Via LearnLiberty – Social Cooperation: Why thieves hate free markets

Via LearnLiberty.org:

And also:

Society is concerted action, cooperation. Society is the outcome of conscious and purposeful behaviour.

Individual man is born into a socially organized environment. In this sense alone we may accept the saying that society is–logically or historically–antecedent to the individual. In every other sense this dictum is either empty or nonsensical. The individual lives and acts within society. But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. It exists nowhere else than in the actions of individual men. It is a delusion to search for it outside the actions of individuals. To speak of a society’s autonomous and independent existence, of its life, its soul, and its actions is a metaphor which can easily lead to crass errors.

Related reading:

Telegraph: “Will the great interest rate gamble pay off?” No.

Via The Telegraph, Will the great interest rate gamble pay off?

By the time this month’s auction is over, the ECB will have doled out nearly one and a half trillion euros of “free” money to help keep the banking system alive, with much more to come over the months ahead.

Nobody is under any illusions. These actions have not succeeded in vanquishing the crisis. Underlying structural issues remain unresolved, and it is most unlikely that the starvation diet to which much of the eurozone periphery has been condemned will result in robust recovery. But Mr Draghi has at least prevented the patient from dying on the slab. Two cheers for that.

During the IMF debate, I quoted Mises, who predicted the German hyperinflation:

The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion.

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

Right now, it seems clear which path the western world has chosen. “The great interest rate gamble” will make our problems worse later. It’s an unhappy thought but denial will not help.

Here are ten plans which would deal with the structural problems in our financial system.

Update: I just discovered this Zimbabwe 100 trillion dollar note in my email. Amazing what governments will do.

The inflation or deflation song

Via “Merle Hazard”:

I’m reminded of economist James Buchanan’s words:

The market will not work effectively with monetary anarchy. Politicization is not an effective alternative. We must commence meaningful dialogue with acceptance of these elementary verities. Far too much has been said and written in elaboration of the first statement, which too often is taken to be equivalent to the assertion that “capitalism” or “the market” has failed. Admittedly claims for market efficacy without qualifiers can be found. But economists should know that anarchy can only generate disorder rather than its opposite

.

Wycombe Hospital – consultation events in February

Via Better Healthcare in Bucks » Events, the consultation events and roadshows for our local NHS services in February:

Consultation event

  • 2nd Marlow Court Gardens | 6.30pm- 9.30pm
  • 8th Buckingham Community Centre | 6.30pm- 9.30pm Map
  • 13th South Bucks  Evreham Centre  – Iver | 2pm- 5pm Map
  • 21st Aylesbury – Oculus, Aylesbury Vale District Council  | 2pm-5pm Map
  • 27th Chesham – Town Hall | 10am-1pm Map
  • 28th Wycombe – King’s Centre | 10am-1pm Map

Roadshows

  • 1st & 22nd Wycombe  Community Safety Van | 11am-1pm
  • 10th Aylesbury – Hale Leys Centre | 10am-12pm Map
  •  13th through to 29th – Aylesbury – Southcourt Children’s Centre, Aylesbury College Campus, Oxford Road, Aylesbury, Bucks.  HP21 8PD. Map

It is vital that large numbers of local people attend these events. They are our opportunity to tell local NHS managers and clinicians our views on the clinician-led proposals before the public. I will be at the King’s Centre event and represented at a number of the others.

David Willetts, “Our university revolution has only just begun”

David Willetts writes in the Telegraph: Our university revolution has only just begun:

Despite some dire warnings about the Coalition’s student finance reforms, we’ve already had more applications to university than in any year under the previous government. Once the decline in the total number of 18 year olds has been accounted for, their application rate is down only 1 per cent on last year, when a record number of people applied to get in. We’ve sent recent graduates into 2,000 schools and colleges to explain that maintenance grants are being increased and monthly repayments after graduation are being reduced.

I recommend the whole article. We previously commented on the funding reforms here.

Economics in One Lesson: V – Taxes Discourage Production

Every week over 26 weeks, I’ll be publishing a précis of a chapter of Henry Hazlitt’s brilliant 1946 book, Economics in One Lesson, prepared by Michael Dowsett during his internship. The index page is here.

This week, Taxes Discourage Production, which discusses how taxes and government spending inhibit progress, hamper the development of real wages and worsen unemployment. The original chapter is only two pages and can be read here.

Buy or download Economics in One Lesson.

The Initiative for a Free and Prospering Europe

The Prime Minister today made a spirited defence of the Government’s position following the European Council meeting, in the face of ridiculous pantomime behaviour by Labour. I was glad to be called to ask a question, in which I brought to the Prime Minister’s attention the Initiative for a Free and Prospering Europe, launched yesterday:

The Initiative for a Free and Prospering Europe (IFPE) is an informal and non-political group of European think tanks and other non-governmental organizations, personalities from economic and other sectors, and citizens, whose main aims are reflected below:

1.to raise awareness about the real threats and negative consequences of a deepening political and economic centralization in the European Union (EU), at the expense of individual liberty and responsibility, and the prosperity of people;

2.to call on main political leaders of the EU member states, representatives of the European Commission, ECB, and other key players to stop trying to solve all European economic problems through centralization, including of the creation of a European fiscal union and a European economic government;

3.to propose alternative solutions to the European debt crisis that include the elimination of the causes (not just symptoms) of the debt crisis, based on sources of freedom, responsibility and prosperity (e.g. free markets, property rights, competition, hard backed honest money, and small and responsible administrative governments);

4.to initiate a discussion about alternative solutions to the European debt crisis and the political and economic conditions necessary to transform the EU in a community of free citizens living in prosperous countries.

The IFPE works to draw attention to the risks and devastating consequences of the current and scheduled attempts to solve the debt crisis by increasing the political and economic centralization of the Europe’s decision-making processes in Brussels: the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), the purchase of government bonds by the ECB, the attempts to introduce common European bonds or taxes, and other centralizing experiments. Among the consequences of such interventions are a deepening of the debt crisis without it being solved in any way, a decline in the purchasing power of the euro (an inflationary euro), a growing financial burden on the citizens of the European member states, concentration of power, and finally the limitation of liberty and prosperity for the people of Europe.

The Initiative urges responsible actors to put an end to such counterproductive measures and to stop the inexorable march towards the political and economic centralization of Europe. It is in this context that the Initiative proposes alternative solutions for the debt crisis. They are reflected in the proposal for the financing of sovereign debts through massive programmes of privatization and an administered process of state bankruptcy for those countries with the most severe financial problems. As part of a set of alternative debt crisis solutions, public finances should be reformed for the purpose of maintaining balanced budgets or budgets in surplus (without increasing taxes). There should also be monetary and banking reform (in order to have free and sound money), marked by the introduction of a commodity-backed currency.

The representatives of the IFPE believe in starting a constructive debate about such practicable debt crisis solutions. For they are convinced that a more open debate will help to create the conditions in which a positive agenda for European freedom and prosperity will thrive.

I’m a signatory to the Initiative, which originated in Eastern Europe where they remember only too well the dangers of political and economic centralisation. As I said in the Commons today, I hope Europe’s leaders abandon their outdated ideology and follow the path of our PM.

Is the EU maintaining the Rule of Law?

In their haste to use ever greater state power to solve the problems caused by excess state power, the European nations intend, it appears, to use an EU institution, the ECJ, to arbitrate disputes under a non-EU treaty.

This may seem arcane, but EU matters always are. It’s one of the reasons democrats and lovers of liberty keep losing. The world long since ought to have learned that politicians must obey the law, in crisis as in routine. And yet it suits our masters to bend their own rules.

I look forward to the PM’s statement today.

In the WSJ: No Need to Panic About Global Warming

Sixteen scientists write in the WSJ:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

It’s a fascinating article and I particularly enjoyed being reminded of the words of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever on his resignation from the APS, “In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

No doubt the article will be hysterically contested.

Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it

Via Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it:

[...] Taken together, the UK and US studies both account well for existing data on cost underestimation and benefit overestimation. Both studies falsify the notion that in situations with high political and organizational pressure the underestimation of costs and overestimation of benefits is caused by non-intentional technical error or optimism bias. Both studies support the view that in such situations promoters and forecasters intentionally use the following formula in order to secure approval and funding for their projects:

underestimated costs + overestimated benefits = funding

Using this formula, and thus ‘showing the project at its best’ as one interviewee said above, results in an inverted Darwinism, i.e the survival of the unfittest. It is not the best projects that get implemented, but the projects that look best on paper. And the projects that look best on paper are the projects with the largest cost underestimates and benefit overestimates, other things being equal. But the larger the cost underestimate on paper, the greater the cost overrun in practice. And the larger the overestimate of benefits, the greater the benefit shortfall. Therefore the projects that have been made to look best on paper in this manner become the worst, or unfittest, projects in reality, in the sense that they are the very projects that will encounter most problems during construction and operations in terms of the largest cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and risks of non-viability. They have been designed like that, as disasters waiting to happen.

The paper goes on to say, “Professional and occasionally even criminal penalties should be enforced for managers and forecasters who consistently and foreseeably produce deceptive forecasts”. Wise words yet we shall have to hope the HS2 project and all the other infrastructure projects planned by the Government are unique in not suffering from the endemic flaws described in the paper.

I’ll leave interested parties to read the paper for themselves but I will add this: while the Government has cloaked itself in the legacy of the great British railway pioneers, they were entrepreneurs risking private capital in commercial projects. The same cannot be said of HS2.

That matters and it matters for all the reasons we have historically defended free societies from the encroach of planning.