capitalism doesn't have a soul. Humans do.
Ayn Rand may have underestimated the importance of this detail, but there's no reason for the Rand Pauls or Paul Ryans of today to do the same thing.
That they don't even grant the conflict between Rand's ideology and Christianity is a clear indication that they won't take Stephen Prothero's bait. The important question they must answer is where the free market ends and an appropriate level of democratic regulation begins.
Where does capitalism end and democracy begin? That must be a defining characteristic of the economic debate moving forward. Paul Farrell would be wiser to advance this debate, rather than deny it.
Writing on Marketwatch.com, Paul B Farrell takes a comparative look at the beliefs of Ayn Rand and increasingly-influential Republican Senator Rand Paul.
Drawing heavily from the works of Rand herself, Farrell draws a stark conclusion: that Christian morality and Rand-ian self-interest are incompatible with one another.
But Farrell overlooks an important question: that of whether or not Rand's take on capitalism is morally or ethically permissable to someone who holds conservative beliefs, even if they favour individualism and self-reliance.
“When I say ‘capitalism,’ I mean a pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, with a separation of economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as a separation of state and church,” Rand once remarked. “Capitalism is the only system that can make freedom, individuality and the pursuit of values possible in practice because capitalism demands the best of every man, his rationality, and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him.”
In other words, capitalism is the only economic system that can be truly democratic. It allows -- nyet, demands -- individual choice and individual responsibility.
That isn't to say that capitalism is inherently democratic. Democracy is more about individual choice, voting and majority rule. Democracy demands the existence of a system of rules, within which negotiated agreements can be reached. Democracy requires laws and institutions in order to function. In other words, democracy requires some sense of regulation.
The perils of allowing capitalism to roam without some sense of regulation has been well-established. As Farrell notes, this can be seen in The Fountainhead in which a frustrated real estate magnate destroys property being constructed by a competitor who profits by undercutting quality to the degree of sacrificing safety. (Right now, this breed of capitalism runs rampant in China.)
At the other extreme, portrayed in Atlas Shrugged, is that of over-production; one wherein ideolically-vain leftists seek to derail the wealth-producing classes by relentlessly imposing production quotas on virtually everything. When frustrated capitalists decide to stop producing, society incurs massive social losses (the term used in economics when government policy supplants market forces and increases the opportunity cost of producing or consuming particular products, leading to lags in the use of productive resources).
Farrell also invokes the comments of Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero, who in USA Today declared that Rand -- although tremendously influential with the modern crop of GOPers -- is increasingly at odds with some of the moral concerns of conservatism.
"I am somewhat surprised at how few GOP thinkers seem to see how hostile her philosophy is to conservatism itself," Prothero wrote. "Real conservatism is first and foremost about conserving a society's traditions, including its religious and political traditions. But Rand's Objectivism rejects in the name of reason appeals to either revelation or tradition. The individual is her hero, and God and the dead be damned."
“Idolatry of the conservative icon should lead to some soul-searching within the GOP," he continued. "After all, Christian morality has no place in an ‘Atlas Shrugged’ world.”
Arguably, Farrell and Prothero miss one extremely salient detail: respect for the ideas of Rand doesn't necessitate exclusion of all others, including or excluding religion.
It's entirely possible to separate Rand's belief in self-reliance from Christian concerns of morality; this is particularly the case when moral issues, such as abortion, have little bearing on matters of economics. (Stephen Levitt and Stephen Dubner disagree on this matter, but set that aside momentarily.)
It's a very simple idea: capitalism doesn't have a soul. Humans do.
Ayn Rand may have underestimated the importance of this detail, but there's no reason for the Rand Pauls or Paul Ryans of today to do the same thing.
That they don't even grant the conflict between Rand's ideology and Christianity is a clear indication that they won't take Stephen Prothero's bait. The important question they must answer is where the free market ends and an appropriate level of democratic regulation begins.
Where does capitalism end and democracy begin? That must be a defining characteristic of the economic debate moving forward. Paul Farrell would be wiser to advance this debate, rather than deny it.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Bachmann-Pawlenty Showdown Could Define Economic Policy
Michelle Bachmann declares candidacy for President
As the GOP Presidential field met in New Hampshire to compete for the hearts and minds of conservative Americans, Michelle Bachmann had a blockbuster announcement:
She's widening the field. The previously-six man field -- Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty -- now has a seventh member.
“This is the first day of taking our country back,” Bachmann announced. “I’ve worked very hard to bring your voice to the halls of Congress. Now, I want to take your voice into the White House, where it hasn’t been heard for a very long time.”
As it pertains to economic policy -- which will be the defining issue of the Republican primary -- Bachmann is every bit as qualified to carry the standard for the Austrian school of economics as any other candidate. This would only serve to facilitate the speculation-promised showdown with Tim Pawlenty, who favours the similar-yet-genuinely-distinct Chicago school of economics.
Austrian school economics focuses on the price mechanism. The Chicago school directs its attention toward the principles of monetarism.
The traditional battle of economists has, of course been between the adherents of Friedrich Hayek and those of John Maynard Keynes. Now, the GOP may be set to settle in for a year-long debate on who correctly interprets the theories of Hayek; a year-long debate pitting Ludwig von Mises against Milton Friedman.
Some will criticize this as distracting from what they regard as the more important Keynes-Hayek debate. But this should be considered an extremely welcome debate.
One thing that Bachmann cannot afford to do is take the Sarah Palin route. She can't fall back on intellectually-lazy "common sense" pronouncements. She needs to keep the ideas flowing. While her critics desperately try to turn the conversation toward whether or not she's stupid, Bachmann should continue to focus on something her critics don't have: ideas.
Naturally, they won't like it. People who have no ideas generally avoid -- to the point of outright refusal -- to talk about ideas.
If she takes full advantage of the advantages a Presidential run will present her with, Bachmann has the opportunity to mold the economic debate in ways that will confound these same critics. They'll rely almost exclusively on lazy ad hominem attacks. If Bachmann can stay above them, she could be the definitive candidate in the 2012 Republican primary.
But that's only if Pawlenty opts to engage on behalf of his Chicago school contemporaries. Bachmann only has the opportunity to mold the debate if Pawlenty takes her on.
This will force the other Republican candidates to sharpen their policies. Which makes the Tim Pawlenty-Michelle Bachmann showdown so pivotally important for the Republican Party.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
"The Best Person For the Job", Redux
Is Lagarde, not Brown: Cameron, Osborne
With campaigning to replace the outgoing Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund mounting, many Britons are expecting their government to back a fellow Briton to fill that job.
For now, they will be disappointed.
Speculation has held that former Prime Minister and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown has been quietly campaigning for his shot at the job. Yet current Prime Minister David Cameron and current Chancellor George Osborne seem to have made themselves fairly clear: Brown is not "the best person for the job".
Apparently, according to Cameron and Osborne, the best person for the job may be French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde.
"I believe Christine is the outstanding candidate for the IMF – and that's why Britain will back her," Osborne declared. "I also personally think it would be a very good thing to see the first female managing director of the IMF in its 60-year history."
Lagarde's greatest strength, in Osborne's mind, is that she's in favour of developing countries bringing their budgets under control.
"She has been a strong advocate for countries tackling high budget deficits and living within their means," Osborne noted.
That applies to financial institutions just as much as it does to entire countries. While many western countries were rolling out fat bailout packages for banks, Lagarde was publicly taking them to task, particularly at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
"The best way for the banking sector to say thank you would be to actually have good financing of the economy, sensible compensation systems in place and reinforcement of their capital," Lagarde told Barclay's Bank chief executive Bob Diamond.
As if to offer some substance to Osborne's remarks about a having a woman in charge of the IMF, Lagarde has suggested that the global economy could use a woman's touch, particularly in terms of stock trading.
"In gender-dominated environments, men have a tendency to show how hairy chested they are, compared with the man who's sitting next to them. I honestly think that there should never be too much testosterone in one room."
Brown himself has also taken a sticter stance toward banks. He, like Lagarde, backed an international bank tax.
Unlike Brown, however, Lagarde seems to understand that the best fix for the global economy is for sensible reform and regulation to begin within the board rooms of the institutions themselves. It's time for banks to cut back on their unsecured loans, cut back on the unjustifiably-lavish and self-serving compensation for their execs, and put sustainable profit at the forefront of their agendas.
As the mortgage crisis in the United States clearly demonstrates -- as banks took advantage of lax regulatory schemes put in place by George W Bush as a means to manage the impact of toxic loans mandated by the Bill Clinton administration -- no government can force financial institutions to regulate themselves, nor can they really do so in their place; those set on abusing the system for short-term and unsustainable profit will find a way.
It's hard to say whether David Cameron and George Osborne are correct and Christine Lagarde really is the best person for the job. But one thing remains abundantly clear: she's much better for it than Gordon Brown.
With campaigning to replace the outgoing Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund mounting, many Britons are expecting their government to back a fellow Briton to fill that job.
For now, they will be disappointed.
Speculation has held that former Prime Minister and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown has been quietly campaigning for his shot at the job. Yet current Prime Minister David Cameron and current Chancellor George Osborne seem to have made themselves fairly clear: Brown is not "the best person for the job".
Apparently, according to Cameron and Osborne, the best person for the job may be French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde.
"I believe Christine is the outstanding candidate for the IMF – and that's why Britain will back her," Osborne declared. "I also personally think it would be a very good thing to see the first female managing director of the IMF in its 60-year history."
Lagarde's greatest strength, in Osborne's mind, is that she's in favour of developing countries bringing their budgets under control.
"She has been a strong advocate for countries tackling high budget deficits and living within their means," Osborne noted.
That applies to financial institutions just as much as it does to entire countries. While many western countries were rolling out fat bailout packages for banks, Lagarde was publicly taking them to task, particularly at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
"The best way for the banking sector to say thank you would be to actually have good financing of the economy, sensible compensation systems in place and reinforcement of their capital," Lagarde told Barclay's Bank chief executive Bob Diamond.
As if to offer some substance to Osborne's remarks about a having a woman in charge of the IMF, Lagarde has suggested that the global economy could use a woman's touch, particularly in terms of stock trading.
"In gender-dominated environments, men have a tendency to show how hairy chested they are, compared with the man who's sitting next to them. I honestly think that there should never be too much testosterone in one room."
Brown himself has also taken a sticter stance toward banks. He, like Lagarde, backed an international bank tax.
Unlike Brown, however, Lagarde seems to understand that the best fix for the global economy is for sensible reform and regulation to begin within the board rooms of the institutions themselves. It's time for banks to cut back on their unsecured loans, cut back on the unjustifiably-lavish and self-serving compensation for their execs, and put sustainable profit at the forefront of their agendas.
As the mortgage crisis in the United States clearly demonstrates -- as banks took advantage of lax regulatory schemes put in place by George W Bush as a means to manage the impact of toxic loans mandated by the Bill Clinton administration -- no government can force financial institutions to regulate themselves, nor can they really do so in their place; those set on abusing the system for short-term and unsustainable profit will find a way.
It's hard to say whether David Cameron and George Osborne are correct and Christine Lagarde really is the best person for the job. But one thing remains abundantly clear: she's much better for it than Gordon Brown.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
"The Best Person For the Job"
Chancellor not a booster for Gordon Brown's IMF bid
With former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown seeking to assume the role of Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, there may be one key obstacle in his path:
The British government.
In April, Prime Minister David Cameron questioned Brown's suitability for the job.
“If you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem [running the IMF] they may not be the best person to decide whether other countries have that problem," Cameron declared.
The decision over whether or not the British government will attempt to block Brown from becoming IMF Managing Director has not been made. For his own part, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne hasn't expressed any great preference regarding Brown and the IMF.
He's calling for the "best person for the job".
"If it comes to a decision about a replacement for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, what I will be motivated by and what the British Government will be motivated by is who is the best person for the job," Osborne declared. "Instead of 'Is it Buggins's turn?' or 'Should it be someone from a particular country or not', let's focus on getting the right person for the right job."
Brown hasn't yet asked Osborne for any kind of endorsement for assuming the role.
"As it happens, Gordon Brown has not asked me directly or indirectly to be considered for the job," Osborne said. "I'm at the moment focused on making sure we get the best person for the job."
So is Gordon Brown the best person for the job?
The Brown government's use of Private Finance Initiatives to conceal billions of Pounds Sterling in public debt has previously been explored here.
What has not been is Brown's "tripartite" system of Financial regulation.
When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Brown split regulatory powers between the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority, and the Treasury. This led to a breakdown of surveillance powers, leading to a state of affairs where two-thirds of bank lending in Britain was to other financial institutions.
In the opinion of Dr Sushil Wadhwani, a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, this led to a situation in which interest rates lagged far behind the rate required to return credit markets to equilibrium.
This led to British credit markets in which the incentives to borrow were overloaded. Eventually, Britain fell into the same credit collapse as the rest of the world.
Given the kind of havoc Gordon Brown wrought with Britain's finances and Britain's economy, the idea of giving him a surplus of power over the global economy should be a sobering thought indeed.
David Cameron is right. Gordon Brown is not the right person for the job.
With former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown seeking to assume the role of Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, there may be one key obstacle in his path:
The British government.
In April, Prime Minister David Cameron questioned Brown's suitability for the job.
“If you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem [running the IMF] they may not be the best person to decide whether other countries have that problem," Cameron declared.
The decision over whether or not the British government will attempt to block Brown from becoming IMF Managing Director has not been made. For his own part, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne hasn't expressed any great preference regarding Brown and the IMF.
He's calling for the "best person for the job".
Brown hasn't yet asked Osborne for any kind of endorsement for assuming the role.
"As it happens, Gordon Brown has not asked me directly or indirectly to be considered for the job," Osborne said. "I'm at the moment focused on making sure we get the best person for the job."
So is Gordon Brown the best person for the job?
The Brown government's use of Private Finance Initiatives to conceal billions of Pounds Sterling in public debt has previously been explored here.
What has not been is Brown's "tripartite" system of Financial regulation.
When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Brown split regulatory powers between the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority, and the Treasury. This led to a breakdown of surveillance powers, leading to a state of affairs where two-thirds of bank lending in Britain was to other financial institutions.
In the opinion of Dr Sushil Wadhwani, a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, this led to a situation in which interest rates lagged far behind the rate required to return credit markets to equilibrium.
This led to British credit markets in which the incentives to borrow were overloaded. Eventually, Britain fell into the same credit collapse as the rest of the world.
Given the kind of havoc Gordon Brown wrought with Britain's finances and Britain's economy, the idea of giving him a surplus of power over the global economy should be a sobering thought indeed.
David Cameron is right. Gordon Brown is not the right person for the job.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Herman Cain: the Man With the (5 Point) Plan
Cain would create jobs with low-tax planning
As the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, few are pegging Herman Cain as a blue-chip contenter for President based on his past experience.
Based on his ideas? That might be a different story altogether.
Recently, Cain revealed s five-point plan to create more jobs in the United States. At the heart of the plan is a low-tax, small-state approach to economics.
As President, Cain would attempt to do the following: First, he would slash the US corporate tax rate by 29%, from the current rate of 35% to 25% (still nine points higher than the Canadian corporate inciome tax rate). Secondly, he would reduce the US capital gains tax rate to zero. He would also (thirdly) reduce the tax on the repatration of profits earned in foreign countries (something really not currently done at all) to zero.
Fourth, he would eliminate the 6.2% payroll tax for a period of one year. Fifth, he would attempt to render these tax rates permanent -- or at least indefinite.
Cain's goal is very simple: get US-based corporations investing their profits in the United States again. He would implement specific low-tax policy points in order to use a low-tax fiscal regime as a fiscal multiplier,
In order to accomplish all of this while keeping the US within its budget, he would target exogenous government spending (the spending not incurred through the operation of basic government), then reduce the level of autonomous spending by eliminating superfluous government departments.
Cato Institute Economist Daniel Mitchell has greeted Cain's proposals quite enthusiastically.
"The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, which is a very self-destructive policy in a globally competitive environment," Mitchell declared. "I think it should be lowered to 15 percent, but 25 percent is a good start."
But, according to Mitchell, the truly indispensible element of Cain's plan is the reduction in taxes on capital gains.
"The capital gains tax is a form of double taxation (businesses already get taxed on profits, so taxing the gains of investors would be doing it twice)," Mitchell explained. "Many of America’s trade partners have no capital gains tax, so it would be beneficial for the US to join them in that policy."
In fact, if Mitchell would counsel against any portion of Cain's plan, it's against the payroll tax holiday.
"Generally speaking, people only respond to permanent change in incentives," Mitchell explained. "If you permanently eliminate taxes on workers, you’ll increase their incentive to work and be more productive. A 1-year holiday doesn’t help that much, but it certainly doesn’t hurt, either."
Then again, the payroll tax holiday is the element that best applies to small business. There's no real reason why major corporations should reap all the benefits of Cain's plan. Small businesses create jobs and add economic value too.
Herman Cain's proposal likely won't go over well with the Krugman crowd, or with any of the other Keynsean disciples out there. But they've already had their chance, and they've already failed.
It's time for US economic policy to be led by someone with a real vision. Herman Cain may have just that vision.
As the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, few are pegging Herman Cain as a blue-chip contenter for President based on his past experience.
Based on his ideas? That might be a different story altogether.
Recently, Cain revealed s five-point plan to create more jobs in the United States. At the heart of the plan is a low-tax, small-state approach to economics.
As President, Cain would attempt to do the following: First, he would slash the US corporate tax rate by 29%, from the current rate of 35% to 25% (still nine points higher than the Canadian corporate inciome tax rate). Secondly, he would reduce the US capital gains tax rate to zero. He would also (thirdly) reduce the tax on the repatration of profits earned in foreign countries (something really not currently done at all) to zero.
Fourth, he would eliminate the 6.2% payroll tax for a period of one year. Fifth, he would attempt to render these tax rates permanent -- or at least indefinite.
Cain's goal is very simple: get US-based corporations investing their profits in the United States again. He would implement specific low-tax policy points in order to use a low-tax fiscal regime as a fiscal multiplier,
In order to accomplish all of this while keeping the US within its budget, he would target exogenous government spending (the spending not incurred through the operation of basic government), then reduce the level of autonomous spending by eliminating superfluous government departments.
Cato Institute Economist Daniel Mitchell has greeted Cain's proposals quite enthusiastically.
"The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, which is a very self-destructive policy in a globally competitive environment," Mitchell declared. "I think it should be lowered to 15 percent, but 25 percent is a good start."
But, according to Mitchell, the truly indispensible element of Cain's plan is the reduction in taxes on capital gains.
"The capital gains tax is a form of double taxation (businesses already get taxed on profits, so taxing the gains of investors would be doing it twice)," Mitchell explained. "Many of America’s trade partners have no capital gains tax, so it would be beneficial for the US to join them in that policy."
In fact, if Mitchell would counsel against any portion of Cain's plan, it's against the payroll tax holiday.
"Generally speaking, people only respond to permanent change in incentives," Mitchell explained. "If you permanently eliminate taxes on workers, you’ll increase their incentive to work and be more productive. A 1-year holiday doesn’t help that much, but it certainly doesn’t hurt, either."
Then again, the payroll tax holiday is the element that best applies to small business. There's no real reason why major corporations should reap all the benefits of Cain's plan. Small businesses create jobs and add economic value too.
Herman Cain's proposal likely won't go over well with the Krugman crowd, or with any of the other Keynsean disciples out there. But they've already had their chance, and they've already failed.
It's time for US economic policy to be led by someone with a real vision. Herman Cain may have just that vision.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
How Well Do Religion and Economics Mix?
Could faith-based economics be tolerated in a democratic society?
With economic policy once again at the heart of public debate, the dominant debate has been between economics' two heavyweight theories: those of John Maynard Keynes and those of Friedrich Hayek.
Yet with Keynes and Hayek occupying the dominant positions in this debate, it's easy for any alternatives to get squeezed out. Of course, this begs a key question: which of the alternative theories are worthy of consideration, and which should be rejected?
Rarely receiving careful consideration are the so-called faith-based economic theories. While Keynes and Hayek are hotly debated in the university classroom, so-called faith-based theories are relegated to the homeschool classroom.
Yet some theorize that these theories have garnered far more influence than it would seem.
One of these theories is that of Christian Reconstructionism, championed primarily by Gary North. North is something of a recluse. His reclusiveness may have something to do with the detail that his name is on a watchlist of "libertarian theocrats"
(This is an oxymoron if there ever was one, but it's likely entirely lost on the studious "scholars" of the far-left.)
North is a disciple of Rousas John Rushdoony (himself during his life a feirce advocate of home schooling, unsurprisingly). Rushdoony preached an approach to economic political policy that turned an eye to charity, but not with inexhaustible patience for those who would rely on it.
"In the New Testament, Consider what Paul was doing," Rushdoony told a sympathetic interviewer prior to his passing. "Offerings to alleviate the poverty of the saints during the famine in Palestine; counseling that the needy be cared for, but 'He who will not work, let him not eat.'"
"We do know that anyone who became unemployed was given three days income," Rushdooney continued. "After that they found work for him. Another Christian would hire him, but at lower than his normal pay so there would be no incentive to stay under that diaconal care."
That would certainly be an unwelcome shock to those demanding 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.
Rushdooney also invoked the Roman experience with courts to justify the establishment of religious courts. In his view, they simply worked better.
"We know from 1 Corinthians 6 [paraphrase] that Paul said: 'Don't go to the civil courts. They're ungodly. Create your own courts.' And they did," Rushdooney explained. "They were so efficient that after a while pagans were coming to the church courts and saying: 'Adjudicate our problems for us. It takes years to get a case heard in the civil courts and it bankrupts us and then we don't get justice. Would you do it for us?'"
"When Constantine became Emperor, he called in the bishops and he said, 'The courts of the Empire are failing. We have cases that have been in the courts forty years with no justice. I want you men when you go out in the streets to wear the garb of a Roman magistrate by my orders so that the people of Rome and of the Empire will no that they can come to you for justice.'"
Rushdooney declared that when Rome fell, it was only the Christian courts that remained to provide any semblence of justice.
"Then the deacons took care of the sick, the poor, the orphans and the widows, of needy people in general, of captives, because as the Roman Empire began to breakdown, pirates and lawless bands would take men for ransom, hold men captive," Rushdooney explained. "One bishop in the early church ransomed 15,000 captives. When Rome fell, for six centuries, the only courts of Europe were the church courts for arbitration."
"When Rome was gone, the government, the state was gone, but Europe had justice because the church provided it," Rushdooney continued. "This was the pattern through much of the Middle Ages. It was the pattern of the Reformation."
Unlike the Roman courts, which were maintained through taxation by the state, the Christian courts were maintained by voluntary offerings. (Although a clear case exists that these offerings were coerced through social means.)
"There were two offerings taken every Sunday: one for the work of the deacons so that all of the needy were cared for so that apart from crime, the church through these diaconal courts and through various independent Christian agencies provided for the basic government of the community," Rushdooney said.
Courts being a foundational institution of any market (along with governments, markets and financial institutions), a very simple fact of economic life emerges: whomever controls courts can effectively control much of the economy.
Under Christian Reconstructionism, important facets of the economy would effectively be relegated to the Church. But even if religious courts historically out-performed Roman courts, should Christian Reconstructionism be seriously considered?
Absolutely not.
For one thing, Rushdooney's vision of a state based on Christian Reconstructionism is unconstitutional in the United States. In fact, it's unconstitutional in any country that guarantees religious freedom within its foundational law (including in Canada).
For his own part, Rushdooney insisted that a Church-dominated state should not be offensive to non-Christians. Confoundingly, however, the only basis of support he argues for this idea is based on religious scripture. He simply stated: "Our Lord said, 'Occupy until I come.'"
The only way Christian Reconstructionism could become the basis of law in the United States is if these constitutional guarantees of religious freedom were removed through an amendment.
This would extend a dangerous invitation to things like Shariah law. In a properly democratic society, law based on Islam -- or any other religion -- would be just as permissable as law based on Christianity. The only means by which Rushdooney could guarantee that social structures that are every bit as socially destructive as Christian Reconstructionism, if not more, would be to rebuke democracy as the basis of American politics.
So not only could a democratic state not enshrine North and Rushdooney's faith-based economics as the basis of state policy, North and Rushdeooney's Christian Reconstructionism could not accept democracy as the basis of the political regime.
Simply put, there is no room in a democratic and free society for this kind of religious law.
There's certainly plenty of room for alternative economic theories to Keynes and Hayek. But Rousas John Rushdooney and Gary North unequivocally do not provide such an alternative.
Frankly, there's a reason Rushdooney's and North's work have been relegated to homeschooling. Anyone advocating faith-based economics as the answer to any economic dilemma should promptly be sent back to the drawing board.
With economic policy once again at the heart of public debate, the dominant debate has been between economics' two heavyweight theories: those of John Maynard Keynes and those of Friedrich Hayek.
Yet with Keynes and Hayek occupying the dominant positions in this debate, it's easy for any alternatives to get squeezed out. Of course, this begs a key question: which of the alternative theories are worthy of consideration, and which should be rejected?
Rarely receiving careful consideration are the so-called faith-based economic theories. While Keynes and Hayek are hotly debated in the university classroom, so-called faith-based theories are relegated to the homeschool classroom.
Yet some theorize that these theories have garnered far more influence than it would seem.
One of these theories is that of Christian Reconstructionism, championed primarily by Gary North. North is something of a recluse. His reclusiveness may have something to do with the detail that his name is on a watchlist of "libertarian theocrats"
(This is an oxymoron if there ever was one, but it's likely entirely lost on the studious "scholars" of the far-left.)
North is a disciple of Rousas John Rushdoony (himself during his life a feirce advocate of home schooling, unsurprisingly). Rushdoony preached an approach to economic political policy that turned an eye to charity, but not with inexhaustible patience for those who would rely on it.
"In the New Testament, Consider what Paul was doing," Rushdoony told a sympathetic interviewer prior to his passing. "Offerings to alleviate the poverty of the saints during the famine in Palestine; counseling that the needy be cared for, but 'He who will not work, let him not eat.'"
"We do know that anyone who became unemployed was given three days income," Rushdooney continued. "After that they found work for him. Another Christian would hire him, but at lower than his normal pay so there would be no incentive to stay under that diaconal care."
That would certainly be an unwelcome shock to those demanding 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.
Rushdooney also invoked the Roman experience with courts to justify the establishment of religious courts. In his view, they simply worked better.
"We know from 1 Corinthians 6 [paraphrase] that Paul said: 'Don't go to the civil courts. They're ungodly. Create your own courts.' And they did," Rushdooney explained. "They were so efficient that after a while pagans were coming to the church courts and saying: 'Adjudicate our problems for us. It takes years to get a case heard in the civil courts and it bankrupts us and then we don't get justice. Would you do it for us?'"
"When Constantine became Emperor, he called in the bishops and he said, 'The courts of the Empire are failing. We have cases that have been in the courts forty years with no justice. I want you men when you go out in the streets to wear the garb of a Roman magistrate by my orders so that the people of Rome and of the Empire will no that they can come to you for justice.'"
Rushdooney declared that when Rome fell, it was only the Christian courts that remained to provide any semblence of justice.
"Then the deacons took care of the sick, the poor, the orphans and the widows, of needy people in general, of captives, because as the Roman Empire began to breakdown, pirates and lawless bands would take men for ransom, hold men captive," Rushdooney explained. "One bishop in the early church ransomed 15,000 captives. When Rome fell, for six centuries, the only courts of Europe were the church courts for arbitration."
"When Rome was gone, the government, the state was gone, but Europe had justice because the church provided it," Rushdooney continued. "This was the pattern through much of the Middle Ages. It was the pattern of the Reformation."
Unlike the Roman courts, which were maintained through taxation by the state, the Christian courts were maintained by voluntary offerings. (Although a clear case exists that these offerings were coerced through social means.)
"There were two offerings taken every Sunday: one for the work of the deacons so that all of the needy were cared for so that apart from crime, the church through these diaconal courts and through various independent Christian agencies provided for the basic government of the community," Rushdooney said.
Courts being a foundational institution of any market (along with governments, markets and financial institutions), a very simple fact of economic life emerges: whomever controls courts can effectively control much of the economy.
Under Christian Reconstructionism, important facets of the economy would effectively be relegated to the Church. But even if religious courts historically out-performed Roman courts, should Christian Reconstructionism be seriously considered?
Absolutely not.
For one thing, Rushdooney's vision of a state based on Christian Reconstructionism is unconstitutional in the United States. In fact, it's unconstitutional in any country that guarantees religious freedom within its foundational law (including in Canada).
For his own part, Rushdooney insisted that a Church-dominated state should not be offensive to non-Christians. Confoundingly, however, the only basis of support he argues for this idea is based on religious scripture. He simply stated: "Our Lord said, 'Occupy until I come.'"
The only way Christian Reconstructionism could become the basis of law in the United States is if these constitutional guarantees of religious freedom were removed through an amendment.
This would extend a dangerous invitation to things like Shariah law. In a properly democratic society, law based on Islam -- or any other religion -- would be just as permissable as law based on Christianity. The only means by which Rushdooney could guarantee that social structures that are every bit as socially destructive as Christian Reconstructionism, if not more, would be to rebuke democracy as the basis of American politics.
So not only could a democratic state not enshrine North and Rushdooney's faith-based economics as the basis of state policy, North and Rushdeooney's Christian Reconstructionism could not accept democracy as the basis of the political regime.
Simply put, there is no room in a democratic and free society for this kind of religious law.
There's certainly plenty of room for alternative economic theories to Keynes and Hayek. But Rousas John Rushdooney and Gary North unequivocally do not provide such an alternative.
Frankly, there's a reason Rushdooney's and North's work have been relegated to homeschooling. Anyone advocating faith-based economics as the answer to any economic dilemma should promptly be sent back to the drawing board.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Gordon Brown Seeking Posh New Job
When Gordon Brown was defeated as Prime Minister, then promptly replaced as leader of the Labour Party, many naturally wondered what would come next.
Now we seem to know. A year after moving out of No 10 Downing Street, Brown is poised to take on an advisory role at the World Economic Forum. Speculation holds that he intends to spin this into leadership of the International Monetary Fund.
At the WEM, Brown would be responsible for overseeing 72 Econcomic Councils. As former Prime Minister of Britain, he is uniquely prepared for such a responsibility.
But he should by no means considered a shoo-in for the job.
After all, some had pegged Tony Blair to be a favourite to assume the office of President of the European Union. Instead, backlash against Blair's involvement in the Iraq War held Blair back.
Brown could face some obstacles of his own. One of them is related to the Iraq War. The other is due to Gordon's handling of Britain's finances as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Brown has frequently been publicly savaged for his failure to manage the British public debt.
In fact, as it turned out Brown's government excelled at concealing its mounting public debt. Essentially, Brown's government, under Brown's fiscal leadership, ran up billions of Pounds Sterling in deferred debt by financing projects as Private Finance Initiatives.
This allowed the Labour government to spend today, committing each British government for the next 30 years to make fixed payments on these projects.
In essence, the Blair/Brown government uploaded billions of Pounds Sterling in debt to future generations of Britons. It enabled the Blair/Brown government to inflate its short-run political popularity at the long-run expense of the British citizenry.
They did what they wanted to do, and left the hard decisions to future British governments.
It isn't as if Labour only organized one or two projects under the PFI structure. It isn't as if they only organized five or six. They ran 630 projects under this structure. That's the cost of 630 projects spread out over a 30-year period.
It gets even worse when one considers the scope of the cost spread out over that period: 110 billion Pounds Sterling. In Canadian dollars, the PFI debt load added by Brown was $172 billion.
It's difficult to believe that a leader as casual about assuming debt on the behalf of future generations could become the managing director of the IMF. But Brown may have yet one more advantage at his disposal.
In the United States, the Barack Obama administration has shared Brown's irresponsible approach to public debt. Moreover, the Obama administration has some diplomatic bridges to mend with Britain, and may choose to mend them by helping Brown ascend the IMF mountain.
By all rights, Gordon Brown probably shouldn't become the director of the International Monetary Fund. But for good or ill -- very likely for ill -- he just may.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Canada Chided For "Lack of Interest" in Jeffrey Sachs' Agenda
Jeffrey Sachs disappointed in lack of ideological commitment
If anything is absolutely certain about Jeffrey Sachs, it's that he has everything about poverty in the developing world figured out.
Or at least he thinks he does.
Sachs' policies regarding alleviating poverty in the developing world have been nothing if not a spectacular failure. Yet instead of examining his own policies to figure out what's gone wrong, he prefers to simply blame countries that don't share his agenda in all its ideological glory.
Especially Canada.
But not Canada alone. Apparently, the United States is to blame as well.
“Where we are in 2010 is mostly a testimony about ourselves,” Sachs said. “Neither the Harper government nor the Obama administration is doing close to what I would expect of our countries living in the wealth and comfort of North America.”
So not just Canada. But mostly Canada.
“It’s just been very disappointing for me,” Sachs complained. “I’ve grown up believing in Canada’s leadership.”
Of course Sachs may simply be forgetting that Canada has taken the lead on a maternal health initiative for the developing world.
Sachs seems upset that countries in the developing world have hard choices to make.
“All of them were discussing whether to have children in school or whether to have mothers saved in childbirth or whether to have vaccine problems, because [they] can’t do all of these things,” Sachs fumed. “It’s an impossible choice.”
Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, who committed Canada to following Sachs' agenda, is similarly disappointed.
"When the Canadian numbers were revised down, that was a reneging on our commitment," Martin complained. "The 'reclarifying' of numbers, which Canada, Italy and France engaged in, is exactly the kind of thing that must not happen in the future."
Of course what Martin fails to mention is that the commitment Martin speaks of was the commitment of the government that he led. A future government was well within its rights to reevaluate the decision, and in the case of the Millenium Development Goals, was particularly right to have done so.
But Martin also admits that many of the countries due to be recipients of this generous aid commitment have their own part to play -- one they haven't played.
"Recipient countries have got to come to the table," Martin insisted. "When the MDGs were set up, it was with governments that said they would do certain things, for instance in education, and a number of those countries have not done it."
But even the commitments made by the countries in question were the wrong commitments.
New York University Economist William Easterly has been clear about the shortcomings of the economy of the developing world.
One of these shortcomings is the lack of key economic infrastructure -- banks, stock exchanges, securities regulators, courts of law -- that make a healthy economy possible in the first place. While the developing-world versions of institutions don't currently need to be nearly as sophisticated as they are in the developed world, they do need to impose a basic degree of law and order over these economies -- the kind that can contain and eliminate corruption and cronyism.
Beyond even that, Sachs' prized MDGs represent everything that has been wrong with the developed world's approach to fighting poverty in the developing world: they are centrally-planned, largely by the donors, and do not necessarily reflect the real needs of these economies.
They reflect the opinion of what Jeffrey Sachs and his cohorts think these countries need, and following the same broken model of sending billions and billions of dollars into the coffers of governments that have tended to either waste the funds, or steal them outright.
Jeffrey Sachs can be as disappointed as he likes that Canada has backed away from his agenda. His policies have overwhelmingly failed -- something that Sachs has declined to even acknowledge, let alone take responsibility for -- and it's time for a more constructive approach.
If anything is absolutely certain about Jeffrey Sachs, it's that he has everything about poverty in the developing world figured out.
Or at least he thinks he does.
Sachs' policies regarding alleviating poverty in the developing world have been nothing if not a spectacular failure. Yet instead of examining his own policies to figure out what's gone wrong, he prefers to simply blame countries that don't share his agenda in all its ideological glory.
Especially Canada.
But not Canada alone. Apparently, the United States is to blame as well.
“Where we are in 2010 is mostly a testimony about ourselves,” Sachs said. “Neither the Harper government nor the Obama administration is doing close to what I would expect of our countries living in the wealth and comfort of North America.”
So not just Canada. But mostly Canada.
“It’s just been very disappointing for me,” Sachs complained. “I’ve grown up believing in Canada’s leadership.”
Of course Sachs may simply be forgetting that Canada has taken the lead on a maternal health initiative for the developing world.
Sachs seems upset that countries in the developing world have hard choices to make.
“All of them were discussing whether to have children in school or whether to have mothers saved in childbirth or whether to have vaccine problems, because [they] can’t do all of these things,” Sachs fumed. “It’s an impossible choice.”
Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, who committed Canada to following Sachs' agenda, is similarly disappointed.
"When the Canadian numbers were revised down, that was a reneging on our commitment," Martin complained. "The 'reclarifying' of numbers, which Canada, Italy and France engaged in, is exactly the kind of thing that must not happen in the future."
Of course what Martin fails to mention is that the commitment Martin speaks of was the commitment of the government that he led. A future government was well within its rights to reevaluate the decision, and in the case of the Millenium Development Goals, was particularly right to have done so.
But Martin also admits that many of the countries due to be recipients of this generous aid commitment have their own part to play -- one they haven't played.
"Recipient countries have got to come to the table," Martin insisted. "When the MDGs were set up, it was with governments that said they would do certain things, for instance in education, and a number of those countries have not done it."
But even the commitments made by the countries in question were the wrong commitments.
New York University Economist William Easterly has been clear about the shortcomings of the economy of the developing world.
One of these shortcomings is the lack of key economic infrastructure -- banks, stock exchanges, securities regulators, courts of law -- that make a healthy economy possible in the first place. While the developing-world versions of institutions don't currently need to be nearly as sophisticated as they are in the developed world, they do need to impose a basic degree of law and order over these economies -- the kind that can contain and eliminate corruption and cronyism.
Beyond even that, Sachs' prized MDGs represent everything that has been wrong with the developed world's approach to fighting poverty in the developing world: they are centrally-planned, largely by the donors, and do not necessarily reflect the real needs of these economies.
They reflect the opinion of what Jeffrey Sachs and his cohorts think these countries need, and following the same broken model of sending billions and billions of dollars into the coffers of governments that have tended to either waste the funds, or steal them outright.
Jeffrey Sachs can be as disappointed as he likes that Canada has backed away from his agenda. His policies have overwhelmingly failed -- something that Sachs has declined to even acknowledge, let alone take responsibility for -- and it's time for a more constructive approach.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Tony Blair's Deferred War on the Working Class
As Labour leadership candidates Andy Burnham and Ed Balls battle over whether or not the Labour party would have embarked on a program of cuts similar to that of the current Tory/Liberal Democrat government, Lord Andrew Turnbull, former head of the British Civil Service, has dropped a bombshell on the debate:
The Labour party was spending too much, and knew it was spending too much. And it knew in 2005.
Lord Turnbull suggests that it was political pressure that convinced Tony Blair and his government to continue spending at a manifestly undisciplined rate, even after it became evident that there was a problem.
"It kind of crept up on us in 2005, 2006, 2007, and we were still expanding public spending at 4.5 per cent a year," he explained. "You might have thought that we should have been giving priority to getting borrowing under better control, putting money aside in the good years - and it didn't happen."
Lord Turnbull's comments reveal Keynesian economics for precisely what they became under Tony Blair: an excuse to spend, even at the expense of the government's ability to battle a recession by expending savings accumulated during strong economic periods.
Lord Turnbull explained it very simply: "Public spending got too big relative to the productive resources of the economy."
"The politics was that we had put an end to boom and bust," he said. But it didn't work that way. The government overspent even during the time of boom, and now succeeding governments have to fix the problem.
All of this complicates matters intensely for the current crop of Labour leadership candidates, looking to replace Blair's successor, Gordon Brown.
Andy Burnham has been tremendously candid about the necessity of cuts under a Labour government.
"Let's get some honesty in this debate," Burnham said. "There would have been significant spending cuts under Labour and there would have been job losses under Labour."
For his own part, Ed Balls seems to think that things would have been magically different under a Labour government.
"I think Labour would have been creating jobs this year," Balls insisted. "At a time when the economy is slowing down, we should be building houses, not cutting them, building schools, not cutting them."
This of course begs the question of where the money would have come from. But Balls seems to think that he has the answer... or at least something he can easily pass off as the answer.
"The banks should be paying the price of the crisis, not people up and down this country," Balls insisted.
Of course, it shouldn't be the banks that pay the price for the excessively poor fiscal policy of the Blair and Brown governments. One way or the other, under one government or another, the British government will have to pay the price for that.
Unfortunately, it's inevitable that when the government pays, the citizens will pay as well.
Many among Britain's left have gleefully seized upon the looming cuts by the David Cameron government of waging class warfare against the middle and working classes.
But even as Tony Blair spent the government of Great Britain deeper and deeper into debt, he had to have known that a fiscal day of recknoning was coming. Tony Blair had to have known that the middle and working classes would be hit hardest by that reckoning than anyone else -- including himself.
If class warfare is being waged against the working and middle classes at all, it's Tony Blair's defferred class warfare.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
France Planning to Shrink Deficit So it Can Grow
France getting tough on deficit spending
After proposing a constitutional amendment to limit debt, France is continuing its debt-fighting measures.
In a country that, in the eyes of many, helped pioneer tax-and-spend welfare politics, the challenge to adherents of conventional welcare politics is stark:
Your time is almost up.
French Budget Minister Francois Baroin -- who, as an interesting fiscal innovation, works at arms-length from their Finance Minister -- is touting the French government's commitment to reducing their deficit to 6% of its Gross Domestic Product by 2011, and 3% by 2013.
France's deficit is currently 8% of its GDP.
According to Baroin, deficit-fighting is key to France's aspirations to grow its economy, and with unemployment that averages 10%, the French economy desperately needs to grow.
"Everything must be directed towards this aim: we are obliged to return as quickly as possible to the pre-crisis levels of deficit," Baroin insisted. "It is an essential issue for our economic growth."
But as it turns out, economic growth will be a troubling factor for the French budget.
"They are being a bit optimistic," explained ABM Amro economist Joost Beaumont. "France has quite a track record of pencilling in too high growth in its budgets."
Moreover, according to Beaumont, France actually risks reneging on these commitments, and lagging behind other European countries -- such as Germany, where a similar constitutional amendment has been proposed.
"France has a very poor track record in sticking to its deficit commitments, and if you look at the details of how they plan to do it, it is still not clear," Beaumont continued. "They have a lot of work to do and so far they are the only [European] country just paying lip service to austerity."
If Francois Baroin and Finance Minister Christine Lagarde make good, however, it will set the table for France to make tremendous progress tackling its problem of traditionally-high unemployment.
After proposing a constitutional amendment to limit debt, France is continuing its debt-fighting measures.
In a country that, in the eyes of many, helped pioneer tax-and-spend welfare politics, the challenge to adherents of conventional welcare politics is stark:
Your time is almost up.
French Budget Minister Francois Baroin -- who, as an interesting fiscal innovation, works at arms-length from their Finance Minister -- is touting the French government's commitment to reducing their deficit to 6% of its Gross Domestic Product by 2011, and 3% by 2013.
France's deficit is currently 8% of its GDP.
According to Baroin, deficit-fighting is key to France's aspirations to grow its economy, and with unemployment that averages 10%, the French economy desperately needs to grow.
"Everything must be directed towards this aim: we are obliged to return as quickly as possible to the pre-crisis levels of deficit," Baroin insisted. "It is an essential issue for our economic growth."
But as it turns out, economic growth will be a troubling factor for the French budget.
"They are being a bit optimistic," explained ABM Amro economist Joost Beaumont. "France has quite a track record of pencilling in too high growth in its budgets."
Moreover, according to Beaumont, France actually risks reneging on these commitments, and lagging behind other European countries -- such as Germany, where a similar constitutional amendment has been proposed.
"France has a very poor track record in sticking to its deficit commitments, and if you look at the details of how they plan to do it, it is still not clear," Beaumont continued. "They have a lot of work to do and so far they are the only [European] country just paying lip service to austerity."
If Francois Baroin and Finance Minister Christine Lagarde make good, however, it will set the table for France to make tremendous progress tackling its problem of traditionally-high unemployment.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Global Leftism Wears Its Mania on Its Sleeve
Frances Russell lays her cards on the table...
...And they're all jokers.
How else to explain the embarrassing (if only Russell had the sense to be ebmarrassed) op/ed, entitled "Banking, Smoke and Mirrors", published in the Winnipeg Free Press?
If any doubt remained that Russell is, in fact, an extreme leftist, this op/ed piece ought to dispell any such doubt.
In the article, Russell counter-factually insists that the Canadian government did, indeed, bailout its banks, and so should support the global banking tax being pushed by various Eurpean left-wing governments.
In order to make this case, Russell channels economics Jim Stanford and Michel Choussudovsky.
These are, of course, no ordinary economists. Stanford is currently in the employ of the Canadian Auto Workers union -- essentially a labour front for the NDP. The other individual, Choussudovsky, is currently involved with the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Describing itself as an "independent research and media group of progressive writers, scholars and activists committed to curbing the tide of 'globalisation' and 'disarming' the New World Order", the organization's website is an eye-opener on how seriously the organization should be taken.
Among other things, the organization has been a haven for 9/11 truthers ranging from the University of Lethbridge's Anthony J Hall to Louis Farrakhan.
A global bank tax would be a rather odd initiative for a group opposing the so-called "New World Order" to support. After all, attempting to impose such a measure is actually a globalizing influence. Clearly, the difference is that this is their globalization (which they believe to be good). It shockingly resembles measures proposed by left-wing globalist George Monbiot, who has embraced the climate change cause simply because it will aid his efforts to push for a global parliament.
In fact, a global tax on bank transactions was the means by which Monbiot has insisted that such a Parliament would be funded.
Based on something like this, it's nearly impossible for a rational person to see the global bank tax for what it really is: as a tool of imposing global leftism on the rest of the world. Which, apparently, is the good kind of globalization.
Russell concludes her op/ed by suggesting that Canadians should judge Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party by what she says they have done -- supporting de-regulation of banking -- and not by what they have actually done -- introducing a federal securities regulator.
Just as it's impossible to take the Centre for Research on Globalization seriously, it's becoming very difficult to take Frances Russell seriously.
...And they're all jokers.
How else to explain the embarrassing (if only Russell had the sense to be ebmarrassed) op/ed, entitled "Banking, Smoke and Mirrors", published in the Winnipeg Free Press?
If any doubt remained that Russell is, in fact, an extreme leftist, this op/ed piece ought to dispell any such doubt.
In the article, Russell counter-factually insists that the Canadian government did, indeed, bailout its banks, and so should support the global banking tax being pushed by various Eurpean left-wing governments.
In order to make this case, Russell channels economics Jim Stanford and Michel Choussudovsky.
These are, of course, no ordinary economists. Stanford is currently in the employ of the Canadian Auto Workers union -- essentially a labour front for the NDP. The other individual, Choussudovsky, is currently involved with the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Describing itself as an "independent research and media group of progressive writers, scholars and activists committed to curbing the tide of 'globalisation' and 'disarming' the New World Order", the organization's website is an eye-opener on how seriously the organization should be taken.
Among other things, the organization has been a haven for 9/11 truthers ranging from the University of Lethbridge's Anthony J Hall to Louis Farrakhan.
A global bank tax would be a rather odd initiative for a group opposing the so-called "New World Order" to support. After all, attempting to impose such a measure is actually a globalizing influence. Clearly, the difference is that this is their globalization (which they believe to be good). It shockingly resembles measures proposed by left-wing globalist George Monbiot, who has embraced the climate change cause simply because it will aid his efforts to push for a global parliament.
In fact, a global tax on bank transactions was the means by which Monbiot has insisted that such a Parliament would be funded.
Based on something like this, it's nearly impossible for a rational person to see the global bank tax for what it really is: as a tool of imposing global leftism on the rest of the world. Which, apparently, is the good kind of globalization.
Russell concludes her op/ed by suggesting that Canadians should judge Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party by what she says they have done -- supporting de-regulation of banking -- and not by what they have actually done -- introducing a federal securities regulator.
Just as it's impossible to take the Centre for Research on Globalization seriously, it's becoming very difficult to take Frances Russell seriously.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
France Set to Get Tough on Debt
As Europe desperately attempts to stave off a complete economic collapse precipitated by the fiscal irresponsibility of the Greek government -- possibly to be followed by the Italian, Spanish and Irish governments -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy has reiterated his commitment to limiting France's public debt.
Sarkozy is prepared to go so far as to amend France's constitution. The propsed amendment would require any French government that runs a deficit to commit to a five-year plan to balance the budget and pay off the debt.
"Without budgetary adjustment, our growth and our social model are threatened," Sarkozy explained. "That is what lies behind the decisions I have presented."
Not only is Sarkozy proposing to constitutionally mandate fiscal responsibility, he's also moved to set a strong example. His government will reduce France's deficit to 6% of its Gross Domestic Product in 2011, and to 4.6% in 2012.
"From 2011 onwards, we will rigidly strengthen spending controls, we will not allow ourselves any generalized rises in taxes, we will go at the pace of the economic recovery and will pursue reforms that will put growth back on its feet," Sarkozy announced. "It's not austerity, nor is it laxity, but responsibility."
Sarkozy is apparently prepared to be as tough as he needs to be with the kind of spending reductions necessary to make his fiscal reforms possible. Overall spending on health insurance will be limited to 3% of GDP in 2010. That's reduced from 3.3% in 2009.
Sarkozy is likely responding to pressure from German Chancellor Angela Merkel for other countries to adopt measures similar to Germany's balanced budget law.
The cuts will be difficult to make in a country with a traditionally high unemployment rate, but Sarkozy's promised constitutional commitment to lower taxes could, in time, lead to the kind of economic growth necessary to reduce that historical trend.
France's example will be one for the rest of Europe to follow -- if they can only get a grip of the Kanellos' of the militant left.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
"The Little Thief From Swift Current"
Dwain Lingenfelter clearly frustrated
In the Saskatchewan Legislature, NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter recently slip the frustration that he -- and a limited number of Saskatchewan's citizens -- have been feeling with Premier Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party government.
In an unparliamentary outburst, Lingenfelter harrangued Wall as "the little thief from Swift Current".
It makes one wonder: precisely what did Wall steal?
Perhaps in Lingenfelter's mind, it's government. And popularity.
In fact, a recent poll indicates that 68% of Saskatchewan's citizens approve of the job Wall has been doing as Premier of Saskatchewan, and that 58% would vote for the Saskatchewan Party in a future election.
That leaves Dwain Lingenfelter and the NDP in a very bad way -- facing the prospect of relegation to the opposition benches for a good, long while.
If one were to believe certain idiots, the Brad Wall government has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Saskatchewan. The problem is that the people clearly don't agree with that assessment.
Whether Lingenfelter, his party and their assorted harpies care to admit it or not, it seems that the party's over in Saskatchewan for their particular brand of socialism.
Citizens of Saskatchewan have caught on to the fact that something had to be seriously remiss for one of the world's wealthiest regions in terms of per-capita resources to have lagged so far behind its neighbours in terms of economic development.
A study prepared by 49North Resources offers some answers that the NDP and their harpies may not want to hear.
Saskatchewan lagged behind its neighbours in locally-raised capital, as NDP governments introduced disincentives to local investment, then objected when the Grant Devine government acted to remove them.
While Lorne Calvert's NDP government began to exploit policy advantages over competing jurisdictions -- recognizing far too late the limitations of centrally-planned socialism -- these policy advantages have been expanded under the Wall government, and the process accelerated. The advantages speak for themselves:
These policy advantages speak for themselves to anyone well-schooled in the kind of economic doctrines produced by socialists. Faced by the compounding failures of their socialist policies, the NDP themselves cleared the way for freer market success, now to be pursued by genuine free marketeers.
What has emerged is a repudiation of the long-failed economic doctrines of the NDP -- beginning with Tommy Douglas' plans to nationalize Saskatchewan's oil industry under a co-operative model that failed to materialize due to the disincentives coupled with his plan.
(Of course, Douglas' socialism is one that would seem oddly alien to the modern-day acolytes of socialism -- it featured healthy doses of workfare.)
But with the economic failures of the NDP recognized by the party itself, there's no sign that the citizens of Saskatchewan are prepared to turn back to the authors of Saskatchewan's economic under-development any time soon.
In the Saskatchewan Legislature, NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter recently slip the frustration that he -- and a limited number of Saskatchewan's citizens -- have been feeling with Premier Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party government.
In an unparliamentary outburst, Lingenfelter harrangued Wall as "the little thief from Swift Current".
It makes one wonder: precisely what did Wall steal?
Perhaps in Lingenfelter's mind, it's government. And popularity.
In fact, a recent poll indicates that 68% of Saskatchewan's citizens approve of the job Wall has been doing as Premier of Saskatchewan, and that 58% would vote for the Saskatchewan Party in a future election.
That leaves Dwain Lingenfelter and the NDP in a very bad way -- facing the prospect of relegation to the opposition benches for a good, long while.
If one were to believe certain idiots, the Brad Wall government has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Saskatchewan. The problem is that the people clearly don't agree with that assessment.
Whether Lingenfelter, his party and their assorted harpies care to admit it or not, it seems that the party's over in Saskatchewan for their particular brand of socialism.
Citizens of Saskatchewan have caught on to the fact that something had to be seriously remiss for one of the world's wealthiest regions in terms of per-capita resources to have lagged so far behind its neighbours in terms of economic development.
A study prepared by 49North Resources offers some answers that the NDP and their harpies may not want to hear.
Saskatchewan lagged behind its neighbours in locally-raised capital, as NDP governments introduced disincentives to local investment, then objected when the Grant Devine government acted to remove them.
What has emerged is a repudiation of the long-failed economic doctrines of the NDP -- beginning with Tommy Douglas' plans to nationalize Saskatchewan's oil industry under a co-operative model that failed to materialize due to the disincentives coupled with his plan.
(Of course, Douglas' socialism is one that would seem oddly alien to the modern-day acolytes of socialism -- it featured healthy doses of workfare.)
But with the economic failures of the NDP recognized by the party itself, there's no sign that the citizens of Saskatchewan are prepared to turn back to the authors of Saskatchewan's economic under-development any time soon.
Monday, May 10, 2010
"We Are All Kanellos"
Few people could have said it better -- but not in the way that John Baglow must have imagined.
In a recent post at his blog, "Dr Dawg" John Baglow remarks about Kanellos, the dog who has been spotted at many Greek protests since 2008.
One is almost uncertain about how to break the bad news to Baglow, but:
Kanellos is a dog.
It isn't as if Kanellos understands the issues at the heart of the protests he shows up at. And considering the scope of the fiscal situation in Greece, one wonders if some those protesting against austerity measures on the part of the government understand why they are protesting.
Greece owes as much as 120% of its Gross Domestic Product to foreign creditors, a figure that is increasing with Greece's deficit, accounting for 13% of its GDP.
And although many are blaming Goldman Sachs for the Greek debt crisis, they conveniently forget that all Goldman Sachs did was facilitate the crisis-deepening plans of the Greek government by helping them hide their public debt and falsify their public financial records.
Yet even with their country facing complete fiscal insolvency, Greek leftists rioted so ferociously three people -- technically four, when one considers one of the dead was a pregnant woman -- were killed when a Molotov cocktail was thrown into a bank.
The rioters are clearly so ideologically blinded that they couldn't even possibly understand the consequences of a failure to control and contain Greece's debt.
Just as a dog doesn't understand political issues -- and doesn't care -- he Greek rioters clearly don't understand the issue at hand. Nor do they seem to care.
"We are all Kanellos."
In the most fundamental sense, truer words have never been spoken.
In a recent post at his blog, "Dr Dawg" John Baglow remarks about Kanellos, the dog who has been spotted at many Greek protests since 2008.
One is almost uncertain about how to break the bad news to Baglow, but:
Kanellos is a dog.
It isn't as if Kanellos understands the issues at the heart of the protests he shows up at. And considering the scope of the fiscal situation in Greece, one wonders if some those protesting against austerity measures on the part of the government understand why they are protesting.
Greece owes as much as 120% of its Gross Domestic Product to foreign creditors, a figure that is increasing with Greece's deficit, accounting for 13% of its GDP.
And although many are blaming Goldman Sachs for the Greek debt crisis, they conveniently forget that all Goldman Sachs did was facilitate the crisis-deepening plans of the Greek government by helping them hide their public debt and falsify their public financial records.
Yet even with their country facing complete fiscal insolvency, Greek leftists rioted so ferociously three people -- technically four, when one considers one of the dead was a pregnant woman -- were killed when a Molotov cocktail was thrown into a bank.
The rioters are clearly so ideologically blinded that they couldn't even possibly understand the consequences of a failure to control and contain Greece's debt.
Just as a dog doesn't understand political issues -- and doesn't care -- he Greek rioters clearly don't understand the issue at hand. Nor do they seem to care.
"We are all Kanellos."
In the most fundamental sense, truer words have never been spoken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)