They're all protectionists (the left that is...)

Like some free, fair and open international trade, for example

Indeed Donald Trump could have said this:

"You know, for decades, we have had a trade policy that has been written by giant multinational corporations to help giant multinational corporations," she said. "They have no loyalty to America. They have no patriotism. If they can save a nickel by moving a job to Mexico, they'll do it in a heartbeat. If they can continue a polluting plant by moving it to Vietnam, they'll do it in a heartbeat….I have put out a new comprehensive plan that says we're not going to do it that way."

OK Trump might have been blunter, focused more on the jobs of ordinary workers, but the message is the same - you're a traitor to America if you "move jobs" to another country. And, as Mike Riggs says in a message straight to the heart of kids in America - "Elizabeth Warren hates your cheap foreign-made electric guitar". That's the only guitar you can afford because a host of regulations and restrictions mean the cheapest American axe will set you back over a grand.

Everywhere you look you'll see leftists (and especially the cool right on sorts) enthusiastically lining up to back protectionist measures. It's all wrapped up with the usual wibble about climate change, the NHS and 'chlorinated chicken' - here's centre-left loudmouth, Jess Phillips:

So is the NHS within that agreement? Also is, as my son called it "swimming pool chicken" going to be the norm. Also how will these long distance import/export markets work towards our climate targets?

Jess is very keen on a trade agreement with the USA just so long as her long list of protections isn't affected - she's happy for consumers not to have cheaper food, to limit where the NHS can buy drugs and services, and to scare consumers with entirely fictional nonsense about US food safety. And let's not get started on how these folk are torn apart by the new cult of climate doom - "you can't ship things around the planet, think of the polar bears" (and the post box filled with the latest cut and paste myths from worshippers at the Church of St Greta or the Temple of Attenborough).

And who pays the biggest price for this protectionism? Oh yes, it's the least well off who face higher food bills, longer hospital waits, drug shortages and every pricier energy, transport and clothing. Just to satisfy the ignorance of wealthy people like Elizabeth Warren and Jess Phillips. As my Dad put it, they can afford to be socialists.

It's time we told these folk to take a long hike somewhere they can't do any more harm.

....

Things that are true....

****

From Longrider:

There is a word for this and that word is stealing. Because that is what socialists do –  steal other peoples money and give it to their friends.

Yep.

...

So is Richard Murphy a fascist then?

****

As Mr Worstall reminds us:

The Courageous State, is a call for a revival of the economics of fascism. And there is something of a difference between being concerned about fascism and actively promoting it.

I'm pretty sure Richie considers himself a radical campaigning activist.

But then so did Benito - until he seized power! And how different is Richie's 'manifesto' from this?
 

The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
A minimum wage;
The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
Reorganisation of the railways and the transport sector;
Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55

Or indeed, this:

A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);
The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;
Revision of all contracts for military provisions;
The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

That was the birth of fascism. As I've said before, men like Richard Murphy - knowingly or otherwise - are repeating the same errors and tilling the soil of totalitarianism.

....

John Leech - another socialist in liberal democrat clothing

****


The government's Faustian pact - a deal that still remains despite the financial train crash - with the banks has cost ordinary folk dear. Yet this so-called "liberal democrat" wants to make it even worse:

...although the taxpayers own 82% of the company, we do not have a rep on the board and cannot force the company to lend money to businesses and create jobs.

This man is an MP - elected to provide intelligent leadership - and he wants to "force" a bank that's lost £1.5 billion in a year to lend money it doesn't have to businesses. It seems the argument is that Vince Cable thinks this a good idea. And, of course, Vince is the man because he used to work in a big (oil) business so understands all this money stuff.

More to the point (and I don't know Mr Leech's background) our MP seems to have not the first idea about the duties and responsibilities of a company director. Generally speaking their first duty is to the company's interest. And right now this is to get the balance sheet fixed, pay off those bad debts and make RBS a viable business. Running the business into the ground by forcing it to make a load more bad loans on political direction is a daft idea.

Mind you, we could have let RBS go bust in the first place. That would have been a liberal response!

...

Why Vince Cable should be sacked...

****

Because he says utter tripe like this:

"I am going to confront the old-fashioned negative thinking which says that all government needs to do to generate growth is to cut worker and environmental protections, cut taxes on the rich and stroke 'fat cats'. I'm completely repudiating the idea that government has to get out of the way. Government has a positive role to play."

Now I am one of those "backward" Tory right-wingers - you know the ones who believe in low taxes, less regulation, smaller government, devolution, localism and getting out of the EU. And yes, I know that more flexible employment laws result in higher employment. Vince should go check out what the ILO has to say on the subject:

EPL is significantly correlated with certain labour market flows across countries, such as labour turnover, inflow into unemployment, duration of unemployment and the share of long-term unemployed. The stricter the EPL is, the lower the labour turnover, the higher the inflow into unemployment, the longer the duration of unemployment and the higher the proportion of long-term unemployment in total joblessness are.

How much clearer do you want it Vince? 

And as for taxes, it's not just taxes on the rich we want cutting, it's taxes on everything. Taxes are a cost to business, the state spends that money badly and Vince's high tax environment reduces liberty and undermines personal choice.

Finally, I can think of no question in Vince's portfolio - not one - to which the answer isn't "government should get out of the way". I've never met a business manager who didn't bemoan the pointless paperwork, the daft regulations, the endless charges levied by some bureaucrat or another - it's these things that we want scrapping. We want to make it easy to start a business, easy to employ someone, easy to import and simple to export.

Vince is just another socialist, another who thinks he knows better than the market yet offers no coherent approach beyond "government has a positive role to play". We had fifty years of social democratic second-guessing - from Wilson, Heath, Heseltine, Blair, Brown and now Cable. Fifty years of getting those guesses wrong. Fifty years with rising levels of structural and long-term unemployment.  Fifty years of asset inflation fuelled by state-sponsored cheap bank lending. Fifty years of that "positive role" for government.

And it didn't work then, it isn't working now and it won't work tomorrow.


That's why Vince Cable should be sacked.


....

On rich socialists...inspired by Michael Foot

***

My father, when confronted with one wealthy left wing toff or another, is wont to observe that “they can afford to be socialists”. Now I’ve always liked this little aphorism since I rather “get it” – socialism is founded on a great mound of patronising hypocrisy. And where better than the silver spoon chewing classes to find both those traits!

The posh leftie is a sort – we’ve all met them and marvelled at their ability to propose the regime of St Francis for the masses of ordinary middle class folk while enjoying their homes overlooking Hampstead Heath, the swanky parties with the luvvies and Summers at the villa in some warm part of Southern Europe.

It’s important for us to remember that, for all their vaunted intelligence, their charm and their wit, these rich socialists are takers not builders. They lecture us on the moral rightness of state control or the absolute need for higher duties on alcohol or the banning of smoking from pubs they never go into – and they do this from atop a monumental pile of cash earned in wicked capitalist ways by their forefathers.

These people have never had to find a mortgage payment, have never wondered how they were going to get the cash to pay for the school uniform, have never been made redundant and wouldn’t know the first thing about starting a business from scratch. Yet they take it upon themselves to lecture me about greed, or about poverty or public services.

Michael Foot was, I’m sure, a charming and delightful man who gave great pleasure to those who knew him. I'm sure he professed strong principles. But he was, to me, just another rich, posh socialist. Another man whose chosen mission was to hold forth on socialism to less clever, less lucky folk while clutching hypocritically onto a glorious upper middle class lifestyle funded entirely from the proceeds of capitalism. We can recall his speaking – which was good. His thoughtfulness. His public service. We can catalogue all his writing, all his good works. But let’s never forget that…

…he could afford to be a socialist.

…