Charles Moore: "I'm starting to think that the Left might actually be right"

loldog

I thought it was quite significant that Charles Moore, editor of the Daily Telegraph would write a column like this.

The Telegraph has always been the bastion of conservative Tory thinking and Charles Moore a huge Thatcher fanboy.

So, is this an indication of a future shift away from free market Chicago school ideology in the UK, possibly the US too?

To quote from the article:

One thing that is different is that people in general have lost faith in the free-market, Western, democratic order. They have not yet, thank God, transferred their faith, as they did in the 1930s, to totalitarianism. They merely feel gloomy and suspicious.

Anyway, I thought it was significant and if Charles Moore can be thinking like this, who else must be? Maybe people are getting tired of competing and want to try co-operating?

Capitalism seems to have us all at each other's throats when perhaps we might be making better, happier lives for ourselves by working together for a common purpose?

.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Good article.

Free market ideals and even the Chicago School seem fine on paper but never actually work in the real world. As seen they both result in a small minority accumulating all the wealth and power.

loldog

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Okay. So this is how the sub-prime mortgage crisis came about? I had thought it was lack of state intervention that led to the US housing crash.

.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is a critique of the human reality of the free market, not the ideological fiction that is, incredibly, still idealized today.

The idea that a market could be 'free' - of corruption, of intervention, of unfair practices - runs completely counter to the known behavior of human beings, and in particular organized interests in liberal democracies. A totally free market could never truly work unless there was no mechanism for political/economic interest groups to try to use the levers of government to tilt the market in their direction, and if that were the case, we would no longer be living in a free society. To blame 'powerful interventionist government' is to ignore the fact that organized interests drive politics in free societies (and not so free societies); the actual size of government has little to do with this dynamic.

The issue then is not necessarily less government - that does not address the issue of interests, and never has. The bigger question is, how does government balance competing interests in a free and open society?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is a happy medium between a highly atomized individualistic society and a collectivized totalitarian state. Thinking critically about the greater good and some kind of common social purpose does not automatically lead to the road to serfdom. On the contrary, attempting to build some kind of national consensus on the direction of the country is a positive thing, and I hope it will be a key component of the 2012 presidential election campaigns in the US.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Perhaps he worries that's it's impossible to avoid an interventionist Government given human nature or similar.

RichieC

20Cent wrote: »

Good article.

Free market ideals and even the Chicago School seem fine on paper but never actually work in the real world. As seen they both result in a small minority accumulating all the wealth and power.

in other words it works

CrystalLettuce

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problem with thought like this is that a true libertarian system would be even worse. There is no guarantee the economy will manage itself correctly - Libertarians have this near mystical belief in the "invisible hand". You will still see for example high health insurance premiums, commericalism and general pap in popular art(music & movies) etc., most of the major issues with capitalism. The fact that they occur under the current regulated/manipulated capitalism doesn't mean they are ruled out from pure capitalism.

SeanW

20Cent wrote: »

Free market ideals and even the Chicago School seem fine on paper but never actually work in the real world. As seen they both result in a small minority accumulating all the wealth and power.

Again, you're confusing free markets and capitalism with interventionism and crony capitalism.

loldog wrote: »

Okay. So this is how the sub-prime mortgage crisis came about? I had thought it was lack of state intervention that led to the US housing crash.

The government set a policy of encouraging home construction and ownership. Government passed laws like the Community Reinvestment act. Government mandated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get massively involved in the housing market. Government, via the Federal Reserve, printed piles of money to keep interest rates low. Government gave banks an implicit guarantee that they would be bailed out if they failed which became explicit (causing them a moral hazard) and was extended to trading houses like AIG and Goldman Sachs.

But somehow free markets and capitalism keep getting the blame :rolleyes:
Ah well, why let the facts get in the way of a good authoritarian rant? right? :eek:

nesf wrote: »

Perhaps he worries that's it's impossible to avoid an interventionist Government given human nature or similar.

It is. You put SEVERE constraints on what government can do.

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

It is. You put SEVERE constraints on what government can do.

We don't seem particularly good at that really. Christ look at how close we were to giving politicians judicial powers ffs!

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

Government mandated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get massively involved in the housing market.

This is a popular soundbite, but it's really not true. As always, I find myself recommending the book "All The Devils Are Here" for an extremely in-depth analysis of all the causes of the financial crisis.

Freddie and Fannie are far from blameless in the crisis, but they were very, very late to the subprime game, which had become a lethal bubble long before the GSEs got into the act.

matthew8

nesf wrote: »

We don't seem particularly good at that really. Christ look at how close we were to giving politicians judicial powers ffs!

Well a lot of that, you'd have to admit, is because libertarians weren't in power. We need a new constitution that constrains the power of government rather than expanding it, and this time we shouldn't ask a catholic bishop for advice on it.

AhSureTisGrand

nesf wrote: »

We don't seem particularly good at that really. Christ look at how close we were to giving politicians judicial powers ffs!

It's not that we're bad at it, it's just a lot of people don't care much about having a constitutionally limited government

nesf

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

It's not that we're bad at it, it's just a lot of people don't care much about having a constitutionally limited government

Yeah I would class such people as being very ignorant of history and what happens without a balance of powers.

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Slavoj Žižek, has said something very funny about this argument.

That it's the same argument used by east European communists in the late 80s, early 90s in light of the fall of communism.

That they weren't pure enough in their application of communism. If only they'd done this, if only they did that...... And that there was nothing wrong with their scientific system.

Permabear, you're like one of those old communists who won't face up to the failure or their ideology and their beloved system. Face it. It's over. Into the rubbish bin of history it goes......Comrade.


As for Milton Friedman... I'd say union busting and other labour regulations (or the removal of) where pretty interventionist. One the most bogus aspects of laissez faire, is the silly idea that omission is not equivalent to commission. Like believing that if you're having sex with a mistress, if you don't tell your wife anything, you're not being dishonest, because you haven't in actuality lied to her. Or to put it more precisely: the belief their is a moral neutrality, or any kind of neutrality, to doing nothing. When there isn't.

southsiderosie

matthew8 wrote: »

Question: Name me a country with a flat tax of below 10%, light touch regulation, legalised drugs and a minimal military, or even a country that had those in the last 50 years.

None because that would be idiotic, particularly the low tax rate and the minimal military. At a bare minimum, states need to maintain some kind of minimum defense and infrastructure apparatus. What you describe would hobble a modern (hell, even a backwards) state to the point where it would be vulnerable to any neighbors with ill-intent, or for that matter, powerful, internal non-state actors with ill-intent. A state with a meagre tax base and little ability to defend itself is asking for trouble.

AhSureTisGrand

southsiderosie wrote: »

None because that would be idiotic, particularly the low tax rate and the minimal military. At a bare minimum, states need to maintain some kind of minimum defense and infrastructure apparatus. What you describe would hobble a modern (hell, even a backwards) state to the point where it would be vulnerable to any neighbors with ill-intent, or for that matter, powerful, internal non-state actors with ill-intent. A state with a meagre tax base and little ability to defend itself is asking for trouble.

:rolleyes:

Also we seem to be doing okay with our minimal military (I certainly don't see any Vikings around)

matthew8

southsiderosie wrote: »

None because that would be idiotic, particularly the low tax rate and the minimal military. At a bare minimum, states need to maintain some kind of minimum defense and infrastructure apparatus. What you describe would hobble a modern (hell, even a backwards) state to the point where it would be vulnerable to any neighbors with ill-intent, or for that matter, powerful, internal non-state actors with ill-intent. A state with a meagre tax base and little ability to defend itself is asking for trouble.

I know you're opinion on whether a state like that would work, but can we agree that there hasn't been a state like that for a long, long time, if at all?

southsiderosie

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Also we seem to be doing okay with our minimal military (I certainly don't see any Vikings around)

Because Ireland, like most small European states, free-rides off of benefits from the US military umbrella and NATO. If the country were invaded tomorrow, you'd be ****ed.

krd

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because Ireland, like most small European states, free-rides off of benefits from the US military umbrella and NATO. If the country were invaded tomorrow, you'd be ****ed.

No, we'd just switch to what we're good at: terrorism.

Road side bombs, improvised explosive devices, mayhem etc.


Even the mighty US is no match for terrorism. How many wars have they lost to small bands of merry men in the last 10 years?

Ran out of Iraq, about to be ran out of Afhghanistan.

Military umbrella ?

krd

matthew8 wrote: »

Even Noam Chomsky admits that the current system doesn't resemble capitalism..

I don't think you understand what capitalism is. Most people do not. They assume it means all kinds of things it doesn't. The Soviet Union was a capitalist country (state centred capitalism) - the actual functioning of the Union was closer to the system we have here, than many people would be comfortable admitting. And it's not that our system has been corrupted by some back door communism. It's actually a purer form of capitalism. A scientific variety.

Economics, as taught, has been dominated exclusively by one form for the last 30, close to 40 years. It's something Nicohlas Nasseem Taleb calls Soviet-Harvard economics. It's essentially the same kind of thinking as drove the Soviet Union. But it's nothing to do with socialism and brotherly love. It is to do with people thinking they're a lot cleverer than they actually are.

What is it with statists accusing the people least like communists of communism?

Because of their belief in Soviet-Harvard economics.

You also seem to be saying that we have had libertarianism and it failed. Question: Name me a country with a flat tax of below 10%, light touch regulation, legalised drugs and a minimal military, or even a country that had those in the last 50 years

One country? How about the Congo. That's been through a few libertarian patches in the last few decades. In fact, many third world basketcase have had belly fulls of libertarian systems.

Many parts of Africa are very libertarian. Places with little to no tax, because there's nothing to collect. No services, no roads, all the dope you can smoke. In places like Niger, they're so libertarian you can keep slaves - and it's not like you have to chain them up - they have nowhere to go - there's sweet FA economic infrastructure. The pitch is completely tilted in favour of whoever has wealth, and you have to accept their terms for economic interaction - which comes down to a plate of corn meal porridge or nothing.

Niger, would likely be the best example of a libertarian society. Go out in the desert and you can live as you chose. And there will be plenty of desperate people around you to exploit - To show you are a triumph of nature.

But don't expect, running water, schools, internet connections, hospitals, don't expect anything really. It's a system that can't produce any kind of decent or livable society.

AhSureTisGrand

krd wrote: »

In places like Niger, they're so libertarian you can keep slaves

You are a funny man.

southsiderosie

krd wrote: »

Many parts of Africa are very libertarian. Places with little to no tax, because there's nothing to collect. No services, no roads, all the dope you can smoke. In places like Niger, they're so libertarian you can keep slaves - and it's not like you have to chain them up - they have nowhere to go - there's sweet FA economic infrastructure. The pitch is completely tilted in favour of whoever has wealth, and you have to accept their terms for economic interaction - which comes down to a plate of corn meal porridge or nothing.

Niger, would likely be the best example of a libertarian society. Go out in the desert and you can live as you chose. And there will be plenty of desperate people around you to exploit - To show you are a triumph of nature.

But don't expect, running water, schools, internet connections, hospitals, don't expect anything really. It's a system that can't produce any kind of decent or livable society.

There is a difference between being libertarian as a policy choice, and having no state capacity to collect taxes and enforce regulation. Most of these states have legions of ridiculous colonial-era legislation, but the state has no capacity to enforce the law.

krd

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is a difference between being libertarian as a policy choice, and having no state capacity to collect taxes and enforce regulation. Most of these states have legions of ridiculous colonial-era legislation, but the state has no capacity to enforce the law.

If there is no capacity to enforce the law, there is no law.

And those legions of ridiculous colonial-era laws can vanish into thin air - as long as you know who to pay.

One of the worst versions of the Nigerian 419 scam, is to entice someone (a foolish wealthy person) out to Nigeria. Then once they're out there, the "authorities" slam the cuffs on them - after all they're engaging in a 419, reams of documentation that could look really bad. Like why are you in Nigeria trying to cart out millions of government money- Next thing they find their facing a ream of serious charges, and they have to get themselves a lawyer. The fees mount up. They get milked and are glad to get out of there alive. Now, the Nigerian government does take that stuff seriously. But it's not as easy to stop and you might think - as you might think if you live in a country where the legal system and government is more solid.

And then there is a lack of lawyers in Africa. After the genocide in Rwanda, one of the biggest problems they had prosecuting the genocidaires was a lack of lawyers - there were only 8 barristers in the country.

One reason England and Holland developed much faster than the rest of Europe was because they had a better legal system. The French's system before the revolution was a joke. All kinds of ridiculous features that hampered economic development or any kind of development. The French response to the wealth of the Dutch wasn't to adopt their system - they attempted to grab the riches by invading a few times. That is what dumb thugs do.

AhSureTisGrand

Anarchy ≠ libertarianism, believe it or believe it not

krd

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Anarchy ≠ libertarianism, believe it or believe it not

Libertarianism is Anarchy for rich kids.


I hate the Emo/Anarcho kids too. You know.....there really has to be something more to a political ideology than dying your hair purple and being up your own arse.

*I have known anarchists who are very clued up. But some of the kids who get involved in that stuff, are actually fascists.

AhSureTisGrand

krd wrote: »

Libertarianism is Anarchy for rich kids.

Surprise you as it may, most right libertarians are openly opposed to anarchism. Then there are the left libertarians who surely you will not call "rich kids".

I hate the Emo/Anarcho kids too. You know.....there really has to be something more to a political ideology than dying your hair purple and being up your own arse.

*I have known anarchists who are very clued up. But some of the kids who get involved in that stuff, are actually fascists.

Why all the ad hominems? What does it matter if a lot of self-proclaimed anarchists are not actually anarchists? What bearing does this have on anarchist principles?

krd

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Surprise you as it may, most right libertarians are openly opposed to anarchism. Then there are the left libertarians who surely you will not call "rich kids".

Libertarianism is actually a very broad church. What are/or were, called the fiscal Republicans in the US are a flavour of Libertarianism. I had a really funny conversation with one in the US in 2003, just on the verge of the invasion of Iraq. He was horrified, that he found himself taking the same position as the anti-war left - for the same reasons - but it did seriously pain him to be on the same side as the fags, the dope smoking hippies, etc.

Far right Libertarians are not actually libertarian - it's a mystified form of fascism.

Left and right anarchism have the same roots - they do. One major problem with pure ideology, is the world is not pure, and they're are too many people, who could only be described as starting with the letter C and ending in TS.

Why all the ad hominems? What does it matter if a lot of self-proclaimed anarchists are not actually anarchists? What bearing does this have on anarchist principles?

Because, taking a political "ideology" on as a fashion statement, as a haircut, is corrupting to the entire discourse.

And it's a longer discussion - but I see an alarming lack of difference between Emotional Socialism, and what could be National Socialism

AhSureTisGrand

krd wrote: »

Libertarianism is actually a very broad church. What are/or were, called the fiscal Republicans in the US are a flavour of Libertarianism. I had a really funny conversation with one in the US in 2003, just on the verge of the invasion of Iraq. He was horrified, that he found himself taking the same position as the anti-war left - for the same reasons - but it did seriously pain him to be on the same side as the fags, the dope smoking hippies, etc.

Does this have anything to do with what I said or do you just need space to rant?

Far right Libertarians are not actually libertarian - it's a mystified form of fascism.

You have an interesting definition of what is right-wing. And you have an interesting definition of fascism. Libertarianism also. I like how you can call people libertarians and then say they aren't libertarians

Because, taking a political "ideology" on as a fashion statement, as a haircut, is corrupting to the entire discourse.

This is again a criticism of people, not of ideas

And it's a longer discussion - but I see an alarming lack of difference between Emotional Socialism, and what could be National Socialism

krd

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Does this have anything to do with what I said or do you just need space to rant?

No....That is the reality. When a libertarian candidate is run in an American election - usually the different factions do their own flyers/policy etc - and a lot of it will look quiet reasonable.....but the you had "My name is Bobby Ewing , My daddy worked hard on his peanut farm to find oil... I want a libertarian America. I don't think we should pay for schools. I like kids, I do, and I want to help American children - but they have to work. I want them to come over to my peanut farm and work...and cover themselves in peanut butter and work for me.....and I should be free to employ these children, because my daddy worked so hard. And I can teach these children personal responsibility"

You have an interesting definition of what is right-wing. And you have an interesting definition of fascism. Libertarianism also. I like how you can call people libertarians and then say they aren't libertarians

No one wants to own up to being a Nazis, do they.

This is again a criticism of people, not of ideas

What's wrong with examining the people from where the ideas originate?

To paraphrase Louis Armstrong - I've never seen a horse have an idea.

AhSureTisGrand

krd wrote: »

No....That is the reality.

Well then make it easier for everyone by not quoting for me if you're not discussing what I'm saying

No one wants to own up to being a Nazis, do they.

They don't want to own up to being communists either. Aha! Right libertarians are all a bunch of commies!

What's wrong with examining the people from where the ideas originate?

The bit in bold. It's a fallacious ad hominem argument (read: it's illogical). If Ted Bundy said there was no god that wouldn't mean there is a god etc...

krd

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The bit in bold. It's a fallacious ad hominem argument (read: it's illogical). If Ted Bundy said there was no god that wouldn't mean there is a god etc...

I think you don't understand what an ad hominem is.

It's when you use an irrelevent fact about the person to try to undermine their argument.

If you were to have an argument where you used pure logic, you'd most likely avoid using ad hominem - you'd avoid any discussion about the person.

For the case of an open discussion in the real world, really you can say whatever you like. Some people are the way they are, not through cold and calm logical reasoning, it's more through the way they are. A fat, greedy, lazy, person, may have constructed for themself an appartus of "logical" self justification. But when it comes down to it, it's because they're a fat, greedy, lazy, person.

One thing I really hate about some people - when it comes to justifying themselves. If their true motivation is something bad - greed, selfishness etc - if they feel they can find a logical, and "pure" sounding justification, no matter how flimsy, they feel it exculpates them.......When it doesn't.

Every wife beater thinks like that - the "look what you made me do" excuse. They feel justified and absolved by their "logical" argument "Well, if you hadn't have made me so angry, I wouldn't have beaten you up"....Dontcha love logic.

AhSureTisGrand

krd wrote: »

Dontcha love logic.

I do indeed. Which makes your attempts to dismiss it as not belonging to this "real world" you inhabit are a mite irksome. If I were the wrong sort of person I might reject all you have to say because of this alone. Fortunately I realise that in this discussion we are using arguments that stand on their own two feet.

It's when you use an irrelevent fact about the person to try to undermine their argument.

Which, funnily enough, is what you're doing. So you see a lot of emos who call themselves anarchists just to be cool. Fine. That's probably true. Yet then, by some miraculous leap, you seem to conclude that arguments made by them must be false, even if these arguments require no faith in the honesty or intelligence of those making them. When you can verify them yourself, ignoring them because of their origin is just lazy. And while your own ignorance is your own business, it does not constitute a valid argument.

If you were to have an argument where you used pure logic, you'd most likely avoid using ad hominem

What a lovely idea

swordofislam

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is the inevitable result of unfettered capitalism. Only a fool would make money honestly if he can make even more money dishonestly.
Or do you believe that wealth creating entrepreneurs are fools?

Your analysis of the free market suffers from the Nirvana Fallacy.
We live in the world as it is and as it is and people being what they are the moderate position of state run enterprises and workers control of the means of production is the reasonable alternative and middle way between an imaginary capitalist Nirvana and a world of people living in tents playing the guitar.

swordofislam

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The bit in bold. It's a fallacious ad hominem argument (read: it's illogical). If Ted Bundy said there was no god that wouldn't mean there is a god etc...

That is not what an ad hominem argument is.
What is this called by the way where one attacks the person who puts the argument forward rather than the argument itself?