Matthew wants to know why I hadn’t blogged the US election results. I did in fact make a mental blog this evening, as I was wandering through a downtown Stockholm bookstore with more quality English language books than your average New York Barnes & Noble (a whole wall with black-spined Penguin Classics, for example). But then I decided it wasn’t interesting enough to post. Imagine if I blogged everything that came to mind. No, don’t. But now Matthew’s asked for it.

I was thinking once again of the quality of life in Stockholm, of how stupendously high it is, and how it has been achieved through economic policies that are very different from the US model, which undeniably also generates a high standard of living (but only a stellar quality of life if you happen to live in NYC). And it got me thinking in ways which I know Charles Kenny will approve of.

Perhaps government policy on the economy and a whole range of social issues does not figure at all in the ultimate success or failure of a society to maximize utility. And so elections would be mostly irrelevant (including US ones). What then does matter?

I decided that levels of corruption are the main deteminant of social and economic development. Corrupt societies are never wealthy. And, tellingly, there are no politicians campaigning for more graft. Also, there are no politicians campaigning against property rights (anymore). But since politicians can still practice graft or theft, perhaps voters should value integrity above all else and ignore opinions completely (This last sentence was for John/Eurof).

The upshot of all this: In two years, vote McCain for president and put in office a man of character who works tirelessly to reduce the opportunities for corruption in American society, first and foremost with his campaign finance reform bill.

This blog was paid for by Citizens for Matthew Rose.

[Wed, Nov 06 2002 – 23:01] Felix (www) (email) No politicians campaigning against property rights? You obviously haven’t been following Latin American politics recently. Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela — all of these have had anti-property-rights leftists doing extremely well, in Ecuador it looks like Gutierrez is going to win quite handily, and in Venezuela Ch∑vez has already been in power for a few years now.

And because my comment on the previous entry was so fucked up, here is a link to my blog on the elections.

[Thu, Nov 07 2002 – 08:04] Charlie (email) Gutierrez has moved so far towards the centre he is starting to sound like Tony Blair. He is not the next Ch∑vez, so freedom-loving folk can rest easy. If elected he would only control a quarter of Congress, unlike Ch∑vez. That may not even be enough to stay in office, let alone start to roll back capitalism. Ecuador bonds have rallied 10% this week. Anyway, there was another reason for bringing this up, apart from to reassure you about Gutierrez. People don’t usually vote for candidates they think will make them poorer. The reason he has got this far is because people are fed up with corruption. Ecuador is corrupt and also very poor – no coincidence there. If he can clean it up good luck to him.

[Thu, Nov 07 2002 – 09:22] Matthew (www) (email) i utterly disavow any relationship with the so-called Citizens for Matthew Rose and its soppy political analysis, which even in swedish would be labeled SOUR GRAPES. Matthew Rose for Citizenship, however, started its post-McCain-Feingold fundraising spree yesterday. contributions welcome.

[Thu, Nov 07 2002 – 09:47] Felix (www) (email) So, Matthew, are you going to ACTUALLY renounce your UK citizenship, as required, when you become a septic, or will you go down the let’s-not-and-say-we-did route?

[Thu, Nov 07 2002 – 10:25] Ayse (email) This topic only makes me more mad. Turkey is very corrupt and people have gotten visibly poorer in the last two-three years. Unfortunately, the party that rallied the protest vote on Sunday was a “moderately” Islamist party and not the Social Democrats who had THE IDEAL opportunity spoon-fed to them. Sunday does not indicate a rise of Islamism, it is just the disgrace of the so-called Social Democrats in Turkey who I wish will one day get a life. Go to Sweden and hang out with Stefan or something.

[Fri, Nov 08 2002 – 08:50] anonymous YES YES, spot on steffles! My increasing propensity to agree with you worries me a lot. Working as I do in the stockmarket I am confronted with a level of corruption, cant and outright lying to make money off the ignorant that is astonishing. Unfortunately, if business is currently at the heart of American politics and policy as it is under what is esentially a collection of ex CEOs as president, vice president, SecTreas, you name them, and where funding seems to be the key to electoral victory nowadays, I have a sense that American politics is more corrupt than ever.

Unfortunately, the success of the system that put them where they are creates hubris; it sows the seeds of the destruction of the system, as Schumpeter predicted and the Soviet Politburo found out. But in this case it will take us all with it. It’ll be the combination of Greenspan’s loose money having fuelled a system that incentivises corporate corruption that will do for us, but at its root lies an ascendancy of Ayn Randian millenial New Right-onomics gone mad. Brace yourselves for depression and deflation, my friends, we are doomed. At the end of it we will all be lefties again, and no doubt after a generation, the hubris of the New New Left will result in some ghastly Statist nightmare. Think about it: 1890-1920s capitalism breaks down; after 10 years of crisis it gives way to 1940-50s social democracy which gives way to its belated collapse in the unionised corruption of the 1970s (10 years of crisis) after having gone nuts (see Michael Foot). Now that the New Right went rabid after 30 years (see George Bush, the Wall Street Journal), we probably face 10 years of crisis and eventual doom and the rebuilding of a new paradigm. And what’s at the root of this? Nothing but the economic cycle of ideology, the pernicious boom and bust of Opinion, in other words, Hubris; a sureness that the other lot have nothing good to say at all and you definitely have the answer.

Now maybe That Nice Mr. McCain may not be able to stop it straight away, but he makes excellent oven chips, and in the meantime could have a good go.

[Fri, Nov 08 2002 – 08:52] eurof (email) sorry, that was obviously me. i’m writing at someone else’s computer

[Fri, Nov 08 2002 – 11:37] Tanya Ummm… Stefan, if corrupt societies (whatever those may be) are never wealthy (however that may be measured), how do you explain France? Or Italy? Apologies for being so pedantic, of course.

[Mon, Nov 11 2002 – 05:34] Jezza Corruption tends to be used to describe societies that make more money than us or make money in a different way. Envy inevitably intrudes, as does ignorance. If you sum up the measure of wrongs and rights of different societies and wash them through each other’s perceptions you won’t find easy definitions for corruption. The word is steeped in morality and who makes arguments for universal morality? Eurof we never doubted the anon email was you – regular little Jeremiah you’re turning into. Embrace Nietsche and war dude, and chill out, it’s nothing a few serious weapons of mass destruction won’t sort out.

[Mon, Nov 11 2002 – 11:17] eurof (email) we’re doomed. seriously.

i think jeremy is right. Italy and France aren’t necessarily corrupt in the sense that bribery, nepotism etc are integrated in the system in the first place (i don’t even think it’s that bad); everyone who lives there knows it to be an integral part of doing business and factor it into their expectations. they don’t get surprised that people receiving disability benefits for being blind can also apply for driving licenses.

however in the anglo-saxon world, you do not expect normal outcomes to be skewed by dodgy practices. it’s a system where you are largely supposed to be able to trust people you don’t know. for instance when you are advised by a broker or a Merrill Lynch analyst to buy JDS Uniphase cos it’s really good, you don’t necessarily think “the powers that be are definitely out to screw me here”, as you in fact should, or when Dubya puts a stooge of the accounting industry to head up the SEC because they pay for his senators to be re-elected.

according to economists like Hayek, more successful economies are ones where you tend to have more confidence that your plans will work out, that you won’t get swatted by random outcomes from left field. Italians may pay a bribe, turn a blind eye or whatever, anglo-saxons believe in the rule of law. in a sense it doesn’t matter so much what the rules consist of, so long as you know in advance that they’ll be applied.

[Mon, Nov 11 2002 – 15:31] Charles Kenny (www) (email) Why the hell would I approve of such sophomoric, neoliberal, ‘new institutionalist,’ D. North meets F. Fukuyama Chicago school cant?

[Tue, Nov 12 2002 – 04:40] Jezza Tell us Charles, why wouldn’t you?

[Tue, Nov 12 2002 – 05:01] eurof (email) Charles, Jeremy hasn’t done anything to you and i really think calling him all those horrible names doesn’t detract from what was really a very intelligent point about corruption being in the eye of the beholder.

However you might also be referring to my citing of Hayek as an authority. Here I am afraid you are ignorant, much as a pig would be. Hayek has been hijacked by the New Right (no friends of mine in the current climate) much as Nietzsche was hijacked by Nazis. Margaret might have said he was jolly good, but that doesn’t mean she really understood him. He and the Austrian School, to which he belongs much more than he does to Chicago, made a lot of very useful insights that can be used by both Lefty gits like you as well as rabid looneys on the right. The difference is that only the looneys have bothered to study him in any depth, though, again, not quite understanding him) and that Lefty gits have confused his opposition to communism (not itself a terribly wrong intellectual position) as hostility to progressive reform.

Maybe a good reason why you should approve would be if you had some knowledge of what you speak. Sophomoric? Pshaw! Who is D. North?

[Tue, Nov 12 2002 – 10:06] eurof (email) also, i have the copyright on the word “cant”, not you. you owe me 10p. naturally you may use “can’t” (with an apostrophe) freely.

[Tue, Nov 12 2002 – 10:34] Charles Kenny (www) (email) My comment about can’t without the apostrophe was aimed at the original posting by Stefan, that “it got me thinking in ways which I know Charles Kenny will approve of.” And, John, I think it would be can’t without the apostrphe of the highest order for you to suggest that saying rude things to harmless people (viz Stefan) was to be disapproved of.

D. North is a Nobel-prize winning economist who deserved his prize about as much as Stiglitz or Kissinger deserved theirs, as is proven by the fact that Stefan’s sophomoric, neoliberal, ‘new institutionalist’ can’t without the apostrophe was in fact a slight improvement on North’s original thoughts.

[Tue, Nov 12 2002 – 11:51] eurof (email) Oh that’s annoying, I thought you were arguing with me. I was quite looking forward to that. You’re so tedious since you’ve been working at the world bank. Ha ha, I remember when me and Graham made you extremely upset by praying for the recovery of Ronald Reagan from Alzheimers, you were such a lefty. Are you sure you don’t disagree with me just a teensy tinsy bit?

Anyway, are you implying both Stefan AND Jeremy are harmless? That’s a pretty good insult right there.

[Tue, Nov 12 2002 – 12:00] Charles Kenny (www) (email) Nope, sorry. I think you’re right. Could even bring in a discussion about mores here, what the eel. As long as its customary to tip the bureaucrat, everyone knows how much, nobody has to pay it too many times and all that, a little corruption is not a bad thing. And it is very hard to argue with you about Hayek being from Austria.

[Tue, Nov 12 2002 – 12:07] Charles Kenny (www) (email) And it was hard not to think the lefties had a little bit of a point when watching you stumbling home after a night of playing credit card roulette over bottles of champagne at Pizza Express using your parents’ credit card…

[Thu, Nov 14 2002 – 11:50] eurof (email) well sod you you miserable agreeing swine. that’s so passive aggressive. don’t you have a mind of your own? are you so easily swayed? what’s wrong with you?!?

you were worse, charles, the most egregious example of a champagne socialist. “vote labour but drink with the tories”, that was your motto. you never really lay down with the seething masses, did you? are you sure you were never on the receiving end of my dad’s involuntary largesse?