Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Colin James on the future of ACT

Coolin James writing for the Otago Daily Times:

Economists and politicians talk endlessly of economic "recovery". But what are we "recovering" to?

And can we go there?

A "re-" prefixed to the wrong word can seduce us away from the uncertain future to a comforting - but lost - past.

Take the Act party, in conference this coming weekend.

Twenty years ago, Act's formula for economic and, as a result, social policy powered a lot of thinking and a large amount of government policy, here and in many market-economy countries.

Much smaller government, greater individual and corporate freedom and weariness of "welfarism" formed a tide in intellectual and political circles.

But by the late 1990s National Party ministers had tired of and grown resistant to Act's lectures and those of its supporting think-tank, the Business Roundtable.



Kiwiwit said...

Colin James' seems to be advocating some sort of "Third Way" as promoted by the likes of Tony Blair and other Western leaders (including our last Labour Government) after the dominance of left-wing policies in the 50s, 60s and 70s and the right-wing in the 80s.

If such an alternative existed it would have succeeded by now and we wouldn't be in the current global economic and social crisis.

He may think that "retrofitting old notions and re-activating old ways of doing things will not work" but, like it or not, we face the same old stark choices - between collectivism and individualism, state dominance of our lives and individual responsibility, and Socialism versus economic freedom.

As James Delingpole said so brilliantly in his Spectator column, the middle ground is "dog shit yoghurt" and if you don't like dog shit, it means only one side wins.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

This James fellow is a closet socialist who claims to be politically neutral because he doesn't vote.

The dead giveaway in this load of tripe is his comment to the effect that 'market forces' started the Global Financial Crisis.

Wee, actually central government intervention in the US home lending market is what started the shambles, Mr James.

Market forces simply did what they always do. They put a price on the idiocy of government. In this case the Democrats who insisted that people with no jobs, no income and no prospects should be able to borrow 100% of the price of a home.

The left and the US media hate to admit the truth on this issue. They'd rather blame Bush. Sadly our own media are too dumb, stupid or lazy to do other than repeat the lies.

James said...

^......oh...well said Adolf.......made all the points I was going to. Yes..anyone who trots out the old "The market failed and caused the GFC" loses creditability with me straight away.