?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Chief Jack's Galley

There's a place for people who laugh at nothing...


January 23rd, 2007

(no subject) @ 04:42 am


Boeing Bounces Back

You can almost hear it, can't you? BOEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!

Seriously, though, Don Surber refers to a great column by George Will in his blog entry. Take a minute and read it, particularly this:

But now Airbus has problems inherent in its role as Europe's iconic public-private collaboration.

Such collaboration, called "industrial policy," involves the irrationalities of economic nationalism, as each of the nine countries involved in subsidizing the A380 fights for "its" jobs.


Keep in mind that this "iconic public-private collaboration" is the sort of Keynesian nonsense that John Kenneth Galbraith was so high on in his The New Industrial State. The planned economy hasn't worked anywhere for longer than a few years, and leads to the sort of problems that Airbus is currently experiencing--problems that too many Americans think ought to be introduced into the US economy (can you say "Hillarycare"?). Or, as Don says, "socialism cannot top capitalism in the long run". And certainly fascism, which is what's evolving in Western Europe (note the "economic nationalism") can't top capitalism at all.

To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism isn't perfect, but it beats any of the alternatives. Or, as Milton Friedman said, individual freedom -- that which liberals (in the truest sense of the word) stand for, or at least proclaim that they stand for -- starts with economic freedom. Socialism doesn't lead to economic freedom, nor does fascism, nor does "industrial policy".

End of lecture. There'll be a quiz at the end of the quarter.
 
Share  |  |

Comments

 
[User Picture Icon]
From:wingguy
Date:January 23rd, 2007 01:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
One of the swell ideas of The Great Society was to establish Federal regulations for minimum production quantities of steel, aluminum, coal, etc. This was an attempt to save union jobs in what was known as the rust belt. I've always considered this "Industral Policy" as the one of the two worst economic ideas in US history. (The other would be Comparable Worth). Jay Rockefeller is a holdover from this era. And maybe it's unfair, but I can imagine Hillary getting behind either of these concepts.
[User Picture Icon]
From:john_holton
Date:January 23rd, 2007 01:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
History proved that the Federal regulations actually caused more harm than good in the long run. Any number of studies of the Depression that I've seen have suggested that the New Deal actually prolonged it, rather than bringing it to an end. World War II actually brought the Depression to an end, between the industrial ramp-up to build weaponry for the British and French and the sudden need for a good number of the young and unemployed to go carry a rifle in Europe or Asia.

Both Clintons -- indeed, most Democrats in general -- are New Dealers, at their very roots. The notion of the government running things and being the strong man appeals to them, because it was the source of their power for so many years. The Keynesian notion of the government "priming the pump" somehow became the government owning the pump and charging everyone for the privilege of drinking from it. It's going to be very difficult to reverse that; the Republicans, who for years spoke against it, have now adopted it.
From:dafne99
Date:January 23rd, 2007 03:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Seriously, do you blame them? They see the Dems getting handed all this power and what? They're supposed to get up there & say 'nevermind, we don't want this power after all'? Republicans are nothing more than Democrats in sheep's clothing nowadays.
[User Picture Icon]
From:john_holton
Date:January 23rd, 2007 08:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
FDR's administration ushered in an era of politicians using public policy as campaign fodder and tax revenues as a campaign fund. The Republicans, after many years of sitting on the back benches and being effectively made fun of, clearly figured that if they couldn't beat them, they'd join them. Unfortunately, the reason a lot of people vote Republican is to try and put the government in its appropriate place. As such, as you've observed, voting for a Republican is just as bad as voting for a Democrat; you're going to end up with big government and higher taxes.
[User Picture Icon]
From:wingguy
Date:January 23rd, 2007 07:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Maybe even worse being New Dealers is the "government answer for every problem" philosophy. I think both Clintons, but especially Hillary, are without any bedrock beliefs. They are more about calculating what will get them elected. The perception of being a cold, calculating politician is at the heart of the anti-Hillary sentiment, I believe.
[User Picture Icon]
From:john_holton
Date:January 23rd, 2007 08:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You're probably right about Bill & Hill, though I think it could be said of nearly all of the Democrats and quite a few of the Republicans. They're more interested in playing to their base and getting them out in greater numbers on election day than in any sort of governance. Most of what politicians are going to promise before elections is calculated to ingratiate themselves with their own special interests and to try and capture those they perceive as capable of putting them into office permanently.

I do not like Hillary Clinton, not only because she comes off as cold and calculating, but because so many of her ideas are just plain wrong. She proves what Mencken said, that the person who believes that the government should implement and enforce their ideas is the person whose ideas are idiotic.

Chief Jack's Galley

There's a place for people who laugh at nothing...