Further to this and the comments following this post, I mentioned the mismatch of certain leftist moral markers with aspects of traditional working class / bourgeois morality:
“When seen in context, Thatcher’s ‘society’ quote actually chimes quite strongly with traditional working class / bourgeois morality regarding personal and familial responsibility. A similar moral aspect becomes apparent in discussions of immigration, where many working class people take the view that a person should generally pay into a benefit system before taking from it. This tends to conflict with the view, most common among middle-class leftists, that a newcomer from country X can arrive and immediately make several claims without having contributed via taxation, etc. I’ve read more than one Guardian commentator dismiss the former view as ‘typical of racist little Englanders’, which rather misses the point of contention. Wherever you stand on the issue, and whatever exceptions one might imagine, my point is that quite a few middle-class leftwing commentators have casually dismissed as ‘racist’ a moral argument based on reciprocity and a sense of community.”
There’s another illustration in today’s Observer, in John Lloyd’s review of Andrew Anthony’s book, The Fall-Out: How a Guilty Liberal Lost His Innocence:
“Anthony uses an account of his early years as a vivid, emotively charged account of a working class-born, council house-raised and comprehensive school-educated boy who came to question his parents’ outlook. In one instance cited, his mother asked her local councillor why it was that she, a model tenant for many years, had become a much lower priority for rehousing than a newly arrived immigrant family. The councillor to whom Mrs Anthony complained was Tessa Jowell, until recently Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; she gave her complaining constituent ‘a brusque lecture on racism’.
This vignette recalls progressive, especially London, politics of the Seventies and Eighties… with an overlay of moralising political correctness which assumed prejudice on the part of a white working class and innocence on the part of those with darker skins. In a comment which must be a painful memory, Anthony observes that at university, his ‘enlightened concern was that [his mother] didn’t do or say anything that could be construed as racist … I was now outside, like an anthropologist, looking in’.”
What’s interesting here, and illustrative of a much wider phenomenon, is Jowell’s apparent readiness to frame the issue in terms of racism, and Anthony’s own apprehension regarding how a person might seem in certain kinds of company. And, again, there’s something grimly amusing about those who most loudly profess to care for “the proletariat” showing sneery disregard for the views and moral values of that same group of people.
Since World War Two the US defense department has grown to become the biggest consumer in the US economy. It is also the biggest funder of research at American universities. The spending decisions it makes have massive effects on the US economy – more than that of any other player in the US economy.
I would find it incredible if those who determine its spending aren’t very well aware of this. If it chooses to spend money in an area of the economy it will transform that area, create an economic “boom” in that area, make what used to be unprofitable profitable. Defence spending has helped get many technologies started, and funded their basic research. This IS subsidy. Often it goes to industries and technologies where America wants to establish a commercial lead against international rivals.
At the time of the Star Wars programme it was agreed it would take decades and decades of research to get anything that could hope to intercept an all-out Soviet nuclear attack. But the research money was being put into US hi-tech industries which needed to gain an edge over rival Japanese companies. At the time US car workers were taking sledgehammers to imported Japanese cars, and the economic fear of Japan was a major factor in the weapons procurement policy. Star Wars was a covert way of subsidizing key US industries.
When it’s come to actually fighting, the US is often being overwhelmed by lo-tech adversaries. The Vietcong used improvised bamboo darts laced with cow dung more effectively than the US used helicopters. In Iraq, improvised roadside bombs are proving lethal to US troops.
georges
I still don’t understand what is wrong with using the nations wealth to benefit the nation.
No area in defence spending can be called unprofitable (though projects can fail and hence money can be wasted, increasing the overall costs of individual projects).
The question of pricing defence items is complex. But if your enemy has a particular kind of bomb that may wipe out a city, it becomes cost effective to spend the cost of replacing a city to develop a defence. It is not the same as choosing between competing car manufacturers for example.
The US military is not the biggest US consumer. The US consumer is the biggest consumer (Consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity – 2/3 of $13.4 Trillion= $8.9 Trillion ) whose spending somewhat dwarfs the Military budget of $439.3 Billion.
Medical spending for example far exceeds defence spending, Medicare itself has a budget of $2.7 trillion over the next decade or $270 billion per year.
Servicing the National Debt cost $406 billion. The US Government is spending almost as much on its’ national “credit card” debt as it is on defence. Such figures hardly mean that the Military is somehow skewing the whole economy.
Please explain why military spending is such a downer. I, myself would be in favour of increased military spending both here in the UK and in the US. And if those increases improve our economy, provide jobs and tax receipts from spin off industries and make us more secure – WHOOPEEE! we’ve hit the jackpot.
I simply disagree that Coalition forces have been “overwhelmed” by low tech weapons. Casualty rates are lower than in any conflict previously fought by the US since the Civil War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war
In fact annual US casualties are lower now than they were during Clintons period in office when the US was not strictly at war.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/us-lost-more-soldiers-annually-under.html
How can this be described as overwhelming?
Sorry – suffering from premature post button syndrome again.
I should have added the following to the above, just after the medicare line
“Annual expenditure on Education in the US in 2004-5 was $536 billion dollars. Why is this amount not a spending decision that has a massive effect on the US economy?”
My bad.
I feel like I’m talking at cross purposes.
I am not saying defence spending is necessarily bad. America has enemies, and needs to defend itself against them. I am not calling for the disarmament of America.
My real point is this. Since the 1930s – if not earlier – governments and senior businessmen have known that pure laissez-faire capitalism, of the sort which supposedly Thatcher learned from Hayek, just doesn’t work. The state has to take some role in guiding the economy. This doesn’t require the direct state ownership of industries. The Soviet system is not at all what I’m recommending. In the US, defence has become one of the easiest way to provide subsidies to new industries. The historical reason for this is that it was defence spending which rescued America from the recession of the 1930s. Does anyone on this thread dispute this?
As the responses to my posts show, there is great reluctance to admit that this is what is being done. It means admitting America doesn’t actually practice the pure form of laissez-faire capitalism which it often preaches to the rest of the world. I don’t have a problem with this, because I don’t think pure laissez-faire capitalism works. I don’t think Soviet-style command economics works either. What I think is needed is judicious state guidance of the economy.
There is an obvious parallel with arguments about “free trade”. America, Germany, Japan, South Korea, all these countries nurtured their breakout industries under heavy protectionism, only exposing them to “free trade” when they were already strong enough to survive in the international marketplace. Now, of course, they advise poor countries to embrace free trade from the off. This is hypocrisy, and it is resented.
Dr Dawg said:
“If Horace wants to make alliances with the Therkkon, he has no right to discuss morality here. We have nothing in common with silicon-based life forms. I suppose now he will brand me as an unreconstructed carbonist. So be it. A line must be drawn somewhere.”
Brand you a carbonist? Not at all, doctor. You’re better than that. You are, though, quite clearly, a siliphobe. What people like you fail to remember – or, at least choose not to remember – is that when the Universe was run by silicone-based life-forms there was peace and harmony across planets. It was a time of great scientific and cultural advances. All life forms, regardless of their biochemical basis, were respected and valued. And I see no reason why they shouldn’t now have a fully-functioning intergalactic hose.
Perhaps we should accept that carbonist hegemony will soon come to an end. The hosers are poised for takeover.
Regarding US casualties. I think it’s simplistic to compare casualties on American soil in the Civil War with those in Vietnam or Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, most Americans probably consider the Vietnam and Iraq wars to be “optional” rather than necessary. Casualty figures for the Vietnam war are disputed, but I believe the Americans suffered 50-60,000 casualties, as against maybe 2 million Vietkong. Whatever the actual figure, it’s obvious that these relatively low casualties were enough to turn many Americans against a war which it seemed they did not have to fight, against an enemy which did not directly menace American territory. French casualties were much lower in Algeria than in World War One, but France gave up in the former and went on to victory in the latter.
georges
I know of no politician or serious economist who has ever claimed that the US has a pefect laissez-faire economy. Perhaps it might be possible to run such an economy – I don’t know – it has never been tried.
I don’t beleive that America preaches “purity” of form. It simply behaves as one actor on the world stage, whose system has made its own citizens the richest in the world.
By the way, I do dispute that defence spending rescued the US in the 30s. Recovery from the crash and world wide depression of the 20s was already well underway by the time the war started. Simialrly in the UK and indeed in Germany, the economy was recovering quickly and Hitler was able to claim credit for this which boosted his popular power.
“If one defines economic health entirely by the gross domestic product, the U.S. had gotten back on track by 1934, and made a full recovery by 1936, but as Roosevelt said, one third of the nation was ill fed, ill-housed and ill-clothed. See Chart 3. GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than 1932, and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war”
and
“The economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945”
so in fact pre war growth was stronger than war time growth.
both quotes : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States
Most Western countries have vested interests that cling to subsidy (Farmers being one of the worst culprits.) This is not so much a problem of the capitalist system, but a political one – since politicians cannot piss off certain of their constituent groups. We shouldn’t subsidise and protect unprofitable industries as I have said before. Continuing subsidies are the shame of political weakness.
We certainly should not be encouraging developing countries to adopt our bad habits and we should push as hard as possible to remove our own dead weight industries. I believe the French are finally beginning to grasp this nettle by cutting subsidy to uneconomic vineyards. In this regard, More Faster Please.
The most extreme example of differential casualties is probably the Soviet Union in World War Two and Afghanistan. In World War Two over 10 million Soviet soldiers, and 14 to 17 million Soviet civilians, died. In Afghanistan the official casualty figure is just 14,000 (the real figure is probably much higher, but still nowhere near WW2 levels).
I love that I have absolutely no idea where this thread is going to end up. Sorry, carry on.
I was checking this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics
In 1933 unemployment was around 25 percent of the labour force. It moved down and then back up again during the following years. But the really big drop is obviously caused by the war. Around 15 percent in 1940, down to 2 percent in 1943.
“French casualties were much lower in Algeria than in World War One, but France gave up in the former and went on to victory in the latter”
Thats because the French are cheese-eating surrender monkeys who have had no military pride since the days of Napoleon.
All joking aside, this is a matter of personal conscience and I will say that I support the war.
I happen to believe that it is worth the cost in blood and treasure to defend the values of the West against terrorism.
I think in particular that Islamism represents an existential threat to the hard won individual freedoms that we enjoy in the west and I believe that the volunteer soldiers who fight on our behalf are the finest examples of that western tradition.
It sickens me to see news of DePalmas’ new movie for example, which casts US soldiers in the role of rapists and murderers based on a single event when our enemies set 5 year olds on fire, or use them as cover for suicide operations or have handy torture manuals in cartoon form so that illiterate jihadis can use them.
Or in next door Iran, where a drink and a shag gets you 80 lashes, or where teenage homosexuals are publicly hanged, or 16 year old girls are hanged as unchaste for arguing with a judge.
WARNING the links are not for faint hearted.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.boy/
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/iran-releases-photos-from-public.html
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/10/shocking_new_ph.html
I personally think that this ideology must not be allowed to spread.
georges
“In 1933 unemployment was around 25 percent of the labour force. It moved down and then back up again during the following years. But the really big drop is obviously caused by the war. Around 15 percent in 1940, down to 2 percent in 1943.”
Whatever effect military spending has had, you still have not explained why military spending is any “worse” from a free market view than spending on education for example?
In both cases it is the nation state investing its resources in itself. What makes defence spending “evil” and education spending “good”?
To try to bring the discussion back to its roots, how does this relate to your comments about Thatcher not supporting the NCB and other dysfunctional nationalised industries with subsidy?
President Eisenhower (a former General) said in his closing address to the nation:
“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction…
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
I think that’s about right.
If anyone else uses the phrase “military-industrial complex”, I swear I’m fetching the hose.
“the m*l*t*ry-ind*str*al c*mpl*x”
Oh georges, georges, georges….
Yeah but Truman put tanks on the lawn of the Whitehouse and LBJ wore a lime green polyester suit.
We are straying close to the realms of twooferism now.
I am expecting Agent Mulder to appear any second.
Seriously, georges
You have been listening to too many “college know-it-all-hippies”** if you think that Eisenhowers description applies to the US. It might apply to North Korea. But seriously, are you suggesting that America is a military/police state, where the civilian population and civil freedoms are at the mercy of the military?
** see
http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_9/episode_902/
– really, if you can, download the episode, its’ a scream (and yes – I have been called a “South -Park” republican
http://episodes.southparkstuff.com.nyud.net:8080/download/season9/902_www_southparkstuff_com.zip
I was hoping to find a recording of Randy Newman singing “Life Isn’t Fair” which would have been perfect for this thread. Alas, I couldn’t, but you might like to look at this, which is imperfect, but only just, for this thread:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1Vb0Mu0mhlw
I’m not suggesting the US is a police state – nor was Eisenhower. He was simply warning the citizenry to be on their guard against “undue influence”. I think that’s fair.
In the UK we’re painfully aware that our governments pay bribes and even procure prostitutes to see to it that British defence firms secure Saudi contracts.
I think georges is ideologically blind to the fact that transferring money from productive parts of the economy to subsidise inefficient industries harms the economy.
I guess he may also suffer from blindness with regard to protectionism, whereby business owners can rip-off consumers in their home country.
Economic guiding hands tend to invest in one thing only, their own egos.
georges, you are being an arrogant culturalist. “Bribes” are part Saudi and Arab culture! I hope your not one of those losing your multi-cult values?
“In the UK we’re painfully aware that our governments pay bribes and even procure prostitutes to see to it that British defence firms secure Saudi contracts.”
Why georges, you cultural imperialist you. You’re just imposing your western values on Saudi princes.
Hey – if some sheik getting his rocks off gets us a multi-billion pound contract, I say how much would be it worth to get the whole Saudi population laid?
Hell, for £100 billion I’d toss some Saudi Salad myself.
I don’t have an ideological position on subsidies or protectionism. All I’m doing is observing the fact that the US, Germany, Japan and others initially protected their industries until they were strong enough to survive under free trade. It worked for them.
I hesitate to ask what “tossing salad” entails. No, scratch that. I’ve just been handed an explanatory note. Heavens.
David
“I hesitate to ask what tossing salad entails” – then perhaps a different version of the vernacular maight be something like:
“Hell, for £100 billion, you can grab my ankles and call me Mary”
Is that less difficult to decipher?
Getting back to the article. I find it a bit sad that Anthony’s mum seemed to think public housing was going to be where she would be spending the rest of her life.
The problem is that for too many people welfare has become a (miserable) way of life rather than bit of help through a rough patch. The situation in remote aboriginal communities in Australia is an extreme example of how much damage this outlook can do.
On the subject of foreigners getting government aid, I think it reasonable that refugees fleeing repressive regimes like those in Iran or Sudan get a little help settling in.
Jamie,
My impression is that the issue concerned immigration generally, i.e. economic migration, rather than refugees specifically or legitimate asylum seekers. I guess the examples you mention could fall under the category “exceptions one might imagine.” Again, the points I hoped to convey were (a) the tension between the two broad views, (b) the inhibition of discussion by insisting on skin colour as the default motive, and (c) the subsequent fear of how one might seem in dissenting, i.e. a “racist little Englander.”
Down here our immigration department are pretty keen on making sure economic migrants can take care of themselves before giving them visas. So debate on immigration tends to be about our refugee intake.
Regarding welfare my favourite phrase was “If we give you a ladder we expect you to start climbing”.
So much of the “welfare” state spending is failure rewards, funded by fining financial success! You don’t have to be an economist (i.e. incentives matter, discuss) to see that this isn’t exactly good.
Sunday Links
A pasta strike in Italy? The problem, once again, is biofuel.Who is Mr. Hsu?, with good links, at RWNHSen. Craig is no hypocrite. I agree. PowerlineThe Rykestrasse Synagogue – the largest in Germany – reopens, restoredThank God for the intellectuals. T…