data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ef0aa/ef0aaca0e3e24f4aa681fa7ab348f62bc835fbc1" alt=""
Incredible. Herculean. Magnificent.
Will there be a movie? There ought to be. Here's a YouTube, instead:
As it happens, nobody is asking America to axe and burn with immediate effect, though you might not think this to read Professor Krugman's ever more hysterical commentaries on the fiscal austerity sweeping Europe. But some sort of a plan for long-term debt reduction, other than blind reliance on growth, might be helpful.Is the tide changing on Keynesianism? It's certainly coming in less quickly if it hasn't quite turned yet.
In 1930, Maynard Keynes wrote a splendid essay (”Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren“) in which he looked forward 100 years hence. His musings did not age well: he anticipated that by then the economic problem – endless toil – would be resolved and we would be working 3 hour days to keep our hand in as it were, and he worried about the effects of so much leisure time and boredom on our mental health. This was the same genius who told us the government should spend its way out of recession and that in the long run we were all dead anyway.
Jack Maturin said...UPDATE: Oh dear, I have upset the controllers of the memory hole. My comment has been deleted by the bed-wetting blue-rinse socialists of ConservativeHome. What a miserable bunch of feeble and pathetic cowards. No doubt there'll be some technical reason for this. It will have nothing to do with daring to mention the taboo phrase of 'the free market' in relation to the NHS.
I hate to sound too radical, ConservativeHome, but none of the measures you have outlined will work. The tens of thousands of overpaid bureaucrats who would administer any such cuts are far too well buried and camouflaged to be outed by such measures, and they are the ones who make the decisions anyway.
If the central government tries to cut down these useless people, these rent-seekers will sack doctors, nurses, and ambulance drivers instead, to cover their own tracks and to deliberately create a crisis, in which they will keep their bloated pensions and salaries, and all the palaces that they work in (often located in leafy grounds well away from the dreadful hospitals they use as excuses to rape the taxpayer).
The central state cannot do anything about these people. It appointed them and it pays them to make the decisions on the ground. These people will always choose themselves first, seeing as they are human beings (though largely immoral ones).
Central planning, can never work. It has never worked. And it will never work, even if the central plan is to cut spending. The Men from the Ministry only ever ending up cutting what is useful and keeping what is useless.
There is only one answer. And until it is tried, we will never be rid of 'Save Our Hospital' campaigns, and the like, and a wasteful inefficient system which prefers people dying within its bowels to cut down on bed usage, with 'death committees' (e.g. NICE) deciding who lives and who dies on the basis of political influence.
What is this radical answer? I don't know whether I dare whisper its horrific name.
Privatise the whole shooting match.
It's heady stuff, I know, but can you imagine (even for a second) a 'Save Our Hospital' campaign, if the whole thing was privatised? Do we have 'Save Our Supermarket' campaigns in the much more private food-provision market? Can you just imagine how terrible a 'National Food Service' would be, if the government put the same level of central control into food provision as it does into health service provision? We would first starve and then there would be a revolution.
Why do we put up with this miserable government control in the health system then? Because you do not die within weeks if the government controls the health system, as you would if they controlled the food system, that's why. And so we don't notice just how bad they are at managing it. Instead, we die years earlier than we should, usually in miserable conditions.
And I don't mean American-style privatisation either, which is massive government control and spending fronted by privileged 'private' front organisations, and run by a union, the American Medical Association, to keep doctors rich and patients poor.
I mean full-blown complete removal of government interference in the health market completely. Everything government touches it turns to dust. The more government involvement you have, the worse things get. The less government involvement you have, the better things get.
You chaps may have heard of this radical solution before.
It's called the 'free market'.
Or are you blue-rinse socialists still too afraid to dare say its name?
The system wasn't even broken before the Labour party created the NHS monster, based upon the soviet system. There was a slight shortage in arthritis treatment services, and that was it.
The entire nationalisation was a political scam to try to socialise the people into politically correct thinking. They wanted to make it literally unthinkable, in the Orwellian sense, for people to dare to remove their socialist controls.
It would appear that this scam worked.
Jack Maturin said...Remarkably enough, it wasn't deleted! Instead, my original comment popped back up again. Crazy.
Oh dear, Blue Beep, it appears you don't like it up you. What a terrible shame.
I was right then. You really are a bunch of bed-wetting blue-rinse socialists.
Jack Maturin said in reply to Allan...That should raise his blood pressure a bit. If he goes down the NHS, I suppose they'll treat it for him with a life-long treatment of expensive Big Pharma drugs.
So Allan, you believe that the market fails and must be bolstered by socialised government interventions. In the old days, this would have meant that you were a SOCIALIST. I suppose nowadays it means that you're a 'radical conservative'.
Why are such radical conservatives so terrified of the free market?
Why does the free market have to be defended from attacks by these radical conservatives?
I'm not even going to try, as it's pointless. You either believe in the free market or you do not. You either believe that the free market can deliver ALL services better than socialised government or you do not. No amount of argument ever made a single socialist give up socialism, with extremely rare exceptions such as Hayek.
But Allan, please do not think that you are NOT a socialist. Everyone who 'believes' in the NHS is a socialist. Just as everyone who 'believes' in the BBC is a socialist. And everyone who believes in subsidies for farmers is a socialist.
Your pet groups as to who gets subsidies forced out of others may differ from those of the Labour party or the Liberal party, but it's a question of degree, not of substance. If you want socialised systems of service provision then you are a socialist.
That's what the word means. Look it up in a dictionary:
so·cial·ist (ssh-lst)
n.
1. An advocate of socialism.
so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Now please define the NHS in a way which isn't trapped by that definition above? I would be fascinated to see how you do it.
Please enjoy the rest of your socialist life.
"The Government does not have an inexhaustible horn of plenty. Government has nothing to give without first taking. Government funds itself by taking today, by borrowing against a promise to take a greater sum tomorrow and by debasing the currency. We have reached the limits of all three."
1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.As Murray Rothbard reveals in his brilliant Conceived in Liberty, the state school system in the United States sprang directly from the theocracy of Massachusetts and its need to make children obey the theocrats. The rigid Christian theocrats in Massachusetts copied this school system directly from Prussia, where it was used to make children obey the Prussian state, the same state which eventually became the Third Reich national socialist state.
2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.
3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.
4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.
5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.
6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.
"The Greater Depression began, I believe, in 2007, and will get much worse because not just the US government, but every major government in the world, has been doing not just the wrong things but exactly the opposite of the right things.
The right thing would be for these governments to get totally out of the picture. What they are doing instead is inserting themselves further into the economy. But I suppose this is what the average person wants them to do because, idiotically, the average person thinks that the government is some kind of a magic cornucopia and is the solution to their problems – when actually government is the basic cause of all these problems. Its only products are taxes, regulations, and inflation – along with wars, pogroms, persecutions and the like. Government produces nothing. So I guess I'm not overly sympathetic to them; they are pretty much going to get what they deserve in the years to come.
The Greater Depression is on a temporary hiatus at the moment because the stimulus measures and extra debt these governments have created to deal with the crisis have given the appearance of a recovery; but in the months to come, things are going to devolve back to the financial chaos of a year or two ago and actually get much, much worse. I hate to make such a gloomy forecast, if only because people that draw wacky conclusions from sources like Nostradamus, the Bible, and the Mayan calendar are so prone to do so. But I'm not talking about the end of the world, just a bit of a social and economic upheaval – and we've had plenty of those over the centuries.
So, in brief, we're kind of in the eye of the storm at the moment, but I expect this thing is going to be much worse on the other side of the hurricane. And it's not going to be brief; this could linger on for years with a lot of consequences, not just the obvious economic and financial ones."
"On the other hand, negatively, it was to unmask the State and showcase it for what it really is: an institution run by gangs of murderers, plunderers and thieves, surrounded by willing executioners, propagandists, sycophants, crooks, liars, clowns, charlatans, dupes and useful idiots—an institution that dirties and taints everything it touches."
Anthony Baird, managing director of gold dealer Baird & Co, said the company could not deliver any Britannia coins until August because of lack of supply.In the meantime, get the other bullion coins and get them safely offshore. You won't need to pay CGT to the British government on these offshore coins once you ship out permanently to Thailand.
Nick Clegg's wife has secured a lucrative job on the board of directors of a Spanish construction firm which has held contracts in the United Kingdom.So, no chance of corruption or conflict of interest there, then.
Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, a Spanish born, high-flying lawyer, will act as an independent adviser to Acciona, the world’s largest provider of wind farms.
"No, if it even looks like a double-dip, then it's helicopter time again until we're all drowning in dollars. There will not be a double-dip on my watch. Not while there's any paper left in the world. I'd rather have a catastrophic collapse than a double dip, any day of the week."And an interesting catastrophic collapse is exactly what you're going to get, Ben, as soon as the printing presses run out of ink.
Ben Bernanke, yesterday
"In my previous report, "There Is No Money," I surveyed Europe's sovereign debt markets. I argued that the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury of Great Britain, Liam Byrne, hit the nail on the head when he placed a note on his desk for the incoming Chief Secretary to read: "There is no money." He did this as a joke, as he later explained to the media, but the joke was on the incoming government: there really is no money. But there are expenses – lots and lots of expenses. These expenses will increase. Tax revenues will not cover them."Make mine a large one.