Is it really even possible to legislate against all the subtle kinds of corruption that go on?
As I was commenting a while back, former chancellor George Osborne got a nice little one day a week job at BlackRock earning £650,000 a year, we have to wonder what that is really all about, but has he done anything technically wrong? Former politicians have to earn a living somehow, however:.
Quote:
It emerged that Mr Osborne had met with executives from BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager, a total of five times in his final two years as chancellor.
Regarding a policy decision:
At the time, the bank said that it was ‘uniquely positioned’ to take advantage.
Liz: You are deliberately distorting Keynes views. He never said any such thing. What he did say is that some problems are in the purview of govt. to solve, and that when problems are analyzed, it should probably be done by someone who has a clue what they are doing.
It is interesting that they both show great respect for Keynes. They disagreed with many of his conclusions but never portrayed him as a know nothing idiot.
Interesting too, that of all of the “advanced” nations economies, none run on the ideas of Friedman or Hayek, every single one runs its economy on an essentially Keynesian model.
Corruption is a feature of capitalism, just as it is a feature of every other form of societal organization.
The difference is that under a capitalist system, where property is widely held, and political power is diffused, change is possible, and has been achieved many times in many societies.
In the totalitarian systems, all various forms of socialism, dissent will mark you as an “enemy of the people”, and that, you do not want.
Right now, 2022, humanity has the highest standard of living ever. In the US at least, the biggest problem poor people have is obesity. Food quality is higher (if you are careful about what you eat), food quantity is higher. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted from brutal poverty to, at least, reasonable survivability.
In the US, people who don’t work own cell phones, cars, have nice apartments, gorge themselves on crap food, and dress expensively, if not appropriately. They have wealth the Pharaohs never dreamed of.
Millionaires abound, enjoying lifestyles unimaginable only decades ago outside of the super-rich.
A strange state of CRAP!
Ah! So that’s why their economies are all in deep doodoo! Keynes is to blame. Okay.
Of course Friedman and Hayek are respectful in what they say about Keynes. They are honest men giving a peer his due. The point is, they both say that where it mattered most, Keynes got it wrong.
As to whether Keynes was a socialist or not, it depends on your understanding of what socialism is. (Ignore the dictionaries - they are compiled by clerks, not thinkers.) A perfectly good definition of a socialist would be “one who thinks the government should plan the economy”.
Keynes would have been absolutely horrified at the corruption, crookery, decadence and downright criminal behavior of the West’s political leadership. The lack of the most basic morality, the cynical manipulation, the lies, it goes on and on.
Keynes was born and lived in a different era. An era that saw huge catastrophes, and went a long way to cause the destruction of western civilization that we see in our societies today.
His economic ideas have been so abused in application that it is difficult even to ascribe the policies to him. “Keynesian” has come to mean a dislocation of the financial from the goods and services economy because politicians have taken enthusiastically taken up his stimulus approach, in recession, while at the same time completely ignoring his calls for monetary discipline during times of expansion.
Govt. should provide the framework in which individual liberty can thrive. That is:
Enactment and enforcement of laws, particularly of contract and property.
The govt. should above all things defend the realm.
Govt. should regulate the means of exchange so that normal commercial activities between free and independent people can safely and properly be carried on.
Govt. should monitor societal activity to ensure that free and fair elections be possible, but that the individual rights and freedoms of the population are protected from the arbitrary whims of a majority.
All this is perfectly attainable in the USA, where we are supposedly living under the protection of the greatest political document ever written. All govt. in the US has to do is respect and enforce the Constitution and Bill of Rights, unfortunately that seems to have gone out the window, but it can be brought back.
Less possible in feudal societies such as Britain, or religious tyrannies such as Saudi Arabia or Iran (and dozens more).
Can you give us an example, a time, a place, when political leadership has not been marred by corruption, crookery, criminality, immorality, cynical manipulation and lies?
Of course the rot is at its worst where and when governments have most power over the people - despotisms, totalitarian dictatorships.
The less power a government has, the better for the people. Let governments “regulate” economic activity, let it monitor social activity, and the rot gets rottener. Yes, the government’s first and almost only necessary function is to protect the liberty of the people. Ideally. That means it must be kept as the servant of the people, never to become their master.
Can you give us an example where the activities of the general population has not been marred by all those things?
To some extent we get reflected back to us what we are.
The general population? No such thing - as a moral entity, that is. Individuals are bad. Our highest moral aim should be to try not to do harm. It is a very high aim. We will not succeed, but trying is a good thing to do.
The idea that governments should “regulate” and “monitor” economic and social activity is a socialist idea. Thinking in socialist terms. Collectivist thinking.
Socialism is control of people by the state.
Only the law should rule people, and government should be the guardian of the law for the people’s sake. To protect their liberty.
