Nothing releases passion like the subject of immigration. Nor is anything so certain to unleash binary thinking, with defenders and attackers of this essentially economic phenomenon dividing into mutually hostile camps, high on their own anger and righteousness. It’s time for some balanced nuanced thinking. As ever, Larry Elliott of the Guardian is here to provide it, [1] In an article titled It’s not bigotry to worry about immigration
We won’t steal his thunder. You should read it. No, really, this time. it applies to your country too. But we will dare to adduce the two essential points
1 Immigration isn’t all bad-it has serious economic advantages
2 Immigration isn’t all good- it has serious economic disadvantages
Our thoughts? Those who call themselves leftists should be passionately against immigration, as it’s a classic example of a free market mechanism disrupting society. Those who call themselves rightists should be passionately in favour of immigration as it’s a classic example of a free market mechanism disrupts society, which is always the price for economic efficiency. Can we go back to some science now?
As Hemingway once wrote of bankruptcy, the collapse of autocratic regimes tends to happen gradually and then suddenly—slowly, and then all at once
So writes Anne Applebaum in her unflinchingly honest reflection on the fall of Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad and his tribe of hangers-on. No one can deny the people who live in Syria their brief moment of joy at the departure of the kleptocrat. But whether the inhabitants of that ravaged land can whack up the wherewithal to sustain their new freedom remains moot. Especially in this dark sombre world where “ignorant armies clash by night!*
Which is why we’re channelling the thoughts of Anne and Sir Alex Younger, because they are two of the sharpest tools in the current box. They saw all this coming. And Anne is quick to situate the Syrian upset where it belongs-inside the strategic game plan of Vladimir Putin. The current spate of rail delays, snapped cables, health system freezes and curious election outcomes are part of one essential gameplan which she defines as
When Putin talks about a new world order or a “multipolar world,” as he did again last month, this is what he means: He wants to build a world in which his cruelty cannot be limited, in which he and his fellow dictators enjoy impunity, and in which no universal values exist, not even as aspirations.
Every ruler a Bashar Assad, in fact.
For those who do not know Britain’s Security Services still recruit and even promote some of the cleverest people in our system. None more so than Sir Alex Younger until recently head of MI6, our foreign facing arm of the undercover service. He has made it his mission to pop up in corners of the infosphere to warn us of the imminent perils we confront. The mere fact they have let him out should be alarm enough in in itself-normally these people stay deep undercover even far into retirement. This outing for Sky News is pretty representative of his thought, which is always lucid [2]
Gentle readers, the way ahead will be long and extremely arduous. Nor can we clearly see its end. But the people of Syria have shown the possibility of overthrowing even the most tyrannical of despots. They have demonstrated that Putin is not infallible, as the Mediterranean Province of his empire crumbles. And that his Iranian allies have suffered a major defeat. The greatest weapon a bully has is his reputation for being unbeatable. That has just been lost.
*arnold
[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/12/sudden-collapse-bashar-assad/680917/?utm_source=apple_newsthanks to P Seymour
“Tear down your wall!” This was the gauntlet which US President Ronald Reagan threw down to the Communist bloc in the 1980s. It was a harbinger of times to come. Reagan was the leader of the Neoliberal programme, by which he meant that trade: the free flow of goods, services, capital and people would bring undreamed-of levels of prosperity and confine the memory of the restricted economies of Socialism to the dusty bookshelves of the History Faculty. Remember the 1990s and all those endless negotiations on GATT and the World Trade Organisation, as the good times rolled? The world was to follow the principle of Comparative Advantage, as advocated by David Ricardo, with each nation specialising in what it did best.
Yet the Neoliberal model contained the seeds of its own downfall, as we have noted before on these pages. The profound existential crisis it endured after 2008 has never ended. And now everyone, both ruled and rulers, has learned to turn away from its nostrums and the many problems which unrestricted movement has brought
Chief among these of course is immigration, which has incited a visceral fear of identity crisis among the native populations of countries where it runs high. Immigration was never a socialist thing, but a capitalist one. Donald Trump has recognised this, by using trade tariffs explicitly to control immigration(and the supply of stupefying drugs, (which similarly obeys the rules of a free market) As this Guardian article notes, he is simply the most powerful exponent of the spirit of our times. Free markets are out. Red Tape is in. What could be more Red Tape than immigration control? [1]
Of course everyone will follow suit. The first will be nations and trading blocs, retaliating against their American tormentor. Perhaps everyone will be poorer, but they may well live in more stable societies. However, once you throw over the market principle and prize stability above prosperity, you open the door to other innovations. Like higher taxes, which are also advocated to promote social good.. To restrictions on the buying and selling of second homes, lest they damage the fabric of local communities. To ever tighter restrictions on the use of cars, cigarettes and alcohol. Access to the internet and other sources of information. Trump and his supporters may not yest realise it fully, but they have already sold the pass.
Russia and its dominions are now plagued by an entirely new wave of drug crime. It’s a fascinating subculture, based on the dark Web and full of its own new argot with terms like kladmen, seagulls and dead drops, all designed to get around the old models of illegal buying and selling.[1] This superb article by Max Daly of the Guardian explains all. First, a confession. We freely confess that not only do we have the greatest intellectual difficulty in understanding how all this works, but also in grasping how it can possibly exist in a totalitarian, utterly regulated society like Russia, where absolute obedience is prized above all.
The answer is that an outward show of absolute loyalty buys many freedoms. A totalitarian state can brook no challenge to its legitimacy. Yet those who cheerfully profess unswerving fidelity can go about their daily business virtually untouched, It’s a truth that western admirers of the old Soviet Union found hard to grasp: how could there be so many gangs and so much corruption in a Socialist Society? But there was: outfits like the Tambov Mafia gave more than one aspiring dictator their start. The biggest threat to a totalitarian system is not the dissidents, who can be quickly arrested and crushed. It is the loyalists whose activities slowly creep up, deviating the purpose of the State until it is rotten from within. It is the same everywhere: who can be more loyal than a policeman, dedicating his life to maintaining social order? Well, read this {2] about the alleged misdemeanours of a certain Oscar Sanchez Gil who was until recently head of the economic crimes unit of the Spanish National Police, and who allegedly had about 20 million euros in cash stuck inside the walls of his house. (of course, we stress that at this stage these are allegations. The Courts may yet prove Snr. Gil to be a fine upstanding citizen of impeccable character and honesty) But it’s the sort of case that illustrates our point.
Corruption may indeed be a bit naughty. But what is it really except the classic operation of a free market rushing to supply an immediate need? One thwarted by acres of state regulation and red tape? Back in the 1990s, we always laughed at card carrying Conservatives who grew hysterical about immigration and illegal drugs. Surely, we reasoned, this was just their free market operating to the laws of supply and demand? Of course one may make a judgement about what are real human needs. But that is a moral issue, not an economic one. If free market theory is correct, then it must be one of the best descriptors of human nature yet found. And ultimately, it will bring down every system, however cruel.
Today we revived a post about the Roman Scholar Cassiodorus, or part of it. We did so because we thought his life might be relevant to the folly of our own times. While we shuffled through the process of writing, posting and so on, we noticed that a reader had picked up on another four year old post about the infamous Smoot Hawley Tariff. And so, without further ado, we reproduce below The Smoot Hawley Tariff:Another fine Mess…… Because we think it’s more relevant than ever. Thank you, that reader
It is the year 1930, and Republican Herbert Hoover is in his second year as President of the United States. Outside the White House, popular tunes on the radio include Embraceable You, by George and Ira Gershwin, and Ten cents a dance by Lorenz Hart and Richard Rogers. In cinemas Laurel and Hardy have made their transition to talking pictures with shorts like Hog Wild and Another Fine Mess. These would have supported new feature films such as Hells Angels and The Dawn Patrol, both evoking strong memories of the recent World War.
In May 1930 Hoover was a very worried man. In the previous autumn, the Wall Street Crash had sent shares into meltdown, triggering an avalanche of company closures and layoffs. By March 1930, US unemployment was already at 1.5 million. Now there was even worse news. On his desk lay a Bill called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff-and he, as President, was expected to sign it.
The Bill had been introduced into both Houses by Senator Reed Smoot (Rep, Utah) and Representative Willis C Hawley (Rep, Oregon). It was a response to cry from Republican heartlands to protect American jobs for American workers-and especially American Farmers. To this end, it introduced high tariffs on a vast range of imported manufactured and agricultural goods. Now it had passed both Houses of Congress, and so only needed the President’s signature to become law.
The trouble was that the whole rest of the world depended on trade with a thriving American economy. America was the only healthy economy left of any size after the Great War. A rise in US Tariffs would mean a collapse in trade for everyone else; and even the possibility that they might retaliate. 1,028 leading economists signed a petition asking the President to use his veto. The head of JP Morgan begged the President to reject this “asinine” legislation. Henry Ford spent an evening with the President in a last- ditch attempt to persuade him to use his veto. It didn’t work: Hoover knew that he needed the support of his Republican Party to govern at all. Not to have signed would have sparked a civil war inside the party. And so on 7 June 1930, the Smoot Hawley Tariff became Law.
The economic consequences unfolded at once. Over the next three years US imports decreased by 66%, and exports by 61%. An economy estimated at $103.1 billion in 1929 had fallen to $55.6 billion by 1933. The collapse in farm and other commodity prices brought starvation to the farming communities who had so strongly pressed for the Bill. In December 1931 US unemployment reached 9 million. By December 1932 it was 13 million.
The international consequences were disturbing. Led by Canada, all the major trading countries began putting up their own protectionist tariffs. Any hope of the world trading its way out of depression vanished. Unemployment rose to vertiginous heights, especially in Germany. There were consequences. In 1928 the Nazi Party had 12 seats and 2.6% of the vote. By 1932 they commanded 230 seats and 37.3%. Most worrying of all was Japan, which in despair abandoned the world community. Instead they looked for resources and markets by seizing Manchuria from China, initiating the eastern half of a war that would last until 1945.
What can we learn from all this, ninety years on? Never underestimate the power of ignorance and stupidity in human affairs. That nations have a right to defend their interests, but need to be very, very thoughtful about how they do it. And that the Talkies were here to stay.
By 1934 the new President, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, was already starting to lower tariffs again. But the damage had already been done. Japan was by now so committed to China that only military defeat would get them out. In Germany, Hitler was consolidating his power by becoming Fuhrer. Some years of peace lay ahead, but the lines that led to war were already laid down.
Perhaps we should leave the last words to WH Auden, who wrote these memorable lines on 1st September 1939, as Germany marched into Poland, and the most terrible conflict in history got under way
Accurate scholarship can/Unearth the whole Offence/from Luther until now/That has driven a culture mad……………………….I and the public know/What all schoolchildren learn/That those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return
we apologise for being unable to find a royalty-free image of Messrs Smoot and Hawley
Hugh Brogan The Pelican History of the United States of America penguin 1985
When did America’s Decline end, and the Fall begin? Although future historians will debate, Tuesday November 5th 2024 will be as good as any other point to start from. For it was on this date that a concatenation of forces-economic, political, social-produced the re-election of Donald Trump, and all that was to follow. These forces included an irresolvable racial rancour dating back to slavery; a deep pollution of information in the public sphere; a chronic failing in public education and the ethos to support it. But above all it was the worship of money, and the catastrophic, merciless social and economic inequalities that this engendered, that brought everything low. Writing for The Nation,Tom McCoy details these rather well in the first part of his article [1] (Don’t read the second bit until we say you can) To cut a long story short, we could call this obsession with cash NeoLiberalism.
Let’s just jump across the Atlantic for a moment to say goodbye to Larry Elliott who quits his post at the Guardian after 36 years {2] He too is eloquent on the many things he has witnessed. Among them is this observation on this same cocky, self-satisfied NeoLiberalism
…… the free-market experiment has failed, as some of us said it would all along. Wealth did not trickle down, and instead the gap between the haves and the have-nots widened. The workers laid off when the factories closed in northern England and the US midwest did not find new well-paid jobs but were either thrown on the scrapheap or found low-paid insecure work …………
Financial speculation ran rife once controls on capital were removed, but growth rates in the west were slower than in the postwar heyday of social democracy. Warnings of trouble ahead were ignored until the world’s banking system came close to collapse in the global financial crisis of 2008. [2]
Producing an alienated and impoverished group of vast voting power) which was impervious to the imploring of reason, fact and education. And who could blame them? The exalted free markets have produced such insecurity that a nationalist backlash was inevitable. It is now tearing down every shibboleth that the neoliberals held dear. Low tariffs, free movements of capital and labour, cultural and intellectual exchange are going to the wall, and we can see nowhere that this process can now stop..
Except one. Because while Larry’s article closes with a final nod to the re-emergence of the Nation State, Tom’s goes further and look to the future.(OK, click on his article again) The problem with the Nation State is Pride. It is national Pride which will cause Donald Trump and his friends to start drilling for oil again. By which means all combined attempts to prevent global warming will collapse, as each nation looks to its own interest. Runaway global warming will produce such desolation that any economy and any body politic will become unsustainable, probably as early as the next decade. The resulting chaos will make a world Government essential for human survival. And tom details how this may come about, perhaps in the sixties or seventies.
The American hegemony is now certainly over, How ironic that this was hastened by an arch nationalist such as Trump!
Two days out from the US Presidential Election. For weeks now, our anxiety has been growing. Are they really going to elect That Man? Again? After all he did to their security, alliances, economy, health? Has Democracy itself failed? The mere fact he has got so far suggests Democracy is very, very poor at solving its problems.
And then the lightbulb moment saved us. We were listening to a BBC piece on Radio 4 about the attempts of various UK Governments to control illegal immigration. Onto the show they tipped an expert who warned “any attempt to control the people smuggler gangs will fail, because their leaders live mostly in the Middle East.” In other words people smuggling is a multinational business. Like IT, oil, fashion, fast food, transport, automotive manufacture. Some of these many giant businesses operate within the law(most of the time, anyway) Some like drug dealers and people smugglers tend stay outside it. But the economic and technological forces driving them are the same. The world is a very small place thanks to modern technology, and the rules of supply and demand are infallible. Economies of scale evolve that are far beyond the jurisdictions of nation states.
Which brings us back to the US elections. The people who will (probably) elect Donald Trump are not bad, mad or stupid. But they are frightened and bewildered. Because the very concept through which they view the world (the nation state) is now utterly inadequate to contend with the problems we face. Things like global warming, pandemics and the mass migrations of people are so obviously beyond the competence of even the largest national entities as to make their individual policies irrelevant. Suddenly a vote for a President, Prime Minister or whatever becomes like gripping the gear lever on a failing car. Whatever you do, it suddenly makes little difference. In that sense, the rise of Donald Trump is a sure and infallible signal of the utter failure of national politics everywhere. It states more clearly than anything that the time has come to look long and hard for an alternative. And, as that truth, it should be welcomed.
#donald trump #us elections #global warming #nation state #world government
Photo by Tara Winstead on Pexels.comPhoto by Michelangelo Buonarroti on Pexels.comPhoto by Damir Mijailovic on Pexels.com
Keir Starmer’s Labour Party came to power on a pledge to clear up Britain’s economic mess and, above all other things, create growth. But how to do it? It is a question that has bedevilled British Governments since the country first began to fall behind in the late Victorian era. And no amount of reforming government has ever halted the inexorable decline, which feels supporting like a football team slowly slipping down the leagues. Remember Manchester United?
Yet how did Britain first rise to inordinate wealth and power in the Georgian period.?(let’s leave the constitution for another day) The answer is that, by luck or design, Britain took full advantage of the scientific and intellectual advances of the Enlightenment, more so than any other country. [1]The result was the Industrial Revolution, which provided an absolute step change in human productive capacity. Sadly for Britain, other countries quickly learned the lesson, better and more thoroughly than the British pioneers. And here we are today.
Yet there may be a way out of this trap. We have long tried to sing the praises of research and development as the real drivers of economic growth. But candidly admit-we’ve struggled. Now a most erudite yet readable article from the Guardian by Andre Gein and Nancy Rothwell makes the case with levels of data back up we could never match [2] Get this for a killer quote:
It is recognised as having a much higher rate of return than average for capital investment across government spending lines (every £1 of Higher Education Innovation Fund investment at research intensive universities delivers £12 to the economy).
Starmer and Reeves should ignore the groans of the terminally old and selfish. Real patriotism would embrace tax rises, if these are then invested in the long term future of our universities, And the network of schools that feed them of course. It’s time to play a big card, and this is a gambit that will work.
The jury’s been out on the UK summer riots. But now it’s back. And the verdict is grim. The causes are clear, and demonstrable. Most of the rioters were not outside agitators. They were locals. And the places local to them are rotten with deprivation, bad health and unemployment. The findings are laid out for all to see in this pooled report from Guardian writers. [1] Their findings make grim reading for everyone, of whatever political persuasion. But sackcloth and ashes most of all are reserved for those who believe the antique slogans about untrammelled free markets, economic liberalisation, risk takers and free movement of goods and people being best for society.
Because what they forgot to tell us was that there are far more losers than winners in such a set-up. That whole communities would whither away into stagnation and despair. In such circumstances people do not make rational, considered judgements. They just get angry and resentful. Is it so surprising some of them riot? A free market purist would argue that nothing is more capitalist than immigration. Who takes more risks than an immigrant, by tearing up their roots and starting again in a new country? But clearly the natives don’t take such an objective view. Their riots are a sign of something much deeper.
Across the world, a massive reaction to the free movement of people has begun. Naturally, it extends to goods and services, as trade tariffs rise again, and local sourcing is everywhere preferred. Powerful demographic forces are making sure that free movement, markets and migration are coming to an end. The very forces unleashed by liberalism have ensured their own demise.
We at LSS do not believe that communism or faith-based economics are the answer. This is a Whig website, not a socialist one. We think the answer lies in a different model of Capitalism, In the next blog or two we will make suggestions as to what these may look like. These suggestions will be tentative, and humble. But unless we learn to think in different ways, and soon, even the educated will end up joining the others in final despair.
The American Civil War which began in 1861 did not come out of nowhere. Tensions between the two sides had been growing for almost four decades. Yet the war was not inevitable. History buffs will recall the efforts of moderates on both sides to pull the extremists back. Things like the Nullification Crisis, the Wilmott Proviso, the Missouri Compromise, now either despised or forgotten, delayed the bloodshed or tried valiantly to buy time to think again. What tipped the balance and allowed the hotheads to say “we were right all along” was John Brown and his terrorists’ raid on the Harpers Ferry Federal Arsenal 0n 16 October 1859. Read this from Hugh Brogan’s Pelican History of the United States [1]
“…the impression made on the South was too deep. Here it was at last, the nightmare come true. The abolitionist appeal to the slaves to rebel, now naked and apparent, in spite of the endless disclaimers of Northern Politicians, of Southern Moderates. The fire-eaters instantly took command.
From John Brown onward, the march to war began.
That there were moderates on both sides in contemporary America, including the Republican Party, we had no doubt, right up until today. But now expect the MAGA extremists to unleash a firestorm of social media. Blaming Biden; blaming the Democrats, blaming the Deep State, the Secret Service, CNN, the New York Times…..anyone. That there were reasonable people, who believe that Statecraft is to address several issues at once, will be forgotten. As in 1860, the lines between those who honestly believe that Race and its attendant hierarches are the most important matters in human affairs, and those who honestly do not, are firmly drawn. If we are wrong, you may laugh at us.
But if we are right, the future is dark indeed. Expect a closely contested Presidential Election. with repeated outbreaks of lethal violence. And that neither side honestly accepts the result. The Constitution of the United States is thereby vitiated. There will then be a short descent into a bloody and protracted Civil War. The United States will cease to exist as a meaningful power. Any political entities which emerge in its former territories will be dark and authoritarian, whether of Right or Left. China and its allies and satellites will become the dominant force in world affairs. They will quickly buy the strongmen and media allies to snuff out the last vestiges of freedom in the small nations of Europe , Canada and the others. And Thomas Matthew Crooks was the man who finally tipped the whole thing into motion. May his soul be cursed in Hell forever.
[1] Hugh Brogan The Pelican History of the United States of America Penguin 1985 pp 317 et seq
Learning, Science and Society 