Tag Archives: money

What the EU-governmint thinks of elections…

especially in places like Ireland.

David Davis

How soon will the Euro implode?

UPDATE:- I said this the other day, too.

David Davis

About 12 years ago, or it may be 13, I bet a YEM* person £25 that the Euro, recently issued, would sink to UD$1.00 by that Christmas. It did fall, a bit: my prediction was only wrong in degree -  but I lost my bet and ponied up.

Now Peter Oborne thinks the project is at last about to come undone.

* “YEM” was the “Young European Movement”. God knows what’s happened to that.

It does not matter

whether Gordon Brown stays in after being defeated at the (when?) election or not.

David Davis

Britain’s AAA credit-rating has been lost already. The markets have discounted it by letting Mervyn King buy up all our Gilts for the last year.

The Agencies are merely waiting till after the poll to announce it, for fear of being thought “political”. You’d think that the bear-raid on Sterling that will inevitably follow will be worse if he’s there than if he’s been arrested and sectioned.

Tax cuts for a smaller government

Michael Winning

I found this over at The Englishman’s Castle, hes up early like me he is. It’s a clever spoof on the people who I think pay for the Labour Party and its bloated bust budget, that lot called Unison or summat:-

The poor sad bastard has been had for a gumph, and he’s still the Prime Minister

David Davis

Gordon Brown had been had unfortunately. Again. Proper, politically-brought-up GramscoFabiaNazis are not the only people in the Enemy-Class.

it contains others. Unscrupulous crypto-socialists pretending to be liberal capitalists and therefore disguised as humans who are running “firms”, mostly under the age of about 40 0r 45, and who run outfits that could produce all this unusable and unwanted hardware, which will not do anything like what we are told (and they of course do know it, but will have cashed up and buggered off by the time that’s detecte and we are all freezing in the dark) also qualify.

Two directors of “Testa”, an outfit related to Degesch, I believe, were indicted at Nuremburg, and we hanged them.

I do not agree with libertarians who think we should let off the modern equivalent of such people with their pensions intact if they apologise for being GFNs. Firms which actively and deliberately encourage belief in false religions such as AGW, being bribed to behave like that by States, should feel the full coldness of truth, in the fullness of time. Statist reactions to “AGW” will kill, in time, millions of people.

Auberon Waugh would have said the following:-

“I am not saying at this time that we should round up and shoot dead all directors of firms that actively lobby the British Government and its Terror-Police to pay them to make and sell wind-turbines to that same government, but I think we ought to look at the interlocking relationships inside the Class of Persons that goes to the drinks-parties that these people frequent.”

As an “aside-thought”, seriously highly-developed Nazi governments like this one run just now by the British Labour Party, which like to “send strong messages” about all sorts of things, to people, may have wanted to nationalise more than one bank so that they can direct “lending policy” towards projects that they “favour”, and away from others they do not favour, such as “small business” and “people”. I only refer to NSDAP state policies topwards businesses under R3 in the 1930s, and to nothing else at this stage.

I am beginning to think that some libertarians may not view me, and my views about original sin versus the actions caused by those sins which are acquired through error, quite as positively as I do myself. It may be that there are some humans who are innately bad, and are drawn excitedly to do bad deeds such as tendering for large wind-turbine contracts to Stalinist governments who steal from people at gunpoint. This of course is in the face of all “settled science” (such as the cheap and harmless use of fuels and steam pressure and electromagnetic induction.)

Worth a (bath) plug

David Davis

This via The Last Ditch via Dick Puddlecote, is hilarious:-

Very interesting about “Tiger” Woods

David Davis

Do you know what? I can’t figure out why a man would want, in the modern world, to be called “Tiger”. I could not give such a male man a job, if he came to me at interview, and if I had a “firm”, for I would not know really how serious he was about work and life. Perhaps he ought to have thought about his PR-presentation before getting so rich and vulnerable. Perhaps “Fred” or “Robert” or “John” would have been a better name: it would indicate solidity, and the ability to get up in the morning and come to work.

If I was called “Tiger”, I could not marry any woman in the 21st century. Why? Because the GramscoFabiaNazis have deconstructed what female children (as humans, so they think they are) see in male children as humans (as they think they are), and have turned it into Celeb-mag-fodder.

Obviously, if you are called “Tiger” and you are then a complete failure at everything you do, before the age of 18 or so, then it’s a no-no for you to be an international sports droid…this just won’t wash. “And here’s TIGER! the Spurs goalie, and he’s just let in the 421st against his own side!!!!…and it’s only the 41st minute!!!!”… no, it won’t wash. Sorry. “Tigers” can’t be faiilures, or they’re dead.

So, why are 35,124,896 tarts all ganging up on one very (very very) rich man, all at one moment? isn’t it suspicious?

Are they pissed off about the money? (The most lovely sex of all can be for money, it is said, if you have the resources to have anything you want (like “Tiger” Woods), because you can dictate what you want and you can get it: we all know it in our hearts. Christians and other religionistas shoot the entire world in the foot by pretending otherwise, and much serious misery results as a result of this result, specially where GramscoFabiaNazis inspire impressionable young intelligent women to be “femin” ists.)Why did the Ottoman Emperors (and Mohammed, pbuh) have harems? For the good of their souls? Nah. Sex with plenty of women, for one man, as often as possble, is lovely. It’s what it’s for. That’s what the Y chromosome is for. That’s why so many, many of us are all here, today: it’s the great success story of the paleobiology of man.

Didn’t “Tiger” pay then enough at the time? Was that the problem? I think not. I thought these things were pre-agreed? And there’s too many of them anyway – he could not have short-changed them all: that would be crass and careless. And that part of the deal with expensive “escorts” (I’m sure all these women were expensive – they look it) was that, as an escort, you didn’t talk afterwards? What’s the point of these girls otherwise? If you didn’t talk for the sake of the sake of the Bilderbergers who have shagged you, and whom you would not want to expose for the sake of your own life at Copenhagen and after, then why would you “talk” about “Tiger” Woods? Money?

Does it matter if he had any or all of them at all, except to him and his wife, and if so, what is the MSM doing, getting involved at all? Is it any of their effing business?

Or is it that the world-global-governance has had “enough” of “Tiger” Woods, for some other quite unrelated reason?

Perhaps we are no better than the Incas: we set up someone to be an idol, for a year or a few, and then we tire of him, and we pull him down, into the  blood and dust.

I don’t give a f*** for golf. I don’t even understand the point of it. It is my privilege to be able to be like that and yet stay alive in the 21st century, when everyone goes for it. I even hosted an international Golf tournament slightly opposite my house, a year or so ago, for a mate, to show my astonishing magnanimity on this matter.

But I hate what I think is going on here. I don’t think a libertarian society would do this to people, over something that goes on in their private lives. It’s not even clear to me that he’s actually shagged all these women. if he did, so what? Is it anybody’s concern except of them, him and his wife? At least, if he did, he’d have got some pleasure out of it, in return for the delf-righteous preachings of his supposedly-aggrieved “sponsors”.

Or….is “Tiger” Woods a global warming skeptic…or even a _/denier/_ ???

MPs expenses…the new brief is to bankrupt the Tories (and UKIP as a side-order) while you still can, while letting the GramscoFabiaNazis off with a slap on the wrist

David Davis

Bernard Jenkin (I thought he’d died years ago, I really did, I thought he was some sort of B-movie-comedian or something) is the subject of the Daily GramscoMirror’s ire today***, over an “eyewatering £63,250″. Yup, it really is. Eyewatering I mean.

One law for them.

And Tony McNulty (who’s that? How can you give a job as a politician to someone called “Tony”?) can “keep the £60,000″.

Another law for us.

***Through a Glass, Dully.

“I have to say to you” “I have to say to you”

David Davis

This is a droidette of the Enemy Class, order-1.  h/t Mr Eugenides. The machine is being filmed in full flight: it is awesome to behold the brass-neck of the device which is on-camera, non-human as it may be, in its destiny.

The watching of, and the listening to that, is priceless stuff. The evasiveness is nothing, compared with the sheer, astonishing separation of the machine’s perception of reality when compared with where human beings see reality to be.

Whar goes around comes around, and we are now the Faraway Country of which the Czechs know little

David Davis

The Czechs have given in. (Who can blame them? Not I.)

BUT they have betrayed Britain!

Shame! We wuzz robbed! Klaus knuckles under! Munich! Death! War! But….

Poor guy, what can he do? We are not ultimately his problem. Like they were not ours, in 1938.

We will have to look to ourselves. AND I don’t care what Cameron says or pretends to say or not say, about “referenda” and on whay terms, or means or does not mean, for it is quite irrelevant. Nothing will change unless individual Tory politicians in power are forced at gunpoint to do so and to yield to majority opinion and gracefully accede.

We have all known this, for many many years, which is why all the thousands and thousands and thousands of  liberal blogs exist: we all pretend it is otherwise, but it is not.

In the early 1990s in the warm wet afterglow of Soviet-Imperialist dégringolade, I used to, while over there, tell my Czech and Slovak friends about the deceptive and only partially-visible undercurrents embedded in “the End of History”, and that “The Germans are Not Your Friends”. Happily I guess, they did not believe me for a moment about the Germans, for there are many German car factories in the Czech republic, employing thousands of Czech and Slovak workers, and turning out not Trabants but rather snazzy VWs rebadged as Skodas, and also a lot of Skodas. Rovers and MGs are now of course Chinese. This is probably for the best, and probably a good thing for us all, if all factors are taken into account. I also warned them about the post-Gorbachev-USSR, but that will be another future story, the end of which cannot yet be perceived.

In the meantime, a new threat to individual liberty and small-nation-self-determination has emerged. If you are here, you know all about it. It is called the EU. Now you must be told, if you are new here and also perhaps not a Subject of The Queen or even a citizen of the wider Anglosphere, that “the EU” was not what was originally being sold to us here. What was initially aggressively, and very, very, very submissively sold, as an “honest, Guv, this is a really really great train, you ought to be on it” thingy,  to the British was a “Free trade Area” or “Common Market” – we should have got our hackles up at that already but didn’t. We already could have had free trade but it was supressed by the GramscoStalnists in power in the UK  from 1945 to 1979. The Schumanno-Monnetia-Nazis thought we’d bite on “Market” and fail to notice the barbed tarantula-sting in the “Common” bit, and they were quite right. We were had.

It did help them of course, that in the decades involved we did have more or less perverted-GramscoFabiaNazi-collectivophile administrations: these saw the way things were blowing in Europe and the world, saw the nice food with olive oil and garlic and the lovely sexy girls and the warmer and drier and more predictable weather and the vineyards and the cheap sex, and jumped in, on our behalf but for them and not us. (Why else did upper-class women throw wine over Sit Ternece Conran at parties, as a punishment for selling glass Tuscan pasta-jars in Habitat for £3.99 so “everyone” could buy them?)

To the British Enemy-Class, the EU is about power, money, unaccountability for expenses, junkets to Bamberg (twinned with Bedford!), sex with expensive “escort girls” (and you can pass it through as “entertainment”, which it of course is) and “calling for harmonisation”. To British people who can afford it, the EU is about lovely, lovely, sexy food at “bistros” that we were “just passing”, not having to “change money”, sex with expensive British chavettas in Ibiza so you can chat them up while pissed, getting English beer in Benidorm, garlic to make everything taste of something, and being able to fly to Prague for “stag” “dos” for 99p return. Oh and “buying that really great farmhouse, to live off the land”….

All this of course is not what Europe was really about.  Not even Jean Monnet, the Great buroNazi, envisaged that it would be that easy to defeat the Real Enemy. We did that ourselves. Europe, as in the “EU” is about recreating a Reich.

That’s why you have to keep voting until you give the right answer….until the Terror-Police are here which means you are relieved of having to vote, for the choice is the right answer or else to be killed. They are a little late with the Terror-Police, but I am sure this is being worked on even today.

Poor Vaclav Klaus, noble and intelligent chap that he is, cannot help us now. It is even the fate of his people’s principal politicians who mattered to be like that. How ironic and sad can you get? So. Either our history as a nation, and as the foundry-crucible of libertarianism, comes to and end here, or else something is done. There is no long-term strategic problem, as the history of Russia and the USSR has shown, in denouncing and repudiating things laughingly called “treaties”. We should look as a nation to our own interests. If we are a libertarian nation, then we ought to look out for our own interests even more fiercely, since we shall find ourselves under open threat even from those whom we once called our friends – as I have always warned and will continue so to do. There is no founding libertarian doctrine that says a nation state, once it has discovered itself either again or anew, ought to observe treaties that are inimical to its survival and which have been made by its predecessors.

Even Westminster says that no Parliament can irrevocably bind its successors.

So, well, there you are.

Shall we just go, now?

Wicked socialist plunderer may steal “popular” Tory policy if disadvantaged by standing up for his henchmen instead

David Davis

This is very funny. I nearly had a fit-or-seizure laughing.

It’s like watching one gang of knife-wielding hoodies threatening another one off its patch. Perhaps they’ll all start using guns on each other and solve our problem.

National Debts and a Tory Government

…or any for that matter, so long as it is not the GramscoFabiaNazis New Labour

David Davis

I am going to propose that an incoming Tory government state that it will repudiate all UK government debt incurred after the date and timestamp of the beginning of its conference and up to the time of a new government being announced next….election. AND furthermore, that neither capital nor interest on this debt will be honoured. This will concentrate lenders’ minds immediately as some will have been sold already, some will be in trading, and some will be comtemplated between now and say this Thursday. this will increase the value of the stuff already out there, which will become very heavily-bid, and will concentrate the minds of helot-voters in the “public sector”, whi will find their wages cheques dishonoured between  now and, well, whenever. Which is morally right.

Please read on:-

In a civilised society, it is right and moral to pay off debts, in due course, after they have been incurred. Insofar as libertarians believe that governments have some sort of de-facto legitimacy, and they might if either by consent of their electorates or by dint of the fact that we are for the time being stuck with them, then it is right for gvernments to make some sort of provision for repaying borrowings incurred honourably in the course of their “duties”. Since governments have no money of their own, this sadly has to be raised by taxation along with the “normal” course of expenditures.

But I now take  a different view about some of this National debt incurred recently: this is based on newer observations of acts against this nation which could, in certain lights, be construed as Acts of War.  A well-briefed Court-of-Enquiry – a “Star Chamber” if you will – might actually interpret their decisions and acts as treason, depending on where you stand regarding the relation between the English Sovereign head of State and the People, and which is actually more important jurisprudentially since 1215 and at various defining moments inbetween.

I now put it that the British Enemy Class, arising out of a mixture of corrupted-Christianity-turned-upside-down, self-generated-intellectual hubris, and misplaced condescension towards temporarily less fortunate classes in English Civil Society, has taken a conscious war decision against liberalism.

It has decided on purpose, at some time in the past 120 years and probably quite early on, to unravel liberal English civilisation and society, this stemming from its view that we are a nationalist nation, of wicked evil imperialist repressive globally-colonizing culturally-hegemonic white anglo-saxon male slave-traders-and-drivers. And anything else you care to name. It hates us, because by promoting the virtues of individual liberty and responsibility and also of Natural Rights, we as a civilisation have never hitherto failed to point loudly and visibly towards what I call “The Door Out Of Hell”,

It has tried, hitherto only more or less partially successfully, to dismantle parts of what it hates. Although the general trend of progressive big-statism did advance from about 1874 onwards as both liberals and Tories started to doze off, not very much damage was done to liberty except during and immediately after war years. It is true that some evil things were done: private firearms began to be regulated in 1922 – passports (French word too) were introduced – whole industries were stolen nationalised – the NHS was founded – education was tampered with – and so on.  But in general the rot took some time to set in, and the GramscoFabiaNazis were getting impatient. Too many of their older ranks were beginning to die, before being able to reap the imperial political rewards of their self-promotion as noble freethinking spirits. Like literature-writers of unreadably pretentious twaddle, “artistic” pornographers, child-rapists and cradle-snatchers positioned as “artists”, “educationists” and the like, “political philosophers”, “influential economists”, “admired playwrights”,and so on. The “movement”, the “project” was rinning out of time: new or invonvenient opponents kept suddenly popping up and exhibiting dangerously high amouonts of mass support, such as Reagan and Thatcher, and the populace showed marked disinclination to meekly toe the Gramscian hegemonic cultural line.

But never fear, for a few clever Enemy Class people had begun to subvert the Universities some decades earlier. By the 90s and 2000s, this tactical assault was to become very crucial.

All was ready for 1997 and Blair. John Smith (too “old labour”, too transparently honest not to dissemble in public and therefore a strategic risk) was got rid of – a strange heart-attack and no medical history of problems – and a top project-guy was put in (you can see the point of the Granita deal now). Brown wanted to mallet away too fast, and would have spoiled things, so he was asked to wait 10 years and his turn would come, by which time the “project” would be irreversible and he might do what pleased him. As he has done.

But even after ten years of Stalinism by 2007, and the pissing-away of the Gold, the savings, the pension funds and the day-to-day-revenue in the buying of a clientariat (a necessary but in itself an insufficient condition for success,) the fabric and economic structure of English society was still very strong. The rot takes time to set in. A reasonably quick cave-in seemed improbable. Something had to be done, and fast, to being about swift collapse of confidence and morale of the entire people, and of international confidence in the structure of our finances and banking industry, a major earner and secondary/tertiary empoyer and trigger of other businesses, especially small private ones (which would have to be destroyed in the wash-flood as they’d never vote for the “project”or its droids) via trickle-down.

So the failure of a minor Rotten-Borough-Bank (Northern Rock) could be used at the right time as a method of mis-managing a “banking crisis” triggerable on top of it, if it could be (mis)handled correctly. If done right, the State could say that “the taxpayer” (itself) was “baling out and preventing the failure of” (the State was nationalising”) our “national banking assets and industry (and jobs of course)” and “your money” (now its.)

Since by 2007, there were very few individuals alive on the planet who knew what “inflation” really is, “call for” “injection of” £££££trillions would seem to have nothing to do with inflating a money’s supply, and everything to do with “saving banks and jobs and the economy world”…”quantitative easing” was a dead-giveaway, surely?

In fact the true understanding of the word “inflation” is probably limited to the few thousand people on earth who read libertarian blogs, plus maybe a few City Analysts who keep quiet about it for safety reasons.

So where does that leave the “national debt” and the Tories (IF they are elected…) Since it has been inflated out of all proportion under false pretences and by a clique of evil reactionaries who want to undo Western Civilisation, those parts of it that correspond to what they’ve taken out in order to deliberately liquidate and beggar us here, should be disowned. I wonder if they’ll be brave enough to do it?

Honey I’ve shrunk the state

Michael Winning

Here’s a bit that should go. Typically the tiptoing Tories a just tinkering at the edge.

“the sick” is another load of State Hard Disks that my colleague should consider malleting.

Could it happen?

Michale Winning

Iain Dale thinks Labour could just dissovle, through lack of funds. Personally I doubt it as there’s too much in the way of vested interests in the Party continuing to be. But if it does disappear, the various denizens of our Enemy Class will have to infiltrate and subverty some other party. I expect it will be the Tories and we libertarians will still all have our work cut out, only more slowly. The Tories offer the best hoipe of these people staying “close to the centre”, have more money, and won’t abolish anything like the right number of Quangos which is 100% of them.

Council “staff” should spend 100% of their time on “face book”…a

then they can’t be spending it taxating us and tyrannising us.

David Davis

Bugger them. F*** them. Let them be on the bloody thing the whole time: they cannot then and therefore be doing stuff to us, only to their supposed “friends”.

FORCE THEM to spend 100% of their time and effort while “at work”, on it.

I am beginning to see the point of “face” “book”. It is a harmless and debilitating out-door relief-system for bureaucrats, who are concerned that they have no “friends”. Let the bastards use it how they bloody well like. It will keep them off  our effing backs.

I have 19 friends, my son has 79 (I sort of think he does actually know most of them) and some of my students have “1,891 friends” (this is non-credible. Nobody would even send Christmas Cards to that number of people, let alone be their friend, unless they wozz a bank.)

I can’t work out what the blasted site is actually for, apart from my thoughts about harmlessly employing bureaucrats without hurting people outside.

But, Ian Geldard and Jackie Danicki seem to broadcast their innermost thoughts to the world at hourly intervals. I must be a  classical liberal saddo then.

I might resign from it, but I await good advice from the commentariat.

How to kick the UK further into the poo: part 1 – tax “the City” more.

David Davis

Yep, that’ll really make banks and traders want to stay here, won’t it.

They’ll queue up to open bigger offices, and employ more people, so “Lord” “Turner” can define how “socially useful” they are, and administer suitably-popular public spankings.


If “The City has grown beyond a reasonable size”, then that makes Lord Turner a “PLANNER”.

Ahhhhhhhhh……………Gosplan! Bisto! Stalinism!

And I don’t know whether Samizdata got to it before I did, but you can read Jonathan’s excellently detailed analysis here.

David McDonagh on Keynes

The Keynesian “Revolution”
By David McDonagh

(This is the lightly revised text of a talk given to the Other LA)

We face the problem of “mind set” on this topic, as we haply do on all topics, where people tend to see what they expect to see. But note that this idea is quite distinct from seeing what we want to see, which is not humanly possible in any case at all, for we always see what seems to us to be the case.

Mark Blaug once retorted to Keynes’ statement that Ricardo had conquered England to a greater extent than had the Spanish Inquisition conquered Spain by saying that Keynes had conquered the economics profession even more successfully than Ricardo ever did.

Why did the Keynesian memes win out and how did they survive their rather clear refutation by the occurrence of stagflation during the 1970s? That is, the main problem I intend to consider below, but note that false theories are rather like human lives in that they may be very vulnerable to diseases at the infant stage, but once that is over, they can withstand attacks quite well up till old age when they, once again, seem to have weak defences. Similarly, false theories may not gain currency when they are first formed, but once a theory becomes popular, mere common sense objections will not matter much in science, or in wider academic study. This privilege against common sense is a major reason why Keynes’ theory survived the refutation of stagflation. Such objections become very potent, again, when the theory is on the decline, which can happen as a result a change in fashion, or if it is seen as being refuted by a rival paradigm, or by the external facts, –which is rather like a fatal accident.

Free, or freer, trade and state management or protectionism is often contrasted, with the latter often called socialism. Keynes favours management, never socialism, though his ideas were to a large extent shared with people like G.B. Shaw, who thought of himself as a socialist. Keynes preferred state management rather than the free market and thus belonged to the Radical-Joe-Chamberlain tradition of liberalism as opposed to that of the classical liberals, whom ebbed after Gladstone. But this means that for Keynes, as for Marx, it is really the lack of management or overall planning on the market that tends to irritate, rather than mass poverty, the problem of war [Marx] or mass unemployment [Keynes] that others thought were their main concern, though they did think they had solutions to those problems.. Keynes feels that the elite, the politicians, and others, have something to offer and he does not like the way economics has tended to be hostile towards politics or the civil service. He feels there should be some inequality in pay, but not much, and certainly not to the extent common in his own day. He admires the slow growth of taxation to curb the differences in income.

On the first page of the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), Keynes’ main book, and the book I set out to criticise, as well as a partial critique of here, the author, oddly, openly confesses to “a solecism” (p3) but, instead of correcting it, he leaves it in the text. Has he set out to scotch grammar? That would be a very odd thing for any author to deliberately do. This solecism is (p3) that he sees the classical economists, not as Marx saw them, [viz. the authors who upheld the labour theory of value as against the ones who thought that supply and demand
were enough. Marx called the latter “the vulgar economists” as they settled for surface appearance rather than going to deep reality, which Marx took to be the proper job of any science.] but way more inclusive. Keynes sees the classical economists as being all the earlier economists. Many of those lived up to forty years after Keynes died [e.g. Hayek died in 1992 but Keynes in 1946].

The pristine classics were thrown out by “the Marginal Revolution”, which took place in the 1870s, when marginal theory replaced the labour theory of value paradigm. A few “vulgar economists”, Jevons, Menger and Walras, applied Ockham’s razor to the labour theory of value and marginal theory dispensed with the underlying reality. Keynes lets us know that he is to make a new revolution against those he terms “the classics” and he hopes it will be as complete as the one in the 1870s was.

The reader might realise that this is not a solecism at all, but an anachronism, i.e. an error of history rather than of grammar. The reader still might think it mighty odd that the author sees an error of any kind, but still leaves it in. But is it an error of any kind? After all, Plato seems to have been quite right when he says that no one can deliberately err. Is it not, rather, a clever and deliberate ploy that Keynes is here using, a device similar to the use that Nelson made of his blind eye? He is going to use this “solecism” device to pretend to see only what he wants to see. But no one can ever quite do that, if they remain sane.

Here we can see what sort of an author we are dealing with in Keynes. Richard Whately once said that “it makes all the difference in the world whether a man puts the truth in the first place or in the second place” and Keynes openly puts the truth in the service of his aims, and he aims to be revolutionary in theory even if he wants to remain Fabian and gradual in practice. But this “revolutionary” ploy does not mean that Keynes was insincere in what he wanted to say, but only that he was impatient to say it and that he also sought to dismiss the opposition; permanently.

It is fairly clear from reading the book that Keynes is largely attacking only one author, Arthur Cecil Pigou (1877-1959), and only others economists in so far as they agree with Pigou, so he has no need for an anachronism at all to do that. But Keynes clearly wants to say it is “the classics” that he rejects –he wants a revolution in theory to render his variously differing forerunners utterly defunct. And what he says, even of Pigou, ignores many things that Pigou says, even in the main book, _The Theory of Unemployment_ (1933), that Keynes, repeatedly, cites in this 1936 book.

Pigou repeatedly mentions the term “involuntary unemployment” in that 1933 book, for example, but Keynes, repeatedly, says that none before him even thought of that concept. Many authors conclude that Keynes had not read much, owing to him saying that “the classics” did not say this, or did not say that; when they so very clearly did. My guess is that he was quite well read in economics; even though he had values that were always in complete opposition to what he saw as the anarchy that the economists, though usually unwittingly, embraced. He rightly saw that economics was largely biased against politics and state planning. Marx with the same objection,
set out to be not only a hostile critic of economics, but also a supposed revolutionary to replace the market with moneyless communism. Keynes thought that money was vital and he was content with political demand management by means of inflation. He rather hoped that most of bourgeois society would go on much as before, but with the civil servants taking the place of the capitalist class in organising savings by taxation and so dealing with the problem of investment whilst unemployment might be cured by the stimulus of extra money in demand management. His epigones, in true Tory hyperbole, claimed that he saved the market from the Marxist threat, a brutum fulmen if ever there was one, rather like the imaginary wrath of God.

In any case, inflation is not really a stimulus, no more than is alcohol, though both may feel like it, for it destroys the power of money to relate to the real economy thus, ironically, destroying effective demand overall. This is the main fault in the Keynesian outlook; its main idea is false.

The ploy worked. Almost the whole of economics adopted the results of this “solecism” after 1936. This was “the Keynesian Revolution”, though Keynes did develop new terms in the theory of demand management, though little of the substance was unknown in the 150 years before Keynes, even if it was given a modern guise. But Keynes thought his forerunners, like Malthus, were misunderstood.

Oddly, the result in the textbooks fell out of Keynes’ hands and retained a few ideas he most hated, like equilibrium, as it owed almost as much to John Hicks, and others, many of whom did not fully comprehend Keynes.

Using his “solecism” ploy, Keynes said that the classics had no idea of the possibility of mass unemployment owing to Say’s Law, itself also redefined by Keynes. He described Say’s Law as maintaining that there was nothing for the entrepreneur to do, as supply exactly created its own demand automatically rather than merely boosting general demand with the coordination problem being the task of the entrepreneur, as Say, and most others before 1936, had it. Keynes also held that David Ricardo certainly had no knowledge of trade cycles, or of mass unemployment. Every economist after 1936, or very nearly everyone, took all this as the gospel truth, which it ironically was, for the Christian gospels, also, were more concerned with the message than with the truth, and they too were mere make believe. But their adherents were sincere, or at least convinced.

An illustration of the “mind set” that resulted after 1936 is shown by Thomas Sowell in _Black Education: Myth and Tragedies (1972). Sowell had copies of Robert Heilbroner’s _The Worldly Philosophers (1953), one of the many economists who adopted most, if not all, of the Keynesian outlook, on every desk, opened where Heilbroner says that Ricardo says nothing about the trade cycle, together with Ricardo’s _Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817) opened on the page where Ricardo begins his discussion of that topic. Sowell asked the class to read a bit of both books before asking them if what Heilbroner said about Ricardo was true. To his astonishment, they all replied that what Heilbroner said was true. When Sowell, flabbergasted, asked them why, he was told, in reply, that Heilbroner would not have written so if it is was not indeed the case.

I will say a bit about the myth of “revolution” in general. The word “revolution” is today a bit of romance jargon, and Keynes realised this, but he felt a dire need to make “the classics” defunct. He saw economic theory as part of the problem, not only of mass unemployment but also of the barbaric anarchy of modern times. Keynes knew there could be no actual fresh beginning, but something like one seemed to be needed. “Revolution” is actually just empty jargon, a constituted blank, which is often imposed on an account of the facts by the historians. When the vicar finds out that a couple indulges in sex before marriage he feels he has discovered yet another instance of
sin, but the idea that it is a sin is part of his ideology rather than the facts he has discovered about the couple in question.

The jargon word “revolution” clearly has a history and it was first used by the Whigs in 1688. It was taken from geometry, and it was, back then, used in the exact opposite of how it was used in 1789 by the Romantics and as how it is still largely used today. It was used to mean a return to the beginning of the drawing of a circle, to complete the revolution, and this meant exactly the same as “reactionary”, a reaction against recent innovation and an attempted return to the status quo ante. The idea was that James II had gone one half of a revolution away from how things should be, and that they needed to go back to how things were before he reigned, back before 1685. But in 1789 in France, the idea emerged with the new meaning being more like going off on a tangent than in
completing the revolution, for it introduced the current meaning of going on to a new epoch and leaving the past completely behind. But Keynes was right to think that gradualism was the case and that no event makes for a completely new beginning. At least he got one idea right.

The GreeNazis really are on the warpath now…

…perhaps they think that time is running out before June 2010, and that they won’t be able to complete the enslavement and destruction of The West before the Gorgroid is thrown out – always assuming that he is (we can’t discount their already well-planned attempts to rig theforthcoming General Election, as I am certain they mean to do.)

But I don’t think it’s as complicated as that. It’s just that GramscoNazi revolution feeds on itself, has to go faster annd faster towards unutterably deep wickedness, and also perhaps the buggers have merely decided it’s time to take the gloves off and show us what they really think about ordinary people’s lives, desires and objects.

David Davis

Try this, about how vegetarians are appalled at Tesco recycling meat “in a green way”, and also how they are getting at what they see as yet one more “British Institution” – the Royal Mint – for using copper from Chile.

Unfair to bankers

David Davis

The State should get the hell out of Banking – and I mean literally, in the sense that it should not even issue Monies if it holds an enforced monopoly on this activity, legitimised directly by itself. I am not going so far as to say that a State should not issue a Money at all – just that others ought to be allowed to compete.

The Free Market will discover very fast whose moneys are worth something and whose are not.

The kneejerk-Daily-Wail-three-health-scares-a-week-MSM-rag-style lynching of “bankers” for our current woes, caused as they actually are by a profligate and financially-incontinent Stalinist State, ought to be exposed for what it is: fingering an easy and conspicuous small target instead of the real culprits. Shades of Hitler and the Jews under Weimar and later, come to mind.

In the 90s and early 2000s, poor old Sir Fred Goodwin was only doing what all other “successful” (in the context of the time) bankers were doing, only more aggressively. He’s Scotch after all, so we can’t blame him for his aggression in business either.

These people were responding in a logical way to what the British State Treasury was doing to its own (monopoly) money: they were “getting it away”. What would we have done in their stead? Inside the only system they knew, they were trying to turn worthless paper into (at least some) performing assets.

Boris Johnson hits out at EU regulation of London…what a surprise

David Davis

Now, look here Boris my old chum

You, as an honorary member of the Political-Enemy-Class (as you sadly are, be your heart ever yet so in the right place) have always, always known what the EU would wish to do to :-

(1) Any British industries and activities that competed directly with those of the Fourth Reich,

(2) Any others which didn’t directly, but which could give the UK any tactical advantage however small.

The first public revelation of this was when the buggers stole all our Fish, on the night that Traitor Ted signed the treaty of Rome –  he let them have it, “to overcome the last little diffculty”.

Boris, as you are reading this (I know you are, for you are at least 150% smarter than you look) you know you are currently the most powerful politician in London. you are indeed among the less-stupid politicians forcibly “bringing themselves closer to The People” today. (Poor, miserable people.)

__You__, Boris, have the power to cause London to do three things:-

(A) Secede from the UK

(B) Simultaneously withdraw London from the EU! It would happen constitutionally if you took London our of the UK anyway…

(C) Slash London taxation!

Your problems, and ours, are then over. London will become profitable again, as 100% of all EU-based financial service firms fall over themselves to relocate their head offices to it. Furthermore, you will be able to draw on the enlarged pool of (now even cheaper) labour available to London from the new-low-wage-economy of neighbouring England!

Think, just think! Think of all the English you could now easily afford to employ, at Polish wages! You’d slash English unemployment at one stroke, and Labour would never govern England again – you could FREE us! Hong Kong at the end of the M1!

You will instantly become the Hong Kong of the North Eastern Atlantic Greater-co-Prosperity-Sphere! (Which will instantly form up alongside you.

Whole valleys of Nanobot-factory-complexes in Cornwall and Brittany, anyone?

Interesting article on Centre-Right about being critical of Ministers…

if you are a Civil Servant, and how the State must now be trawling for what the security services call “Product”.

Naturally, it’s to do with the hoo-hah over MPs’  “expenses”: this tyrannoid inpersonating a dwarf-squirrel in particular:-

Sorry...not for the scam but for getting caught...

Sorry...not for the scam but for getting caught...

What to do next: how shall we make Gordon Brown’s socialism unacceptable and dangerous to espouse, and who shall we sue?

….and why, when I am editing this and other pieces online in realtime, do I keep on deleting great titles, and then I am having to replace them with saddo ones?

David Davis

I was intrigued by a spread of responses at the Coffee House to Fraser Nelson’s thingy about how Gordon Brown’s lost it.

One in particular caught my eye. You should be aware that the thesis of his posting was whether and how politicians lie. I give you an exerpt:-

Brown himself upped the ante during that BBC package yesterday, telling Nick Robinson “I always tell the truth,” and (to me) sounding uncannily like Bill Clinton saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. People who tell the truth never say “I tell the truth”. They don’t have to. It’s never in question.

The problem lies, strategically, not in whether Gordon Brown is lying about whether spending by “his” government will go up, or down, or even in “real terms” or “Sterling terms”. This now really does not matter at all. Indeed, discussions have already taken place, not just here but elsewhere, about whether prospective Prime Ministers, be they Cameron, Clegg (how can you have a british PM called “Clegg”?) Farage, Griffin or Paisley or Sutch or anybody else, ought to implicitly underwrite any Sovereign Debt taken out by this government –  including what Brown’s got to try to do from now till June 2010, or draw a line and say “no more”….

I now reproduce a passage from a commentator on that thread at Coffeehouse:-

The underlying truth behind all British politics right now is that Labour have failed – and comprehensively so. We’re broke. Kids can’t read. Crime is the worst in Europe. Unemployment is soaring. Etc. Etc. There is no good story to tell.
But Labour can’t very well base any campaign on a position of honesty then can they?
All they have left is to lie about their record and their plans. In the internet age that is no longer really an option. So Labour are out of options.
They’ve ruined the country. They deserve to be routed at the election. End of story.

The underlying truth behind all British politics right now is that Labour have failed – and comprehensively so. We’re broke. Kids can’t read. Crime is the worst in Europe. Unemployment is soaring. Etc. Etc. There is no good story to tell. But Labour can’t very well base any campaign on a position of honesty then can they?

All they have left is to lie about their record and their plans. In the internet age that is no longer really an option. So Labour are out of options.

They’ve ruined the country. They deserve to be routed at the election. End of story.

This kind of protest is all very well. But ruining an importantly productive and historically-defining part of the population of a small spaceship – out of spite totally – which is “hurtling defenceless through the Universe”, as the lefties are frequently wont to tell us [anybody remember "Only one Earth"?] ought to be wrong and punishable.

They persistently go after us and our culture and civilisation, /because/ we publicly exposed the errors and inconsistencies in their supposed neopastoralist pre-capitalist-barbarian anthology of “ideas”.

If Labour have [again] failed, kids can’t read (we all know in our hearts it is so), crime is worst and also up (we know this too from observation) then in Civil Law if some employees of a firm had deliberately done this, they’d get sued and rightly.

We can’t allow those who now happen to be, or in the [increasingly dark] future will happen to be, the inheritors and torch-bearers of socialist ideology, to get off. It ought to be made clear, by all liberal, conservative, libertarian or free-market-oriented parties, that, in the end, the enemy will not escape.

/BLAME/ /will/ be attached to whosoever at the time of our victory is caught espousing Enemy Class ideas. We can’t pursue the dead for retribution, but we can pursue the living, and we will do so. Members of the Enemy Class still standing at the time would be presented with a bill for rectifying what they have done.

Obviously details would have to be worked out in more clarity, but I can’t see a problem with statements like…

“…if what you or your forebears did has ruined our economy and “cost” “£150 billion of other people’s money” (eg private pensioners) then /you/ who happen to be here now, are liable”.


How to be a Prime Minister: this is the real thing.

UPDATE1:- NB!!! This does  __not__  mean that we don’t still look kindly upon the LPUK.

It’s just that your lot ought to take lessons in resolution and moral fibre, and knowing how and when to Do The Right Thing, before you go onto the ice properly, from The Lady. That she was a Conservative was actually a tragedy: it was a waste.

David Davis

Poor sad defeated and miserable Gordon Brown ought to have taken lessons, when he invited The Lady for tea. I found this while idly trawling:-

Daniel Hannan has got seven+ times more views in a twentieth of the time, but that does not alter the clear skill of The Lady’s perfromance on this video.

Thatcher is an Oxford chemist. This tells you something about what clever and upwardly-mobile girls from poor and/or FabiaNazically-despised backgrounds ought to be encouraged to do.

She will go down in history, which will be kinder to her than Tony Hollick is now going to be, as one of the three greatest and most important women who have ever been (so far of course.) Sorry, Tony, but you probably have some dirt about the woman!

(The leftiNazis is 1971 called her “Maggie Thatcher, milk-snatcher”. So she must have been right then….mostly we tipped the stuff down the plug-hole, while the teacher wasn’t looking – in 1950s-winters it was frozen solid anyway by the time you got it, so you wozz on a n’-hiding-to-nothing”…) (Here’s an interesting take on 1950s free milk given out by governemtns.)

Interestingly, if you wiki “milk snatcher“, you get Margaret Thatcher herself. What a surprise.

This is what wiki says:-

Education Secretary (1970–1974)

When the Conservative party under Edward Heath won the 1970 general election, Thatcher became Secretary of State for Education and Science. In her first months in office, Thatcher came to public attention as a result of the administration of Edward Heath’s decision to cut spending. She gave priority to academic needs in schools,[30] and imposed public expenditure cuts on the state education system, resulting in, against her private protests, the abolition of free milk for school-children aged seven to eleven.[31] She believed that few children would suffer if schools were charged for milk, however she agreed to give younger children a third of a pint, daily, for nutritional purposes.[31] This provoked a storm of protest from the Labour party and the press,[32] and led to the unflattering moniker “Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher”.[31] Of the experience, Thatcher later wrote in her autobiography, “I learned a valuable lesson. I had incurred the maximum of political odium for the minimum of political benefit.”[32]

She successfully resisted the introduction of library book charges. She did not volunteer spending cuts in her department, contrary to her later beliefs.[31] Her term was marked by support for several proposals for more local education authorities to close grammar schools and to adopt comprehensive secondary education. Thatcher was determined to preserve grammar schools, which prepared more students for admission to universities.[30] She abolished Labour’s commitment to comprehensive schooling, and instead left the matter to local education authorities.[30]

BNP: How seriously lefties fear other lefties. A great boon that we don’t have these problems.

David Davis

The Independent tries, flailingly and hyperglycaemically, to stop the BNP from winning, er, what?  A couple of council seats, and maybe one at Brussels. Or even not. The BNP. Oh, come on, and think of the BNP: thikn what they are, and think what they say. Thibk, after reading their stuff, how socialist they are. So! Why do British lefties fear them?

Who cares? Those of us who can read, and who therefore can analyse parties’  policy, can see that the BNP is an Old Socialist Party. It competes with the “modern” Stalinist or Hitlerite or Pol-Potian-Left, for the votes of what it thinks, still, is the “old white working class”.

The “modern” lefties, which is to say, the british Stalinists, of which there are a few too many in the £”public sector” and elsewhere, and some are in Parliament, think this class has disappeared. Not. Not quite yet. Thye have shot their semen too early, while wanting a Stalinistically-beautiful orgasm, into the **** of global-one-nation-socialism based on the AnnaBramwelliaNazi-interpretation of how things are.

Look at its policy position on the railways for example. That’s just one. “British jobs for British workers” – that’s another: what’s the diff between that and North Korea? We are no better or worse off with the BNP in power here (and there) than we were with ZanuLiebORG – but all that we could hope is that we may get a few more years of time to mitigate the worst excesses of Stalinism, ‘coz the BNP are “not very serious at all” (ask Stalin if they shoot priests. As far as I know, they still do not do so.)

Now, it does not mean that an being  [or even aspiring to be]  an old fascist-lefty, as opposed to a new one, or a “Labour Party Supporter”, or a “Liberal Democrat”, is a wrong thing to be in a liberal democracy (although actually being an old-fascist-lefty is indeed wrong objectivistically and will lead to tears, famine, death and an Extinction Boundary.) You could even be a “Conservative”, and old-fascist-leftyness – unless you have your thinking-cap about your person – cannot be far from your pledge-list.

No. The problem about the BNP is that the wrong people think it stands for the wrong things. It is  _not_  a “right-wing”, anti-government, anti-socialist party. It is a temporary repository for the votes of people (who would norlally be socialists) who have not thought things through properly, but who are rightly angry about what’s been done to them and theirs, by people whom they thought were on their side. In this respect it is precisely like Hitler’s NSDAP: it is the cradle of the franchhise of all those people who have felt let down by those whom they thought they trusted.

There is nothing that can be done about this matter for now, for the UK’s governing party has done all that it can – via its own policies – to bring about a great result for the BNP. This will be sad but I am afraid inevitable. 

We will have to Drain The Bitter Cup. For now.

This guy ought not to be sacked> I think the State should pay for everyone to have automaic gates. The bugger is only being sensible.

David Davis

Harry Djanogly (never heard of him, so he must be an eminently sensible and ordinary guy, but how can you give a job to someone called that?) is on the carpet for his gates.

In fact I have  __so__  never heard of him, that he is in fact called “Jonathan”. Sorry, man. Yo.

I think this was the most sensible use of State Money. Very sound idea and to be applauded.

We should all have some, now. Better and more safety-conscious than Duck islands. (How, oh how, could this bugger not  __see__  how utterly, utterly crass and stupid and cretinous that would look, if it came out?) 

How can we avoid sharing in the staggering humiliation that all this stuff heaps on us as a nation, in the eyes of, say, Latvians? For example? Or even Koreans? (I leave you to judge which sort.)

Speaker going at 14.30 BST (now he’s gone…sort of)

Going going gone. (Now he’s really gone…..but not for a few more weeks of troughing.)

This is what we thought about an hour ago. In the Duty-Chimpanzee Type Writers’  Hut.

Prayers answered. My oh my, how things happen quickly these days.

These mountebanks may have claimed when they didn’t need to (but what was allowed), but they’ve got more style than the new labour NKVD

David Davis

Here’s the link for what they had, for the “second homes” shown below. I can’t be arsed to type or copy-paste all the figures. Anyway, the takings by these clowns don’t appear to be worse than any other MPs’ claims, and certainly less shamelessly-vast than ZanuLieBorg.

But their houses are much more interesting, and quintessentially English –  almost like the sort I’d have loved to own, had I been luckier or more competent in my life. Oh well never mind.


When they have “left Parliament”, they can always model for the Boden Catalogue. Or Hackett.


MPs’ “expenses”: it gets worse and worse. Now, “non-existent mortgages”

David Davis

What fun it is, in these endarkening times, to watch members of The Enemy Class come a-cropper. Schadenfreude is not even in the race.

UPDATE1:- We gather he’s been kicked off the main part of the ZanuLieBorg hegelian-gravy-train.

Furthermore, what the f*** is an “agriculture minister” for (whether he is “ex” or not), in a First-World Mechanised Nation, in the 21st Century, for God’s sake, when we have GM crops, huge farming machinery, the ability to alter the Climate, pesticides, herbicides, hedges we can grub up and put back at will in five minutes, and a global market for foodstuffs?

States have no business getting involved in agriculture. This is the source of all our problems over food, such as artificially high prices, and starvation in Africa.

Mr Morley’s “non-existent mortgage” is small beer by contrast. All it shows is how much these people despise the rest of us. At least the Tories are trying to stick a finger in the dyke of politician-disrespect. We do actually deserve better politicians.

But the Tories’ ultimate strategy will founder on the libertarian view about politicians a priori, in thr 21st Century: are they strictly necessary at all?

Another nail in the coffin of Free Speech

David Davis

I will start by saying that it is very juvenile, and also flies in the face of historical fact and actually existing records created in detail by the people-Immolators Themselves, to deny that The Holocaust took place. It is a pointless and futile act, in some cases I am sure designed only to get attention.

That said, it ought not to be a crime, anywhere at all, especially in Germany and Austria for the mmost clear of Classical Liberal and liberty-relevant reasons, to deny these facts. Mountebanks, idiots, and sad people with self-constructed axes to grind, ought to be allowed to say what they believe. Perhaps even a honing of the truth and a better understanding of it will come about as a result. Also perhaps not. But the liberty to say what one thinks is paramount. Sean Gabb did a large piece on holocaust Denial a while ago, here. It already has 243 comments.

But today we learn that an Australian person has been sentenced to a period in chokey for Holocaust Denial. I can’t see the point of this, can you?

Furthermore, what is Australia, a supposedly sensible and down-to-earth country, doing behaving like that?

The way to avoid States making laws that say things like Holocaust Denial is a crime, is for there to be

(1) less powerful States, and

(2) better people.

Unfortunately, people can only become better by

(a) knowing in advance what is good and what is bad, and

(b) staying awake more.

This all presupposes that there must be such a thing as Absolute Morality, and what I guess I’d call “Objective Good” and “Objective Evil”, and so it rather cuts the ground from under the feet of

(i) Socialists,

(ii) Other forms of moral relativist.

Afterthought….about the sort of people who make Holocaust Denial a crime: AND could the MPs’-expenses fleabag-bag-of-scumbags’ stories get any better? We hope so….and we await.

Er, the vats of boiling sulphuric acid are out there and people are very angey and I don’t know why WordPress deleted the title I had which was wonderful, while I was editing the post. But I just thought all you GramscoFabiaNazis in ZanuLieBorg ought to be made to understand why you are so hated even though you are God’s Gift To ManKind or so you think, even though you are quite sure there is No God (except yourselves) and even though you know that taking our money is part of your job and destiny. There, that was almost as good, but not what I posted first.

David Davis

(The title is longer, and less good, than my first effort, but it will have to do.)

Hello, all you GramscoFabiaNaZianuLieBorgs. (Follow the  _money_  while you still can! It will come for a year, or so, but what shall you do after that? Honourably break stones in China? Or get a UB40?)

Bastards. I bet 11p, at 4-to-11-on, that 46.9% of you Nazianus don’t even know where Tibet is on a map, for f***s sake. Tibet is where you would be stonebreaking, under the carefully-scientific and watchful gaze of the Chinese People’s Army, if I had my way. You might die there, but you’d have an exciting time getting there, and living there, for a bit.

I just thought I ought to bring something to your attention. This is since so very very many of your people read us as I now know from our stats. Specially from Labourlist. You come to us, we know….. Now also we know that some emotional people over at Guido’s place are expressing sentiments about what you Fabians have been doing, are doing now, and want more to do, to this nation.

Here’s a small exerpt:-

Margy says:

May 12, 2009 at 5:56 pm

Probably because the nulabourites all thought this expenses lark was part of the job. We know how the left hate other people having money because they want it all for themselves ie poltics of envy & hate etc etc. They are just all f***ing idiots and we are bigger idiots for letting them get away it.

If this had happened 30 or 40 years ago it would have brought the govt down. Nulabour (who clearly have very little understanding of anything other than ‘taking’) can’t even apologise. I genuinely think people like Blears still don’t think they’ve done anything wrong. If she had any backbone or integrity, she would have resigned as would that piggy pink faced Margaret Moran with her 4 homes.

So called bloody socialists – their duplicity knows no bounds.



Goat says:

May 12, 2009 at 6:05 pm

I detest this government with a passion so intense it actually radiates venom and I now have no friends. Small children run screaming in the street, and I feel violently compelled to take all of the fifteen bins I now have and shove them, forcefully up the rear end of the next Labour politician who dares cross my path. I am past apoplectic and into a stage of hatred that is beyond anything that I thought even I could imagine. It has took well over a decade to get to this point.

So what do they do? They know they are hated, they know that everybody with more than two brain cells to rub together wants a chance to kick them into the long grass. But no, the bastards will hang on till the last minute so they can fuck us over one last time. They really do seem to be trying to destroy the country so that the Tories will have a shit time and they can get back in and abuse us again.

Forget piano wire and lamp posts, I want eviscerations and torture. I want to see them burned at the stake using a bucket of Thermite. I want these people tortured slowly.

And breathe…

Hoddles Waddle says:

May 12, 2009 at 6:11 pm

ditto to goats comment….phew

  • 342

gollums knob says:

May 12, 2009 at 6:51 pm

fucks sake Goat, don’t hold back – tell us how you really feel.

  • 260

Why does this affect libertarians?

It does, because the less of this kind of Enemy Classperson we have to deal with, and take stuff off and repay it to taxpayers, individually, in thousandths of a penny per person, upon our attaining executive power, the fewer acountants (who often vote socialist because they have been Eagletonianized) we will have to employ.

Here’s some more:-

Constantly Furious says:

May 12, 2009 at 4:53 pm

Yeeeeeha! As I said here: I Bloody Well Told You So

The filthy-rich Tory “Grandees” could easily afford to pay back the money, whereas the Labour “Flat-Flippers”, whose money is tied up in devalued flats and plasma TV’s, could not. A great opportunity to score points, eh?

Expect Cameron to go on the attack now: “We’ve cleaned up: why can’t they do the same?”.

Expect Brown to vanish off the face of the earth for days on end.


  • 116

Dr Nuts says:

May 12, 2009 at 5:17 pm

I don’t care if their properties are devalued – that’s their problem. They shouldn’t have misappropriated the monies in the first place.

Thieves aren’t allowed to claim clemency of ‘it’s not worth as much now’ in the court of law. There’s a simple rule – for all… give back what you shouldn’t have claimed, it should’ve come out of your pocket in the first place!

Speaker, it’s time to resign. Douglas Carswell tells it like it ought to be

David Davis

In the midst of all this Tulkasian levity, which we seem to be able to generate as is right and British about our travails, it’s time for the Scumbag-Speaker Michael Martin to do the right thing and resign. Nothing very much will change, about our Enemy Class, at least not this decade, or the next, but a point can have been made.

In time, people who feel the need to “enter Parliament” will be rather older than is now usual. Gordon Brown for examploe is much too young to know how to behave, and David Cameron is a mere boy who has done nothing whatsoever that had value as a way of givng value for reward received, before he “entered” Parliament. David Davis’s contributions are not quite so marginal, but he is still a bit young to be taken quite seriously, specially as he had a portico built onto his house.

The right people will have already completed the bulk of the great actions of their lives, in Classical liberal occupations.

They will feel no need to gain more money from the Treasury, since they will have more or less enough to do what they need, and they of course will want only to offer the benefit of their wide world experience and wisdom to those of us who know what should be done in a minimal State: a State whose function is to prepare and possibly provide only against “preventable evils”, but we outside this groupare busy, and have not the time or the resources to help it out.

These people will have the leisure time to do their Good Works by authorising monies for the building, say, of a Public Park with statues of Great Historical Figures who discovered The Universe, and the like. In it, perhaps, there will be a full-scale model Coal Mine, down which primary school children can descend on Saturdays and Sundays, for no money.

The LPUK offers hope here.

What they have done will be such as:- (in no special order)


soldiering in reality, with guns, while States or Quasi-Religious-Pre-Capitalist-Conqueror-Memes  (such as socialism and some “religions”) yet threaten humankind,

selling things that people would like to buy,

or epic Scientific Discovery, and the endowment of free and independent institutions of Learning and Philosophy.

We want, insofar as these people are prepared to give up time in the evening of their lives to help direct the small and ample resources of a State, to what we can still regard as “the common good” (even as the libertarians we are), to be able to respect them, and not to despise them for petty Wireless Tele Vision type venality about things such as money.

The Miliplanter and pot plants: what a business, eh? And a rant about leftyism and surly (I meant to type curly)-headed black-haired actors in Georgian jackets…and that’s just the men.

David Davis

First people query your expenses, which you have taken so much trouble to get to be defined as “within the rules”, and then you die.

POT PLANTS…. Jesus H Christ, you really just  __have to__  laugh at these people. The Miliplanter is clearly not serious at all.

It’s a tremendously fun hoot actually – I mean, just look at this prize piece:-

ur files also how Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, over-claimed for both his council tax and mortgage bills.

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, is revealed to have changed his official “second home” designation four times in four years.Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, spent so much on pot plants at his constituency home that his gardener questioned whether they were necessary “given [the] relatively short time you’ll be here”.

Meanwhile, as we say ‘ere, ” ‘yer-av-ta-luff”. (Also, “Icelandtalks” seems to have linked to us, somehow, I can’t tell how..but… Hi there, welcome to Gordon Brown’s world of terrorist banks. eh?)

See our earlier today piece about socialists and trough-pigging. I mean, if They-Stalinists would just stick to sex, I would not mind so much. The problem of today is that they try to shyste so much money. Money costs. Sex is free.

Sex is actually quite nice, and nobody gets killed (see Pol Pot) as any self-respecting proper Tory Toff will be able to tell these jumped-up-University-lecturers. You go out, you call in one of the cow-girl-daughters of one of your more taciturn and upright Yeoman-retainers – mind that you choose the one with pretty boobs and hips so it’s quick for you and her and nicer for you (make sure __also__ that she’s the one that won “Miss Best Bum” at the last “harvest-maid-fete”) – you shag her in the 6th upstairs-bathroom while the Lady of the Manor is instructing the Servants Below Stairs on flower-arranging, and you then just tell her to go back to her duties. Quite simple, she’s all right, you’re all right. If she has the brass-neck to produce a child, then you get it “avowed” by one of the young men who live in one of the hovels near hers, and you’re sorted. No money needs to change hands.

Expenses problem solved: there aren’t any.

Socialism, eat your heart out, you never got a system like that did you.

But Karl Marx f*****d his wife’s maid, and their son worked for the Great Northern Railway, blamelessly for many years. Michael Caine says not a lot of people know that.

Perhaps the dude Marx was a Conservative after all.

LEFTIES! D’you really think we live like that? No, I thought not. Then stop the BBC doing those awfully naff Thomas Hardy-type costume-dramas, and selling the twattish rubbish round the planet to traduce us.

Here come the bastards, again, for your money, ‘coz they have run out of the last lot they shysted.

David Davis

The Landed Underclass has spotted a move to “tax search engines”. I have to wonder how that’s going to work. It’s clearly a case, if true, of  “if it moves, tax it.” He says it came from this lot here, and the Mail here…apparently to “help the BBC”.

But…I thought the BBC had “The License fee” – no?

Here are some comments from the Mail link:-

“The government wants to give money to the BBC as it’s the one organisation that supports them and there will be an election to fight .”

#”What’s British TV got to do with Google”

“we pay enough for our broadband now, next thing will be gormless gordon putting a tax on the air we breath, but I guess MP’s will put that down on their expenses, like they do with their broadband…….”

No wonder the State wants “universal broadband”.




That’s it – lights out

David Davis

New 50% tax rate “on the rich”.

Some will go, because they can. The taxation take will be neutral at best, and he has not heard of the Laffer Curve. Or he has, and is justbeing deliberately socialist and thus wicked on purpose. (I’m sure Tony H will plangently and loftily advise that it’s been superceded by something better and more relevant, discrediting some American heroes into the bargain. Oi!!! You, Hollick, at the back there, heckling. Pay attention!)

ZanuLieBorg will pick up a couple of points in the polls, to -17%.

Brown will call an election and will win by 13 seats. Ballot boxes will have been found to have been tampered with. We will be told “move along, there’s nothing to see here”. The BBC will rejoice on election night at the perspicacity of the British People.

Enough for him, for a bit longer.

If UK “plc” was a company, all that would need to be decided is for how long to send the directors and auditors to prison.

The Enemy Class. But Prince Charles is generally right about buildings, and in that he should be heeded.

David Davis

Peter Oborne toga-rips the Enemy Class, starting with MPs and their hangers-on. Wonder when they will start actually to be called that?

Sean Gabb is the first libertarian writer, I believe, to admubrate the concept of an “Enemy Class”, and popularise the concept: this is a class of persons which hijacks and infects the body-politic of an otherwise liberal nation, to enrich itself while restricting the terms of discourse for the masses in a Gramsco-Marxian direction.

And this one is sailing dangerously close to their position, in some respects. He’s probably susceptible to their blandishments, on account of them all wanting to brown-nose him. But he  __is__  right about architecture. He should be allowed to influence what goes on here, more, and it would endear him more to most people.

…and after golf, do read Guido on the death and rebirth of Sound Money…

….and who’s doing it these days: and who’s not planning to…very interesting indeed.

David Davis

Time to sack our MPs … the more expense censorship, the faster their feet won’t touch the ground ot of the place.

….and delete their pensions….

….and Guido has this just in now….

David Davis

What a farcical situation they are generating. For themsleves to be jeered at some more, and for us to ‘avv-a’-luff.

They can then try to live on what they have trough-pigged in their fat years. We commented yesterday about how some MSM commentators, even, think these mountebanks might be allowed to live, and in what, when in London.

They’ve all got grand second homes, in which they pretend not to live, so these can be sold by them. “Jacqui” “Smith” can live in her sister’s boxroom.

In future, MPs can be little old ladies, some of whom might need to be paid some money out of Chritian charity, and retired Colonels, some of whom might not.

Gerald Warner knows what to do about politicians and their…..


Here’s a nice pdf of their 07-08 expenses. Hat tip The Last Ditch and Guido.

David Davis

And while we are about it, we could take telecooks down a peg or two as well:-

The Hour Is Late …. (and) They’re looking for a way….


David Davis

They’ll have to do it now, 

or there’ll be a great big row…

Chinese policing shows the way

for the G-20…

And quantitative easing

should be plenty.


But if the British people won’t revolt and take the bait,

why then, manufacture bomb plots in odd places, rather late!


Our England is a garden and such gardens are not made

By singing “oh how beautiful” and sitting in the shade. (I didn’t write that last couplet.)

And here’s JamieOliveOil, talking about the EU Common Agricultural Policy:-

I want one

David Davis

But I don’t have £2 million. Not even a bean.

Staggeringly pretty plane. But if I was to buy it, then….

…..shame about the tail-wheel, which spoils the line, but I can’t think how I’d get down without pranging the thing if it wasn’t there. The rear cockpit is an abomination, and will haver to go straight away: and it would be nicer proportions if the proper one was about a foot further back, and rather longer. Bit like the Tempest mk-V in fact. The rudder-fin look s a bit strange, someone has whittled it a bit. (Also I don’t go really for the gold bit around the exhaust-stacks, it’s a bit naff.)

Is Harriet Harman a concealed classical liberal after all?

While you think about that one, here’s the earth rotating:-

David Davis

The article here by Jeff Randall poses an interesting and humorous conundrum.

But I doubt that he is right: the woman is merely a particularly thick-skinned and galumphing form of leftist, sadly prodiced in rather larger quantities than were ever needed, through Keynesianly-distorted mechanisms of supply-and-demand management, and large errors in stock-control methods.

I’m a bit late with poor old nigel Farage, but here he is, ripping yet another outfall-pipe in the Prime Minister:-

Enjoy Daniel Hannan one more time, tearing another hole in Gordon Brown:-

In Gold we trust

David Davis

Here you go.

Daniel Hannan rips trousers off Gordon Brown. Tears new arshole in public. Shit happens.

Here’s what Labourlist thinks of Daniel Hannan. The comment thread is entirely anti-Labour…..

UPDATE1:-And some very bad news from the Gilts Markets. If the Government can’t sell on its debts, we are all f****d.

UPDATE2:- And this just in from Alex Singleton, about how Gordon Brown’s Attack-Apparatchik-GramscoNazis, such as Harriet Harman, whipped up the mob to attack Sir Fred Goodwin’s house, is even worse. That a person’s private property can be asaulted and trashed, by mobNazis, under the auspices and authorisation of other GoverNazis because they found the soundbytes convenient, is unacceptable, in a civilisation. Therefore, the Nazis will have to go, all of them, including Polly Toynbee, for ever, and ever, and ever, for we can’t afford to have any of these droids encumbering humanity and our destiny in the Universe.***

It will be too expensive to keep Nazis on this earth in the meantime, and the Universe is a dangerous and morally-neutral place. Full of flying rocks, ice, supernovae and other fell objects, none of which have our interests at heart neutrally or otherwise, and we have about 50 million years, only, to find out how to comprehend The Face Of God, and see It,  and Understand His Mind. And get off, to somewhere else (global warming, but not yet as we think we know it.)

(That is part of The Test. To see if we can do it in time. University challenge was only the beginning. Eat your heart out Man U.)

Other matters:-

If Daniel Hannan disappears, I will put him up here.

And I see The Devil got it down too. But I think we beat him by some minutes….p’raps we get pu earlier in the North.

Sorry, I did mean, really, to type “up”. Perhaps we poo earlier too: I do not know.

Here’s James Burdett on Daniel.

*** Perhaps that’s how Evil works: life arises, gets going for a bit, gets “highly organised and highly-evolved”, then – socialism steps in, and it all coems to a sad, planetary-death-type end, before anyone can get off to The Stars.

No Capitalism without Capital


The Kevin Dowd lecture on free banking | Samizdata.net

Sean Gabb

The Kevin Dowd lecture on free banking | Samizdata.net

The Kevin Dowd lecture on free banking

Johnathan Pearce (London) Globalization/economics

As promised, I have some thoughts following on from the talk given by Kevin Dowd, a professor at the Nottingham University Business School and a noted advocate of what is called “free banking”. He gave his talk at the annual Chris R. Tame Memorial Lecture as hosted by the Libertarian Alliance. (The LA was founded by Mr Tame, who died three years ago at a distressingly young age after losing a battle against cancer.)

Professor Dowd covered some territory that is already pretty well-trodden ground for Samizdata’s regular readers, so I will skim over the part of the lecture that focused on the damage done by unwisely loose monetary policy of state organisations such as central banks, or the moral-hazard engines of tax bailouts for banks.

Instead, I want to focus on those aspects of Professor Dowd’s talk in which he tried to sketch out what a laissez faire, free market banking system would actually look like. This is essential; a great deal of commentary so far – while it is very good – has mainly focused on how we got into this fix and why the fixes being attempted by Western governments are proving so stupid. As PJ Rourke said recently, the attempt by the Obama administration to flood the market with cheap money as a “solution” is a bit like the case of when your Dad has burned the dinner, so you ask the dog to cook it instead. No, what Professor Dowd did this week was lay out three broad areas for reform.

Firstly, he says we should remove many of the existing regulations, government-mandated deposit protection schemes, bank capital adequacy rules and other restrictions on what banks can do and how they work. For example, government support for depositors – who are also effectively creditors to their banks – means that there is a moral hazard problem; the banks have less incentive than they would otherwise have to act prudently if there is always the government, acting like a sort of 7th Cavalry, able to ride to the rescue. That has to go. Professor Dowd also wants to hack away at the morass of rules and regulations that violate client/banker confidentiality, or those rules that force banks to lend to people, as is the case in the US, where banks are forced to lend to certain groups or else violate laws about racial discrimination, etc.

Secondly, Professor Dowd addresses the issue of letting banks fail. At the present, policymakers adopt a sort of “too big to fail” doctrine; this doctrine, while not explicitly laid down in any form of statute or operating manual – as far as I know – is a rule that says that some institutions are so large, and the attendant systemic risks posed by their failure so catastrophic, that they should not be allowed to go out of business. The problem of course is that this rule of thumb is often arbitrary and subject to political horse-trading. To wit: the US government’s decision to let Lehman Brothers go down last September, followed shortly by the $85 billion bailout for AIG, showed a total lack of clear message to the markets, and to bankers, one way or the other.

Professor Dowd believes that banks should be allowed to fail and furthermore, if modern limited liability laws were weakened or abolished completely, then such massive conglomerates would be economically and legally unsustainable in the first place.

As a result, banks would probably be smaller, and there would be a lot more of them, so the failure of any individual bank, while unpleasant for some, would not wreck the system as could happen if a mega-bank goes wrong. Also, instead of wide-ranging and hideously expensive bailouts, Professor Dowd favours putting banks into administration, writing down, in full, the value of their loan books, and getting depositors to exchange their status as creditors for that of an equity holder.

This “debt for equity swap” arrangement, while it would anger depositors who lose money, would come with the promise, and hopefully the reality, of a rise in the capital value of their equity stake in a bank if confidence returns to a more robust banking sector, as the debt/equity swap recapitalisation is designed to achieve. And of course banks are entirely free, as are their clients, to take out deposit insurance in a commercial market.

The third leg of his solution is broader, and more long-term, although there are some immediate measures that could be taken. Professor Dowd is against fiat money – money not backed by actual commodities or real assets of any kind – and in moving to a commodity-based/asset-based system. He is not, by the way, necessarily arguing for the gold standard or some gold-based system, although he points out that in the 200 years up to the First World War, the UK enjoyed a remarkable period of stable prices, with the odd blip. What he is arguing, however, is that the message on a banknote that says “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X” should be an enforceable legal contract, not what amounts to the jeering joke that it now is.

In the subsequent Q&A session afterwards, one person made the excellent point that a simple reform would be to ban legal tender laws. Such laws currently require a person to accept as legal tender a currency that the state has mandated for a particular region. Instead, if a person wants to refuse to accept sterling and only wants to accept dollars, euros or Swiss francs instead, he can do so. He can also choose to trade in whatever medium of exchange he wants, and with whoever wants to accept it.

Inevitable questions arise. First of all, in thinking about free banking, private monetary systems and the like, the first objection will be is that this will be very messy; there has been no real experience of such monetary systems in the past, etc.

But this is incorrect. Free banking, as defined by Professor Dowd, in fact operated in Scotland, for example, up until legal changes in 1845. South of the River Tweed, the English system had operated under what amounted to state-controlled banking under the Bank of England, set up in 1692. In the 18th and 19th centuries, England saw a number of booms and recessions, such as the 1840s railway boom and the downturn of 1870s. One should remember that the BoE was established by the-then post-Glorious Revolution government as a way to raise money for wars without having to keep asking a fractious public for taxes, and without having to borrow at expensive rates in the money markets. N.A.M. Roger has explained this issue of financing for naval warfare brilliantly. Indeed, it reminds us that state monopoly money systems typically arose in order to finance wars, while the welfarist aspects came later.

There are also current, not just old, examples of banks that operate with unlimited liability partnership structures – Pictet, the Swiss bank, and Lombard Odier, are just two examples. There are dozens of such banks using these structures in Switzerland and by no coincidence; they have avoided the worst of the credit crunch. These banks are typically for the rich but it seems to me that there is no logical reason why such an approach could not be used more widely. So there are different ways of doing banking right now. And do not forget the humble UK mutual building society: they have their limitations, but as a business model they had a lot to recommend them.

Another objection might be that the debt-for-equity swap way of restructuring failed banks under bankruptcy protection laws would be politically unfeasible, since depositors would be hit. I understand that, but Professor Dowd is not trying to imagine what sort of reforms would appeal to David Cameron, say, but what sort of reforms would be workable. That is a rather massive difference, as I am sure readers will agree.

Another objection is that “real money”, as opposed to the state-arranged fiction that we have now, cannot work for as long as governments take such a large slice of GDP. That is probably correct. One of the reasons why so many advocates of Big Government regard “gold bugs” or free bankers as dangerous nutters is that they realise their welfare states would be unworkable under such monetary arrangements. The Ponzi schemes of most welfare states would not be able to function. Even so, as long as governments retain the ability to tax, they have the ability to raise debt in the financial markets in the knowledge that their collateral can be collected at the point of a gun. But a real-money system still hampers such activity considerably.

In the longest run, the best hope of avoiding such financial disasters in the future is to wean the public and policymakers off the seductive delusion that one can create wealth by turning on a printing press. Sooner or later, if you try to fake reality, it bites you hard in the arse. Of course, it is a mark of the kind of man Professor Dowd is that he is too polite to put it as bluntly as that.

I await comments!


It sounds all very interesting and I really wish now I had been there as the other event I was at did not afford me the opportunity I had hoped to grab my local Oxfordshire MPs and try and sell them my idea for a “Bank of Oxfordshire” using, believe it or not, partnerships and asset based scrip.

I particularly like his ideas about what to do now, practically speaking, because I guess I always focus on the “hereafter” policies of competitive currencies and so on which are probably still a bit far up the Overton window for most peoples’ comfort.

There was an interesting piece about C Hoare & Co in one of yesterday’s newspapers just so people recall that there is at least one UK based bank on an unlimited liability model.

Was any mention made of Gesell, WIR Bank and similar alternative structures that often started up in the Depression and some of which, such as WIR, are still going from strength to strength?

Posted by Jock at March 19, 2009 02:05 PM

Firstly thank you for organising an enjoyable evening and thought provoking talk.

One additional area that will be critical to moving in the direction of free banking is reform of the insolvency laws and procedures. However desirable it may be to put a bank into an enforced reconstruction the law, particularly in England, makes it impossible to complete in a realistic time scale. The timescale for advertising ceditor claims, the lack of sufficient powers of an administrator to cut a deal amongst creditors and make it stick without protracted legal action, and the absence of any legal recognition (in statute or precedence) of priority for the counterparties of many of the new financial instruments mean that any administration process under current law would take months or probably years to resolve. A bank will go under if the uncertainty lasts more than a few days.

Sorting out the legislation and enforcing the current competiton rule to break up the major banks into more managable units will be preconditions of Prof Dowd’s approach.

A further and slightly off topic thought. The Sarbanes-Oxley laws in the US require CEO’s and CFO’s of companies, including banks and other financial institutions, to sign declarations that their organisation has fully effective internal controls, the records are complete and accurate, and that the financial statements can be relied upon. Clearly these representation for AIG, Citibank and other were patently false. Why are there no CEOs and CFOs in handcuffs awaiting trial??

Posted by RobertD at March 19, 2009 02:16 PM

It certainly appears to have been an excellent talk; I look forward to seeing a video of it.

Johnathan’s summary mentions two points which I think could be implemented fairly quickly and do much to improve on the current system: repeal of “legal tender” laws and elimination of deposit insurance. The former is fairly straightforward and explained in the article. The second bears more discussion.

Deposit insurance (in the US, anyway) is an artifact of the Great Depression, installed to prevent catastrophic “runs” on banks, sometimes sparked by mere rumor. It was (and is) a legitimate concern, and while the problem is exacerbated by a fractional reserve system (as I’m sure Paul will interject here at some point), it would also be a problem even without fractional reserve lending. The US’s solution was to create a new federal agency (the FDIC) to run the insurance fund, and (not coincidentally) directly regulate most banks. Therein lies the flaw.

The FDIC is staffed by government bureaucrats with no personal economic stake in the game. They are, by and large, decent and well-meaning people, but they aren’t the “best and brightest” (such people don’t work for bureaucracies) and they are hampered by hidebound rules and a lumbering, ineffecient and inflexible system. Insurance “premiums” are not established on any actuarial basis, but are essentially identical for all banks, however well or badly managed [1], and setting the rate is quite politicized. The proper response should be to use private deposit insurance.

With private deposit insurance, banks could shop around for insurance companies with the best rates and service. The insurance companies themselves would more accurately and carefully assess “risk” than it would ever be possible for the government to do, and would price accordingly. They would set capital levels which make sense given the specific nature of the bank’s business (rather than one-size-fits-all rules), assess the true value of its assets and liabilities (including, where appropriate, off-balance-sheet contingent liabilities), and in general do a better job of assessing the because it is their (and their shareholders’) money which is at risk. If the FDIC misprices, the insurance fund gets depleted and they go to the government for more money. If a private insurance company misprices, its capital gets depleted and shareholders replace the management. Competition among insurance companies would keep any from becoming unduly risk-averse in their regulations or expensive in their pricing. It’s a true free-market solution, and would work.

[1] There has been a move in recent years to incorporate some sort of “risk-adjusted” element to the premiums, but if this has actually been implemented (I’m not sure about that) the differential was essentially nominal.

Posted by Laird at March 19, 2009 04:28 PM

RobertD, you make a good point about the speed of administration process under existing English law. Prof. Dowd made the point that the debt-for-equity swap and recapitalisation of a bank would have to be done very fast, over a weekend. A long delay would be a disaster, in particular, because of the need for businesses etc to make payments and handle invoices, etc.

Laird, thanks for the detail on the insurance angle.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 19, 2009 05:01 PM

I am delighted to see articles like this posted on Samizdata Jonathan – excellent, more in this vein as and when you can please.

Posted by mike at March 19, 2009 05:19 PM

This is the problem I see with insurance: How can an actuarial table be constructed?

Do bank failures follow a known statistical pattern? Clearly not.

I wouldn’t believe any private agency offering deposit insurance. Gold reserves are all that can be believed. At least until an actuarial table can be constructed.

Posted by Current at March 19, 2009 05:23 PM

Two questions:

1. As Laird pointed out above, the bank guarantees were specifically made to avoid panics, wouldn’t the removal of these guarantees necessarily cause panics? With the advent of instantaneous communication available to even the stupidest among us, wouldn’t ‘runs on the bank’ become a regular event?

2. Fiat money v. asset backed currency -
With fiat money there is a good deal of leverage that is not possible with the asset backed. This seems to imply that under a asset backed regime the economy would be significantly less dynamic one, and growth could be curtailed. Yes, a blessing in the possible smoother booms and busts, but it would seem a curse in reducing growth, productivity.

Looking at the historical rates of inflation / deflation it really appears that prior to the 1930′s, this cycle was much more dynamic than after: (UK) Consumer Price Inflation Since 1750(Link)
I realize this study is a reconstruction and I have no way of evaluating the methodologies but it seems relevant.

Posted by Will Anjin at March 19, 2009 07:26 PM

This isn’t life insurance; there are no “actuarial tables”. That doesn’t mean that the risks can’t be rationally assessed. How do you think an insurance company insures any one-time event? Lloyd’s has known how to do this for centuries (even if they’ve fallen off course a bit lately). [I need help here from someone with better knowledge than mine about probability; is this a Bayesian analysis?]

Moreover, the real point isn’t whether there is going to be deposit insurance; that’s a given, after the experiences of the Great Depression. The only question is who provides it, and at what cost? I submit that government is the least qualified entity to do so, for a variety of reasons (some noted in my previous post). In a truly free market each bank would decide whether to offer it or not and the market would reward or punish that decision, but even in a regulated environment the government could simply mandate that banks carry some minimal level of deposit insurance as a condition to maintaining their charter. Banks could choose to carry more than the minimum amount, and again the market would determine whether or not that was a wise decision, but it’s still a market solution. (Probably a market would develop for banks with different insurance levels: minimal for those with relatively small balances wanting cheap banking services, higher for those with more money who are willing to pay a bit more for peace of mind. Let the market sort it out.)

Posted by Laird at March 19, 2009 07:36 PM

The Anglosphere still harbours good writers.

David Davis

I have this before me, hitted up for us by Samizdata a minute or two ago:-

“Let’s End the Misery”
The undiplomatic diplomat.

This is the text of an e-mail sent out last week from Britian’s ambassador to Poland, Charles Crawford.


This Budget thing is already dragging on too long. So here is a draft speech for the Foreign Sec or PM to use next week to bring it to a rapid and successful conclusion:

“OK, partners, here is my Budget final offer (Puts a large naff kiddies alarm clock on the table).

We all know that the hypocrisy and absurdity of this process are passing any reasonable limit.

I am being asked to give more UK taxpayers money to an EU which for years can not produce properly audited accounts. Mon ami Jacques with the support of most of you is nagging me to give the EU more money while the refusing to surrender an inch or even a centimetre on the CAP – a programme which uses inefficient transfers of taxpayers money to bloat rich French landowners and so pump up food prices in Europe, thereby creating poverty in Africa, which we then fail to solve through inefficient but expensive aid programmes. The most stupid, immoral state-subsidised policy in human history, give or take Communism.

As for the new member states, we like you so much that we are proposing in the Budget a huge new transfer of funds to you on a scale which will give your people the greatest boost in 1000 years. I will be attacked by my scary new teenage Tory opposition for building roads and hospitals in Poland and Hungary, rather than in poor areas of the UK. We – unlike most other old EU MS sitting here – have opened our labour markets. HMG have created more jobs for Poles in the past year than the Polish Government. Yet not one of you nor a single newspaper in any of your capitals has expressed a single word of gratitude or appreciation for the UK position in all this. So much for solidarity.

Shame on you all. Enough is enough.

In a moment I will press the button on this vulgar clock, made cheaply and well in China. It will ring loudly in exactly an hour’s time.

At that point I will ask everyone round the table whether they accept our current offer. Yes, or No.

If anyone says No, we end the meeting. The EU will move on to a complete mess of annual budgets. Basically suits us – we’ll pay less, and the rebate stays 100% intact. My ratings will go up.

However, despite the rudeness and ingratitude of the new member states as expressed here today, we in London do want to help them So if the Budget deal does end in an hour’s time, we will take action alone.

I have here with me a draft press release which says the following:

Following the failure of the EU Budget talks today because most EU member states refused to accept a generous, innovative new budget proposed by HMG, the UK Gov announces that it is going to set aside a good chunk of the money it was prepared effectively to deduct from its rebate under the current proposals, 5 billion pounds, to set up a new Strategic European Development Fund – the Mother of All Know How Funds, but on steroids.

This Fund will be accessible for those of the V4 plus Balts who agree to join its programme – if they all feel too humiliated by our lack of EU solidarity to join, that’s great – we’ll keep the money for ourselves. If only some of them join, that’s great too- those who do will get proportionately more.

The Fund will cut out all the bollocky EU bureaucracy which comes with the current spending round, which means that for every pound we pay into the EU pot for Structural Funds for new MS about a [make up a suitable percentage] goes in sticky transaction costs, local and Brussels corruption, overhead and other rubbish, and so does not benefit the intended recipients.

The Fund will go for any sensible strategic development idea that comes along, with emphasis on R&D and Innovation, plus reform of the region’s abysmal legal systems, the main Communist – era legacy problem in Europe. But if you want to build some new roads, that’s OK too.

The Fund will be managed according to state of the art transparency and efficiency:

 Internet procurement

 90% money spent to require matching private sector funds, so as to encourage new private investment on a vast scale

 top-level auditing

 explicit buy-in by recipient governments to compensate the fund on a ‘triple damages’ basis for any losses proved by independent auditors to be due to official local corruption, and to prosecute the people concerned

 up-front urgent action by recipient partner governments to set up their own streamlined procedures and new laws to allow this money to be spent fast

 oversight by independent all-party experts and bankers/business leaders in each country to ensure scrupulous honesty and agree national priorities

 hard targets set for spending with regular public updates

 hundreds of short-term fellowships to enable the brightest and best from these countries to see EU best practice in action in the UK

 [Aside: PM Marcinkiewicz: you asked me recently to help with ELT in Polish schools - spend 100 million of the Fund on this, so that every kid learns English, plus save money by shutting down French and German language classes!]

 and so on

This Fund mean that the UK’s money goes much further, much faster and much more efficiently into the regions concerned than it possibly could under any EU programme.

Five billion pounds spent this way equals far more than 10 billion spent through the EU, by building in good incentives at every level to encourage openness, free enterprise, creativity and honesty.

The Fund will give the UK and British expertise and the English language together a dominant economic, political and intellectual position in the most dynamic region of Europe for decades to come, forcing legal and business reform on a huge scale according to the purest Anglo-Saxon principles.

And it will be incredibly popular in the countries concerned, since it will force the region’s governments sitting shiftily round this table to be far more honest and accountable than they are at the moment.

More! The roaring success of the Fund will set in motion the accelerating downsizing of all EU-level spending and a fundamental rethink of global aid philosophy. UK voters and voters all across the EU will love it because it spends their money well, plus highlights the wastefulness of what the EU is doing at the moment and cuts out completely the blathering European Parliament. Wider public pressure for reforms along UK lines will become irresistible.

Basically, a terrific deal for the UK, for the modern European ideal of well-coordinated light-touch integration, and for the populations of the countries concerned.

End of draft press release.

We nonetheless remain willing to sacrifice all that in the interests of discredited, inefficient, socialistic, EU ‘solidarity’ – if that is what you really all prefer – to sign up for the latest offer for the Budget which is on the table.

Over to you, mes chers amis!

(Presses button on alarm clock. Silence. Broken only by loud ticking)

I have a suitable alarm clock if that helps.


Charles Crawford
HMA Warsaw

Obama Dollar Sterling money banking crisis credit crunch: Kevin Dowd gives Chris Tame memorial lecture 17th Mar 09: Libertarian View of the Financial Collapse

Sean Gabb

This is the Second Chris R. Tame  Memorial Lecture. It was given at the National Liberal Club in London on the 17th March 2009, and sets out a libertarian response to the financial crises of the past year. A full text of the speech will be published in the next week or so. In the meantime, here is the video. A better quality video file on DVD is available  on request from Sean Gabb <sean@libertarian.co.uk>for £5.

The Cautionary Revelation (added)

David Davis

Go here. Good fun. Specially the front post today.

Death and statism

UPDATE:- And Gordon Brown wants  _YOUR_  body ….

David Davis

Mummylonglegs wanted me to draw this to your attention here , so I did. But I’m not really quite sure what a  very sad but otherwise private family tragedy has to do with the enormous titanic battle against statism…. (what is the connection, mummy?)….the other thing, which mummy has perhaps not picked up on, is the way certain MSM highlight the value of the house of the subject of their article…like this:  “… less than 50 yards from their £550,000 detached lakeside home.”    I am very sorry for the poor woman and her child, and the scenario clearly indicates that neither of them could take something any more that was tormenting their lives: but what it is, and how it impinges on what we do here, sort of escapes me. (Sorry, mummy, have I missed something?)

The value of their now-empty home seems to have even less relevance, except perhaps to the celebrity-worshipping Big-Brother generation of slairs and wannabe-moochers, created by ZanuLieBorg.

However, this article by mummy, on the matter of how the “authorities” may now go about identifying terrorists by some sort of “profiling”, chimes in with Bishop Hill’s notions of a few days ago. We all ought to watch out for ourselves more.

Of course, we know really now, that anybody who does not absolutely buy into ZanuLieBorg is a “terrorist”.

The “war on terror” is an artificial construct of GramscoFabiaNazis, mostly here in the UK . They-bastards are here, because this is the country that taught the GFNs’ targetted-helots The Way To The Door Out Of Hell. it taught them also What To Say (like f*** off, or, as an old Oxford chum put it once to me, “concerted advice about combining foreign travel with procreation”) to Stalinists and other minor Gramscians like Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, that African guy Castro? Che? (or guys?) whose name (names?) I can’t recall, etc.

Bonkers? Nah, Brown is doing it deliberately.

UPDATE:- this is what we said almost a year ago.

David Davis

It says over at Guido Fawkes’s place that Gordon Brown is in a state of delusional denial about the economic shambles he has created for us. I don’t agree, although of course I don’t know the fellow and haven’t ever met him.

The only occamist conclusion to be drawn is that he deliberately spent the thick end of £5 trillion on a clientariat state, to ensure the right number of ZanuLieBorg terms so he could finally get into No-10. This was all while knowing it to be unsustainable for more than a few years (or until the Markets noticed.)

No skin off his nose or even many of the Blair Babes and their mates: their pensions would be safe (they ensured that by force of law) while he had confiscatorily-taxed  and spent ours and we have to slave till we die. They know they’re going down: it’s only the naïve, younger ones who think they ought to care about seats and careers.