Reasons to be cheerful

From the Rational Optimist:

15. We can solve all our problems

If you say the world will go on getting better, you are considered mad. If you say catastrophe is imminent, you may expect the Nobel Peace Prize. Bookshops groan with pessimism; airwaves are crammed with doom. I cannot recall a time when I was not being told by somebody that the world could survive only if it abandoned economic growth. But the world will not continue as it is. The human race has become a problem-solving machine: It solves those problems by changing its ways. The real danger comes from slowing change.

16. This depression is not depressing

The Great Depression of the 1930s was just a dip in the upward slope of human living standards. By 1939, even the worst-affected countries, America and Germany, were richer than they'd been in 1930. All sorts of new products and industries were born during the Depression. So growth will resume unless prevented by wrong policies. Someone, somewhere, is tweaking a piece of software, testing a new material, or transferring the gene that will make life easier or more fun.

17. Optimists are right

For 200 years, pessimists have had all the headlines-even though optimists have far more often been right. There is immense vested interest in pessimism. No charity ever raised money by saying things are getting better. No journalist ever got the front page writing a story about how disaster was now less likely. Pressure groups and their customers in the media search even the most cheerful statistics for glimmers of doom. Don't be browbeaten-dare to be an optimist!

Read the entire list.

As regular readers will be aware, I'm prone to pessimism!

I have high hopes for technology, but great scepticism about religion and politics.

If the world is a better place in 50 years' time, it will be despite governments, not because of them.

Timo Soini: Why I Don't Support Europe's Bailouts

Via The Cobden Centre, I discovered this incredible article in the Wall Street Journal by Timo Soini, leader of the True Finns party.

Daniel Hannan also highlighted it:

Hannan’s First Law, long-standing readers will recall, holds that no party is Eurosceptic while in office. No one has yet broken it: not Ian Paisley nor Václav Klaus nor even Margaret Thatcher. Will Timo Soini, the brave, devout, amiable, Millwall-obsessed leader of the True Finns, be the exception?

If the WSJ article is anything to go by, things look promising:

At the risk of being accused of populism, we'll begin with the obvious: It is not the little guy who benefits. He is being milked and lied to in order to keep the insolvent system running. He is paid less and taxed more to provide the money needed to keep this Ponzi scheme going. Meanwhile, a symbiosis has developed between politicians and banks: Our political leaders borrow ever more money to pay off the banks, which return the favor by lending ever more money back to our governments.

In a true market economy, bad choices get penalized. Instead of accepting losses on unsound investments—which would have led to the probable collapse of some banks—it was decided to transfer the losses to taxpayers via loans, guarantees and opaque constructs such as the European Financial Stability Fund.

The money did not go to help indebted economies. It flowed through the European Central Bank and recipient states to the coffers of big banks and investment funds.

Further contrary to the official wisdom, the recipient states did not want such "help," not this way. The natural option for them was to admit insolvency and let failed private lenders, wherever they were based, eat their losses.

The whole article is well worth reading.

We must wait and judge him by his actions, but it's hard to imagine the leader of a powerful UK party even talking this way. From what I've seen so far, the world needs more politicians like Timo Soini.

UPDATE:

As it happens, Soini was featured on tonight's Newsnight. I only caught the end of the interview (followed by some truly ridiculous punditry). I'll try to find time to watch it properly once it's available on iPlayer.

An interview with DK's mascot MP

This interview on Cobden Centre Radio gives cause for hope.

I recommend subscribing to the podcast.

An honest money maiden speech

Oh happy day: an MP who gets it

In the coalition, we have a Government ideally suited to be conservative to preserve what is good, but radical to change all that is bad. If we are to have a once-in-a-generation, fundamental review of the role of government, let us also examine government's role in the system of money and bank credit.

Telegraph: Britain to emulate Canada

I was delighted by an article in yesterday's Telegraph:

George Osborne is planning to eradicate Britain's budget deficit by emulating Canada, where borrowing was brought under control within just three years by spending cuts of 20 per cent.

The Chancellor will announce a "once-in-a-generation" revolution in public spending inspired by Canada in the mid-1990s, when the government turned a budget deficit of nine per cent of GDP into a surplus.

Canada brought public spending under control guided by the principle that people should ask "what needs to be done by government and what we can afford to do".

The story also featured on BBC Breakfast this morning.

I have previously related David Starkey's account of the Canadian experience, and the debate that followed it.

There have been all sorts of ridiculous protests from vested interests here in the UK, who are either ignorant of the unsustainability of the status quo, or determined that someone else will bear the burden. They will say it cannot be done. It is important for the Conservatives to be able to point to a place where drastic cuts were made, which did not cause the sky to fall, but on the contrary revitalised the economy.

That Canada's cuts were made by a Liberal government, combined with the fact that our cuts will be made by a coalition, raises the hope that political consensus in this country will shift, and deficit spending will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Big Government = Big Problems

This morning David Cameron wakes up as Prime Minister. My optimism has not yet waned. Here's a selection of my favourite Conservative election posters.






The Big Society is the least attractive of these. It is tainted by association with Saul Alinsky, and by the ridiculous suggestion that community activists be funded by wealth confiscated from 'dormant' bank accounts.

Let us hope that Cameron will see the light, and allow the Big Society to emerge organically, with minimal government involvement.

Always look on the bright side of life

As regular readers will know, and casual visitors may guess from the name of this blog, I don't always follow Monty Python's immortal advice from The Life of Brian.

This evening, though, I'm inclined to look on the bright side of life.

As I write this, we have yet to hear from the Liberal Democrats, but David Cameron's intentions have been clearly stated: he aims to form "a proper and full coalition".

The coalition presents opportunities as well as challenges.

It is a good excuse for both sides to do away with some of their sillier manifesto commitments. It will be interesting to see what goes.

By sharing the poison, it may prove fatal to neither party. It will be difficult for a hostile media to portray the upcoming rollback of the state as 'Tory cuts'. Instead they will be 'necessary readjustments', in the national interest.

The Liberal Democrats have no obligation to the client voters that Labour has built up over the last 13 years. They will go along with massive reductions in the public sector, provided the most vulnerable in society are taken care of.

The Lib Dem policy of raising the poorest out of income tax will be a nice complement to Conservative initiatives to break Labour's welfare trap. I hope we will see both carrot and stick, with massive simplification of taxes and benefits along the way.

The Liberal Democrats have harboured committed libertarians like Mark Littlewood and Charlotte Gore. I do not know how many such people have found their way into parliament as Lib Dem MPs, but I do know that David Cameron granted safe seats to Conservative libertarians, and they stand ready.

With the election and subsequent negotiations out of the way, libertarian voices within both parties will be able to speak more freely, and we may start to win the battle of ideas. It will start with a renewed emphasis on personal responsibility.

We may also hope that the Lib Dem's hold true to their manifesto commitment to "always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice"; this is an area of policy that Conservatives have always got wrong.

There were some promising notes in Cameron's first speech as Prime Minister:

• "Making sure people are in control, and that the politicians are always their servants, and never their masters"
• "Real change is not what government can do on its own ... real change is ... when we all exercise our responsibilities, to ourselves, to our families, to our communities, and to others"
• "I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain ... one where we don't just ask 'what are my entitlements?', but 'what are my responsibilities?'"
• "Above all, it will be a government that is built on some clear values: values of freedom, values of fairness, and values of responsibility"
• "I want us to build an economy that rewards work"
• "Rebuilding family; rebuilding community; above all, rebuilding responsibility in our country. Those are the things I care about; those are the things that this government will now start work on doing."

Finally, it is worth noting that the experts in Austrian economics at The Cobden Centre have long recognised the potential in David Cameron's conservatives. In an article back in December, Toby Baxendale highlighted the best bits of Cameron's Big Society speech. For example:

The size, scope and role of government in Britain has reached a point where it is now inhibiting, not advancing the progressive aims of reducing poverty, fighting inequality, and increasing general well-being. Indeed there is a worrying paradox that because of its effect on personal and social responsibility, the recent growth of the state has promoted not social solidarity, but selfishness and individualism.

Time will tell. I have my doubts, as ever, but for now I will allow myself to hope.

David Starkey's fairy story

Historian David Starkey has produced a short film.

To a backdrop of magical music and ancient stonework, he tells an interesting tale:

Listen my children, for I am about to tell you a fairy story.

By children, I mean those of you who are not jaded or cynical, who love your country, and believe that even some politicians love their country too, and are prepared to put its interests above their party, or their pockets. Now, I know this is silly, but it is a fairy story.

My story is about a great country, far far away across the ocean to the west, and long long ago, almost 15 years ago, in fact, which is way beyond the limit of political memory. It is country of noble rivers, of great forests, of endless prairies, and snowcapped mountains. It's rich in natural resources; it even has, for this is a fairy story, a people who speak our language, and share our values. And yet, this great country was on the brink of ruin.

For this people ... who were so like ourselves, though far away, and long ago, had spent too much, both individually and collectively. Their government debt stood at 70% of GDP. Their budget deficit was 9% of GDP. But, just as it seemed as though this great country was going to go over the brink... the people chose new leaders, who were — and remember, this is a fairy story — wise, imaginative, and brave.

The result was the great change. Their leaders didn't pretend, like ours, that the necessary money could be saved by 'efficiency savings', or argue about minute amounts of National Insurance contributions. Instead, they stopped government doing things.

Regional aid, and Department of Industry budgets were cut by up to 60%. Public sector employment declined by a quarter. And lo, within three years, the budget was back in surplus, and stayed there. The currency soared, and the economy boomed. And, like children, the Canadians, for it is they of whom I speak, lived happily ever after.

Interestingly, it seems that the transformation occurred not under a Canadian Conservative government, as one might expect, but rather under Jean Chrétien's Liberals, who I always took to be the Canadian equivalent of Labour. I'll see if I can dig up more information to corroborate Starkey's account.

To be sure, Canada today is not without its problems, and they will be hit hard by the financial catastrophe brewing south of the border, but the story nevertheless gives a timely reminder that a concerted effort to tackle deficits and debts by reducing the scope of government can yield impressive results, and quickly.

Progress through technology

Or as the Germans say, Vorsprung Durch Technik.

It's a principle that was once embraced more strongly by this nation than any other, and it is our only hope for the future.

Last night I caught the last episode of Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds. It was the BBC at its best. No agonising about human rights or climate change; just brilliant photography, high production standards, and serious science, accessibly presented.

Carbon nanotubes and Van der Waals forces; cheese mites and plankton; discernible letters, only thousands of atoms wide, etched on a platelet of a human hair.

Brilliant stuff.