Display:
I saw this on Sully's blog today and thought it was funny.
Orwell, to put it kindly, does not win the Nostradamus award for prescience. Nor does he win an award for enlightened public policy. At one point, he pressed for capping individual incomes in Britain such that no person would earn more than ten times the salary of the lowest-paid worker. An unworkable plan, obviously, and that Orwell would suggest it betrays an ignorance of politics, policy, and human nature. It also betrays an ignorance of Frédéric Bastiat's wisdom about the relationship between liberty and equality -- viz, that mandating the latter will always destroy the former. Orwell advocated nationalizing not a few things, too: all major industry, all agricultural land, and all privately run schools. It is striking that the author of 1984 would write, approvingly, that at "the moment that all productive goods have been declared the property of the State, the common people will feel, as they cannot feel now, that the State is themselves."

By a Hoover Institution fellow.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 11:26:25 AM EST
I don't know how other countries experienced nationalisation, but it was not a particular success in the UK. Workers bore the brunt of govt pay policy which seemed more aimed at keeping their wages low than dealing with inequity in society.

A British government does not plan employment well and is far too remote from thw workforce to be repsonsive to it.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 11:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When the government runs a business in a market environment it will have to act like a business. Libertarians like the Hooverites will malign it for having too many social and other considerations. General legislation (changes to the market environment) is better suited for dealing with inequality.

The wholesale withdrawal of the UK government from direct and indirect control of markets and the efforts to marketise many public services have also not served the country well.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 12:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My own view is that government's role is to control the legislative and fiscal environment in which the market functions. If it wants to change the way the market works, then they have to change the environment accordingly.

The problem, particualrly for labour administrations, is that they want to intervene directly. And they are spectacularly bad at running things.

It was Thatcher who first abdicated responsibility for governing the country economically, blair and brown simply perpetuated the abandonment of duty

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 12:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a puzzle, though, why in Britain neither the direct state intervention and restructuring that you sometimes see in France nor the closer cooperation between state and industry that you can associate with the German model works.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 02:03:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The essence of the Anglo model is looking out for Number One. If you take that attitude and turn it into militant unionism, it's almost - but not quite - as nasty as straight out City thievery.

The UK does have a saner union and left wing tradition, but the old shop floor naturally selected for bully boy types. When put up against the emotionally handicapped public school victims in management, adversarial relationships were inevitable.

Thatcher eliminated the bully boys and gave the managers free reign. But the problem isn't so much with any particular class, as an overall culture of competitive selfishness and lack of generosity.

You won't get interdependence and cooperation from people who find the idea of interdependence personally offensive.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 06:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see the problem with the 10:1 salary ratio limit. It takes around $50k to live a decent life in the U.S., and $500k is a good executive salary.
by asdf on Mon Jul 13th, 2009 at 12:02:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
25 comments

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
3 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
8 comments

Sarkozy: Enemies Ahoy!
by afew - Feb 10
6 comments

LQD: Unsustainable irrigation
by Melanchthon - Feb 9

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

Recent Diaries
Sarkozy: Enemies Ahoy!
by afew - Feb 10
6 comments

Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
25 comments

LQD: Unsustainable irrigation
by Melanchthon - Feb 9

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
3 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
8 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Answers to the Renewable Energy Consultation
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 7

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

The Imitation Of Germany
by afew - Feb 4
31 comments

Strange Fruit
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 4
14 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Mismatch with the Natural Gas Market
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 3
22 comments

The Future of Economics
by ARGeezer - Feb 2
191 comments

Desert Island Discs - Helen's distortions
by Helen - Jan 31
48 comments

Gorila
by DoDo - Jan 29
14 comments

Rail News Blogging #7
by DoDo - Jan 29
15 comments

Obama's State Of The Union: LQD
by Crazy Horse - Jan 25
74 comments

Democracy Technology
by gmoke - Jan 24
1 comment

The Hydrogen dream
by Luis de Sousa - Jan 24
49 comments

ET Paris Meet-Up 2012 (2 UPDATE)
by afew - Jan 23
113 comments

More Diaries...
Occasional Series