Author Archives: Tim Newman

Taylor Grift

Posted on by

The other day I listened to the TRIGGERnometry podcast with a comedian called Fin Taylor. I knew nothing about Taylor, but he describes himself as a comedian who is happy to make fun of both sides of the cultural divide, mocking identity politics which has earned him the ire of the left. One of the main topics for the first part of the show was an article which appeared in The Independent criticising his jokes as being offensive, misogynist, and outdated. Taylor’s position is he is an edgy comic taking things right to the line, and if the snowflakes get triggered then so what? Which is refreshing, right?

Well, not quite. The second part of the show (at about 30 mins) discussed the situation surrounding Count Dankula, the Scottish chap who was arrested and convicted of a criminal offence for getting his pug to do a Nazi salute. Taylor – who enjoys regular work with the BBC – says jokes need to be “defensible” because there are laws around broadcasting which “we all sign up to”. He sees the internet as a free-for-all which can bypass these supposed standards and thinks this is a bad thing because “there is no machinery to uphold the same principles of maintaining the social fabric”. He then talks about people “pumping hate speech into the ether”, claims that “teenage girls are killing themselves because of things they’re seeing” and then mentions the massacre in Christchurch. Taylor casts doubt on whether Dankula was actually joking, doesn’t seem to have a problem with Dankula being fined, and refuses to defend him. He later claims every woman in public life is constantly told she’s going to be raped or killed, hence the need for government regulation of jokes on the internet.

It’s not hard to see what’s happening here. For all Taylor’s “trigger the snowflakes” reputation he’s a paid-up member of the political establishment’s approved list of comics. This almost certainly works well for him in terms of paid gigs. The absolute last thing someone holding a coveted “approved edgy person” role wants is someone genuinely edgy outflanking them, so to maintain their position they have to denounce anyone even an inch to the right of them as being beyond the pale. In practice, this means Taylor should be paid and celebrated for his offensive jokes because he’s a skilled comedian but principles of free speech shouldn’t apply to Dankula’s jokes because he’s on YouTube and not really a comic. If the two podcast hosts were worth a damn they’d have torn him to pieces over this but they didn’t, which is why I’ll not bother listening to them again.

Fin Taylor isn’t the only one who does this. I’ve quoted this from the ZMan before, talking about Ben Shapiro:

These edgy guys serve as a palace guard, maintaining the line between what is and what is not acceptable. Their job is to make sure that none of the bad think from the outer dark creeps into the thought of the orthodoxy.

…

Like all of Conservative Inc., he is for free speech that pays him well, but otherwise sides with Antifa against his competition. He’ll never talk about the fact that corporate America is willing to sponsor an Antifa convention in Chicago, but coordinates their efforts to prevent VDare from holding a private gathering.

I also mentioned so-called conservative journalist Stephen Pollard in the same post:

This is more virtue-signalling than anything else, letting his readers and progressive colleagues know he doesn’t associate with those thick, dishonest Tommy Robinson supporters, thus ensuring he’s not cast out of polite society.

I later found out Pollard had blocked me, which I can only imagine was for posting this. What brand of conservatism do you think he represents?

One of the reasons conservatives have been utterly demolished in the culture wars is because the people they pay attention to aren’t conservatives at all, and are just feathering their own nests while making sure they don’t upset those who are dismantling our culture brick by brick.

Share

A Sunday during Lent

Posted on by

Yesterday Michelle Berdy, an American journalist working in Moscow who I believed was half-way sensible retweeted this video and words to the effect this is the “latest from Trump”:


It’s fake news, of course: the video dates from May 2018 and he’s referring to MS-13, not asylum seekers generally. So I pointed this out to Berdy, and this is how the subsequent conversation went today:

The problem with far too many modern journalists is twofold. Firstly they spread fake news. Secondly, when called out on it they resort to sneering (“sounds like a pose not a position”) and go on the attack (“do you think it’s all right for Trump to lie”). So Berdy deleted her original tweet and replaced it:


Note the sneer at the end? Then this happened:

And suddenly I’m dealing with a petulant child. Like I said, it’s not just that journalists peddle fake news but they are incredibly thin-skinned and aggressive when called on it.

As I’ve said before, I have no idea why professional journalists go on Twitter. This was an interesting defence:

Journalists aren’t just on Twitter to have fun, they use it to promote their professional work and attract readers, linking to their publications. Yet they think readers should make a distinction between these posts and their “personal” tweets, and not draw any conclusions about the standard of their professional work from their peddling fake news. It’s like a doctor caught doing backstreet abortions using dirty equipment thinking this has no bearing on his position at the local hospital. Journalists don’t seem to understand the slightest thing about brand protection. Little wonder they like Twitter’s block feature so much.

No other profession would behave like this, and this stems from the fact that for decades journalists had the luxury of a one-way conversation. Now the world’s changed and they don’t know how to have a two-way conversation with people from outside their clique. This is why traditional media is collapsing, print journalists are fumbling about on Twitter, and the likes of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Joe Rogan have audiences in the millions. The thing is, I’ve been reading Michelle Berdy since about 2004, always liked her work on Russia and have interacted with her positively in the past (which is why I took this up with her; I was disappointed). But she’s willing to lose the trust of a long-time reader for the sake of fake news about Trump, and scoring a few petty points when I object. I expect she thinks she has plenty more readers. That’s what they all think.

Share

Plodorian Guard

Posted on by

I’m fond of saying I don’t know whose side the British police are on, but I’m confident it’s not that of the general public. Yesterday the head of what looks like a police talking shop issued a helpful clarification:

Politicians and campaigners need to temper their language to avoid inciting disorder over Brexit, a senior police chief has warned, as it emerged more than 10,000 officers are on standby to tackle any unrest.

In what other country do policemen issue warnings to politicians over what language they may use? But yeah, our reputation is being damaged by Paras shooting at a poster.

Martin Hewitt, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said it was “incumbent” on anyone in a “position of responsibility” to express their views in a way that did not incite violent behaviour.

I wonder what he thinks he’s doing right now?

“I am thinking about disorder and people being responsible in the way they speak,” he said. “There’s a responsibility on those individuals that have a platform or voice to communicate in a way that is temperate and not in any way going to inflame people’s views.

In order that Plod’s life be made easier everyone should stop expressing strong feelings about Brexit. And that includes those charged with delivering it.

“All groups of people need to think carefully. We are in a febrile atmosphere. If people who are in a position that they are going to be listened to they need to think about the language they are using so they don’t end up with unintended consequences.”

Such as people filming policemen being battered by thugs instead of helping? Those sort of unintended consequences?

His comments came as the NPCC disclosed more than 10,000 officers from units in all 43 forces trained to combat riots, public disorder and looting, are on standby. Some 1,000 are ready to be deployed within an hour of any trouble.

It’s amazing how rapidly scarce resources can be mustered when the interests of the ruling class are threatened, isn’t it?

The numbers are larger than for the 2011 riots

Given the police stood around doing nothing during the 2011 riots, I hardly think numbers are the problem. But whereas it was just ordinary people having their lives destroyed by criminals back then, this time it’s important people who are being threatened. I expect their orders will be very different.

More than 1,000 officers are also available to be deployed from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland with armoured personnel carriers.

Allowing those who were too fat, lazy, and ill-disciplined to join the army to dress in full combat gear and play war for a weekend. Yet another nasty habit we’ve inherited from our American cousins.

He said: “We’ve been very clear that policing support should only really be called on if absolutely necessary in dealing with the wider civil contingencies.”

Mr Hall added: “Our push has been back to those sectors, those parts of government, the private sector, to say ‘it’s your responsibility to look at your individual supply chains and you should not be looking to police to come in to supplement and keep your supply chain running’.”

Translation: we are only interested in protecting our political masters, not you plebs, and not your property.

One thing is certain. When the cataclysmic realignment of British politics finally occurs and the incumbent parties and politicians are swept away, it is imperative the police are disbanded and reconstituted with wholly new personnel as part of the same movement. They are as much a part of the problem as those politicians who refuse to implement the results of the referendum.

Share

15 Feral Street

Posted on by

This BBC story did the rounds on Twitter a couple of days ago:

“It is very scary,” says mother-of-four Melanie Smith, sitting on the sofa which doubles as her bed, a few feet from the oven and sink of her one-room studio.

Pressed close to her couch is one of the two beds that fill the rest of her flat and upon which her two sons eat, play and sleep.

Ms Smith is one of hundreds of residents placed at Terminus House in Harlow by councils in and around London, often many miles from everything and everybody they once knew.

The former office block – the Essex town’s tallest building – is one of hundreds up and down England which have been turned into housing without ever needing planning permission.

Almost everybody thought this was an example of appalling government housing policy, and did the usual thing of blaming heartless Tories. But while living in a tiny flat may be uncomfortable, there’s no reason why it should be deeply unpleasant. I’ve been to enough Soviet-era Russian apartments to know that’s true. What makes them unpleasant is this:

But since the building was resurrected as a housing complex in April 2018, crime has soared.

Police figures show that in the first 10 months after people moved in, crime within Terminus House itself rose by 45%, and within that part of the town centre (within a 500m radius) by nearly 20% – to more than 500 incidents – compared with the previous 10 months. More than 100 incidents involved violence or sex crimes.

Incidents included anti-social behaviour, burglary, criminal damage and arson. There has also been at least one drugs raid.

…

She said it was not safe for her children to go downstairs, even during the day, because of drug users who are “out of it”.

“It is very scary. You don’t know who is outside the door,” she said.

“Any arguments that happen, it is always, constantly, outside the door. Often you hear them banging against the door where they are fighting.

“The wall next to me – I had to clean the blood off it two weeks ago.”

It doesn’t matter where you go in Britain, areas where there are a lot of poor people or welfare recipients are plagued by a minority of anti-social scumbags most of whom are career criminals and many of them violent. It wouldn’t matter if the poor were housed in luxury flats in Canary Wharf if this element is not dealt with. Now I don’t know how you  can deal with anti-social people making everyone’s life a living hell without giving governments appalling arbitrary powers, but I do know that any initiative to tackle the problem – withdrawing welfare payments, harsher prison sentences, exile to the hinterlands – would be fiercely resisted by those now bawling at the situation the residents find themselves in.

The fact is British people are far too lenient when it comes to scumbags, and insist on subsidising their criminal lifestyles via a generous welfare system. So long as an industry exists to support and defend these people as they terrorise their neighbours, there’s not a housing policy in the world that can provide safe homes for the poor.

And isn’t this just typical:

Terminus House is covered by nearly 100 high definition CCTV cameras.

“We just want to make sure that all the areas are covered,” says Paul Jackson, regional manager at Caridon Property, which owns and runs the building.

“We do have some people that are vulnerable and it makes them feel safe. And should there be any incidents then they are covered and the police can use our system.”

The police can’t be bothered keeping law and order, probably because they know the court system won’t prosecute miscreants. So it falls to the building management to install that great British catch-all solution – more CCTV cameras – to enable the police to identify who battered that old lady half to death a few days after the incident. Politicians, the justice system, the police, and just about everyone else has utterly failed the poor. This whole story has little to do with housing, but by pretending it does the middle classes can virtue-signal while avoiding any discussion of the real problem.

Share

Change Management

Posted on by

An excellent article on Brexit by Theodore Dalrymple contains this paragraph:

Theresa May did not emerge from a social vacuum. She is typical of the class that has gradually attained power in Britain, from the lowest levels of the administration to the highest: unoriginal, vacillating, humorless, prey to the latest bad ideas, intellectually mediocre, believing in nothing very much, mistaking obstinacy for strength, timid but nevertheless avid for power. Thousands of minor Mays populate our institutions, as thousands of minor Blairs did before them.

The good doctor might not know this, but the rot isn’t just limited to the political classes and national institutions; it extends right through the corporate world too. The description of May could apply seamlessly to any number of managers I’ve encountered throughout my career, just as this could apply to several business units I’ve found myself working in:

Avidity for power is not the same as leadership, and Brexit required leadership.

In my 15 years in the international oil industry I came across very little actual leadership – there were some exceptions – and an awful lot of managers who took the post because it represented the next rung on the ladder and that’s where the system required them to stop for a while. The only thing they cared about was looking good in the eyes of their hierarchy and keeping their nose clean until the next promotion. Their department – its people, processes, and objectives – were seen as an inconvenience in exactly the same way May and the rest of the political classes see the population as an inconvenience.

Yesterday MPs voted to extend the deadline on Article 50 by 313 votes to 312, the winning margin provided by a convicted criminal who attended parliament wearing an ankle bracelet. To the ordinary citizen this is an abomination, but the political classes think they’ve done nothing wrong. I used to see this in the corporate world. We’d do some technical work and the results – usually technical or financial – would make the CEO unhappy, and therefore the middle management look bad. So management would demand the work be redone again and again, abandoning principles, processes, precedents, and best practices, in order to deliver the results they wanted. They’d shop around for whatever methodology would give them the outcome they desired from the beginning, yet convince themselves they were doing things properly. Not once would they reflect on the damage they’d caused to the integrity of their own organisation or the problems they’d encounter in the future. Convinced of their own propriety, they simply didn’t care.

They say politics is downstream of culture, and business is almost certainly downstream of both. The behaviour I describe is so widespread one can only assume it derives from the culture, and has probably always been there. The difference now is the incentives are so aligned that these people get rewarded before everyone else, whereas in previous eras they’d have been shoved to the sidelines by people who operate in a wholly different way. This isn’t just about politics, it’s about the direction the entire society has taken. If things are to change, the incentives to behave badly must be removed and replaced with those which reward different behaviours. Normally that takes both sticks and carrots. As far as I see it, we’re all out of carrots; it’s time to get a bigger stick. Change, in this case, will have to come from the bottom. That means you.

Share

Trans Saharan Stayed Route

Posted on by

Some news from Paris:

A transgender woman has spoken out after a video went viral of her being attacked near a rally in central Paris against Algeria’s ailing president.

Julia has described being targeted by three men in the Place de la République.

…

Julia, 31, was set upon on Sunday as she walked up steps at the metro station in the Place de la République. A big rally was taking place in the square against Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Algeria’s long-ruling 82-year-old president, who has since announced his resignation.

Wearing a black-and-white striped blouse, Julia was blocked by protesters who taunted her in Arabic.

I’m losing count of the number of incidents involving opposing victim classes getting into a confrontation, while ordinary people look on in amazement at what’s become of their country. For what it’s worth, I’m on Julia’s side here: she should be allowed to walk wherever she likes in public, free of harassment. Although it seems some lessons take a while to learn:

Julia later made clear that the attack had nothing to do with the Algerian community but was carried out by ignorant people, regardless of their origin or religion.

Just the facts please, ma’am. Now who attacked you?

Share

Utrinque Paratus

Posted on by

A video has emerged of soldiers of the Parachute Regiment firing pistols at a picture of Jeremy Corbyn, causing the chattering classes to wring their hands:


What reputation would that be, then? I’ve written before about the habit of certain Brits to assume foreigners share their elevated opinion of themselves, and I suspect the same applies here. No foreigner other than Irish republicans will give a damn about this video, and if Peston thinks it undermines a reputation of Britain being a peace-loving country where things are settled by debate rather than violence, he might be surprised to learn the Iraq War put paid to that. As one of my followers on Twitter said:

Sometimes people high up in our society talk as if they are the adminstrators of the wayward province of an empire.

Certainly, their idea of what foreigners think of Britain appears to be uninformed by talking to any. Our media continually tell us we’re a laughing stock because of Brexit, but fail to appreciate it is not those who voted leave who are mocked but the incompetence of the political classes. And where do you think this video sits alongside politicians flatly refusing to honour the results of a referendum in a ranking of things which damage Britain’s reputation overseas? Old Robert Mugabe must be chuckling to himself as I type.

As another of my Twitter correspondents noted, the Mother of Parliaments is now a laughing stock; the Parachute Regiment isn’t. I find foreigners’ impressions of the UK vary greatly, but quite a few wonder why we appear to be committing suicide by opening the borders to all and sundry. Their tone suggests they used to believe Britain to be a serious country run by serious people, but no more. Our chattering classes would also be surprised to find what many foreigners – particularly those from the Middle East – think of London having a mayor named Sadiq Khan. While we insist it’s a sign of our tolerance, they see it as abject surrender. My point is if our reputation abroad mattered as much as people say it does, we’d be doing things very differently.

As for the video itself, well, what can I say? Jeremy Corbyn supported the IRA when they were murdering members of the Parachute Regiment in Northern Ireland, so what do you expect? Yes, we can talk about professionalism and worrying precedents but if these are the topics of the day, the Parachute Regiment can take their place a long way down a list which includes politicians, parliament, the police, the courts, the CPS, the immigration service, and pretty much every branch of government I can think of. Let’s talk about their professionalism and the precedents they’re setting before launching inquiries into what paras get up to when on the range. If they murder someone or commit atrocities then let me know, until then I’m content that single men in barracks don’t turn into plaster saints.

Of course, elements of the right have responded to the video by doing what they do best: talking earnestly about propriety and principles, as if these mean anything on a battlefield which the left hold every square inch of in large part because to them they don’t. So the MOD at the behest of a Tory government will identify and sack these soldiers, the right will refuse to defend them, the left will celebrate, and their Culture War trophy cabinet will groan a little more under the weight. I get that people on the right don’t want to defend the soldiers, but they could at least remain silent and not do the left’s job for them. I’ve written before about how the right needs to stop defending their enemies; they also need to stop punching right at every opportunity (as they do whenever Tommy Robinson’s name is mentioned). The country is dividing, old alliances are crumbling and new ones forming. If the centre right wants to wrest back control of the country, they’d better start demonstrating to potential allies they are serious about it. Right now, that means being on the side of these soldiers of the Parachute Regiment, or at the very least saying nothing.

Share

Ascension Day

Posted on by

On Sunday I binge-watched two documentaries about “big wall” climbing in the Yosemite Valley. One appeared on my Netflix feed and I wondered if it was the one discussed on a recent Joe Rogan podcast; when I looked and it wasn’t, I decided I’d just watch them both.

The first was The Dawn Wall, which concerns the first free-climbing ascent of the so-named face of El Capitan which is basically 3,000 feet of smooth granite with almost nothing to hold on to. The reason nobody had done this before is because many thought it impossible, but a phenomenally gifted climber by the name of Tommy Caldwell and his partner Kevin Jorgeson attempted it in 2015, inadvertently becoming a media sensation in the process. There are certain elements which make the story great. One section of the ascent involves a lateral climb over a stretch of rock which is particularly barren in terms of places to stand and things to hold on to. At first glance it just looks like a smooth slab of rock the size of a city block but on closer inspection there are tiny protrusions about half a centimetre in size, which Caldwell shows is quite enough to hang off in a pinch. When he completes the section, veteran climbers can scarcely believe it. What makes it even more amazing is Caldwell is missing the index finger on his left hand thanks to a circular saw accident, something everyone thought would end his career as a professional climber. The trouble is, Jorgeson needs to complete the section as well and try as he might, he can’t. Caldwell waits but after several days – the two lived on the cliff for 19 days  – he decides his own quest is in jeopardy and so continues alone. He makes considerable progress and is only a few days from the top when he decides he doesn’t want to leave his partner, so goes back down and tells Jorgeson he’ll wait as long as he has to. I’ve got to say, when Jorgeson finally completes the section I was punching the air and yelling. Happily, the two reach the top and enter climbing folklore.

A fascinating episode of Caldwell’s life occurred in August 2000 when he was just 16. He was climbing in Kyrgyzstan with some other American youngsters (one of whom he would later marry) when they got kidnapped by Islamic militants at war with the government. They were marched aimlessly through the mountains for 6 days until their captors either dropped out or were killed in skirmishes by government troops, leaving just one left. They hatched a plan and when a chance came up, Caldwell crept up behind him and sent him headlong over a cliff. They then found their way to an army base and were rescued. This had a profound effect on Caldwell (as you’d expect) and his personality changed, driving him even harder towards climbing. Surprisingly, the bloke he shoved off the cliff survived. I’d never heard this story before, being wholly uninterested in Central Asia when it occurred, so found it intriguing.

The second documentary was called Free Solo, about the ascent of El Capitan by an astonishing young climber called Alex Honnold. Free solo climbing is when you climb with no ropes for protection, just you, a pair of shoes, and a chalk bag. Nobody had ever solo climbed El Capitan before because most people thought any attempt suicidal, but Honnold mans up and does it accompanied by an exceptionally talented film crew led by one Jimmy Chin. There are moments in the film which had me covering my eyes with my forearm and shouting “Get down off there man, get down!” I guarantee you’ll have sweaty palms right up until Honnold pops over the final ledge and walks up to the crowd waiting on top. The storyline of Free Solo isn’t as good as The Dawn Wall, but it’s probably a better spectacle.

If you’re into climbing, or like me you just like watching people doing extreme stuff in mountains, you should watch them both. I’ll never be a rock climber or a mountaineer but I do like hiking, and when I finally hauled myself off the sofa I looked out my window at La Tournette and thought it was high time I trudged up it. So that’s the plan once the snow melts. I doubt they’ll make a documentary about it, though.

Share

LGBThee

Posted on by

From Shell’s corporate website:

At Shell, we support and enable remarkable people from every background, and strive to be a pioneer of LGBT inclusion in the workplace.

At Shell, we care about the diversity of our people because we believe that a fully inclusive workplace allows our employees to flourish and so allows our business to flourish.

When our employees excel, we excel. It’s for this reason that we are proud to support our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) staff, promoting equality for employees regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Also from Shell’s corporate website:

Shell has been active in Brunei since 1929, when the first commercial oil find was made by the British Malayan Petroleum Company, owned by Royal Dutch Shell.

The Company was the forerunner to the present joint-venture company of Brunei Government and Royal Dutch Shell, Brunei Shell Petroleum Company Sdn Bhd.

Through the solid partnership between the Government and Royal Dutch Shell, BSP, Brunei LNG (BLNG), Brunei Shell Marketing (BSM), Brunei Shell Tankers (BST)/Brunei Gas Carriers (BGC) form the Brunei Shell Joint Venture (BSJV) companies which constitute the largest employer in Brunei after the government.

Shell Deepwater Borneo (SDB) is a 100% Shell Company that was established in Brunei as a result of Royal Dutch Shell’s acquisition of New Zealand based Fletcher Challenge Energy in 2001.

From The Guardian:

Brunei is to begin imposing death by stoning as a punishment for gay sex and adultery from next week, as part of the country’s highly criticised implementation of sharia law.

From 3 April, people in the tiny south-east Asian kingdom will be subjected to a draconian new penal code, which also includes the amputation of a hand and a foot for the crime of theft. To be convicted, the crimes must be “witnessed by a group of Muslims”.

…

It was a directive of the Sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah, who is one of the world’s richest leaders with a personal wealth of about $20bn (£15bn) and has held the throne since 1967. He described the implementation of the new penal code as “a great achievement”.

So Shell demonstrates a firm commitment to LGBT rights via ultra-woke initiatives in places where minorities have been treated without prejudice for at least a decade while they bankroll a monarch who decrees homosexuals must be stoned to death.

Similarly, Total caved in to a shakedown by Accenture and signed (pdf) an LGBT charter along with a whole load of other French companies. Meanwhile, here’s their CEO and other senior executives signing a deal with the Iranian government:

Here’s some news from Iran:

The Islamic Republic of Iran publicly hanged a 31-year-old Iranian man after he was found guilty of charges related to violations of Iran’s anti-gay laws, according to the state-controlled Iranian Students’ News Agency.

The unidentified man was hanged on January 10 in the southwestern city of Kazeroon based on criminal violations of “lavat-e be onf” – sexual intercourse between two men, as well as kidnapping charges, according to ISNA. Iran’s radical sharia law system prescribes the death penalty for gay sex.

While oil company HR departments demand acceptance and celebration of LGBT lifestyles from their staff, their bosses are complicit in propping up the most murderously homophobic regimes on earth. But then moral codes have always been for the plebs while the priestly caste gets a pass, haven’t they?

Share

Pain au choco-brat

Posted on by

Somebody needs to report to Tim Worstall for training:


Anyone want to take a punt on what the rent is for a croissant stall at LaGuardia? It was actually the section on coffee prices which interested me most in Tim Harford’s The Undercover Economist, in which he pointed out that even in busy London stations coffee sellers don’t make much money because the landowner simply increases the rent. In other words, it’s the landowners via rents who make money in prime locations, not the operators of businesses. I’ve recently begun to realise that is a problem: any economic system where ownership of land generates enormous returns while people working 8-12 hour shifts actually doing something have their rewards capped at a few percent probably isn’t going to last very long. Eventually people who don’t own land will get fed up with those that do and start voting in socialists – such as Jeremy Corbyn, whose base is made up of Millennials who will never be able to afford a house because previous generations, in cahoots with the government, inflated prices and pulled the ladder up after them.

If AOC had acknowledged the problem of enormous rents accruing to landowners at the expense of productive workers, she might have been onto something (although I doubt she could find a solution to a squeaky door let alone a complex problem at the intersection of economics, politics, and liberty). Instead she dived head-first into labour theory of value nonsense, presumably believing if stall vendors at LaGuardia made $15 per hour croissants would be more affordable. But that probably won’t make any difference: people vote for socialists like AOC because they feel the current system is stacked against them. The trouble is they’re probably right, but they don’t know how or why. The challenge for non-socialists is to do what Thatcher did, and give ordinary people a reason to embrace capitalism which works for them. In practice, this means an economy in which an ordinary young couple can afford to buy a house and raise a family without being the offspring of a millionnaire or going to Harvard. Unfortunately, we appear to be heading in the opposite direction which is why, despite the economic idiocy behind AOC’s tweet, we’ll be seeing a lot more of her ilk in future.

Share