The New York Times contains a very interesting article on the role of Western Union, the money transfer company, in promoting the migration of both money and people across international boundaries:

With five times as many locations worldwide as McDonald’s, Starbucks, Burger King and Wal-Mart combined, Western Union is the lone behemoth among hundreds of money transfer companies. Little noticed by the public and seldom studied by scholars, these businesses form the infrastructure of global migration, a force remaking economics, politics and cultures across the world.

I never knew that Western Union was so big, but it seems entirely logical.  A truly free market requires not just the removal of barriers to the freedom of trade of goods and services, as so often propounded by those on the right.  It also requires the free flow of the two most important factors of production: capital and labour.  That is, money and people must be allowed to cross borders, and Western Union is the best example of the two being entwined.

You can see the effect of capital crossing borders by the so-called ‘Golden Arches Theory‘ in war studies (or peace studies, as it’s known as Bradford University).  In his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas Friedman posited that no two countries that both had McDonald’s have fought a war against each other since they have each had McDonald’s outlets.

Some are quick to point out exceptions, but they are most certainly exceptions that prove the rule.  The ‘wars’ between the USA and Panama, Israel and Lebanon, and NATO and Serbia were not parochial nationalist conflicts, but interventions to further the cause of liberty by ending tyrannical regimes and combating terrorism.

No-one thinks that McDonald’s is a perfect safe-guard against war, but the spread of McDonald’s represents a greater principle of the movement of capital and of people, of liberal culture and of political ideals.  However, as today’s New York Times shows, a better representation is that of Western Union.  Whilst there’s no ‘golden nameplate’ theory - mostly because Western Union is so well spread across the world and is a service, rather than a franchise - it does mirror an interconnectivity of people and places like never before.

By analogy to Frédéric Bastiat’s famous saying, if money can’t cross borders, armies will.  So long as Western Union continues to facilitate the breaking down of borders between countries and cultures, it can help to maintain liberty, peace, and prosperity for not just the developed world, but the developing world as well.

Oh, good God, no. Those cretins have done it again:

Two computer discs holding the personal details of all families in the UK with a child under 16 have gone missing. The Child Benefit data on them includes name, address, date of birth, National Insurance number and, where relevant, bank details of 25m people.

In short, the government has given out comprehensive personal and financial details of almost half the population to… well, who knows? It would have to take a particularly stupid criminal to NOT commit fraud on a massive and hitherto unprecedented scale. This comes, of course, at a time when the government wants us to hand over even more information, and centralise it yet further into one handy fraudster-friendly item.

Goodness knows how they manage to keep up their incredible pace, but the Home Office and the Treasury seem to be in a heated battle to prove themselves to each be the most incompetent administrators in the world. I reckon this fuck-up puts the Treasury ahead by a nose, although there’s no doubting the Home Office’s ability to recover from this set-back.

Faux-Chancellor Alistair Darling’s statement to the Commons today would have been risible had it not been a statement of general government negligence and specific personal idiocy.

In [releasing the information] it is clear that the strict rules governing HMRC standing procedures were not followed. These procedures relate to the security and access to data as well as its transit to ensure that data is properly protected.

As this story (and the two other similar stories that he related) prove, these standing procedures don’t ensure anything. If they aren’t followed, they aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. This proves the government’s fundamental inability to be trusted with our information, because no regulation or safe-guard seems adequate to prevent them from giving our vital financial details away.

In terms of protecting confidential data, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is operationally independent of Ministers. It is established by statute. It is run by its Chairman, Paul Gray, and a Board of Commissioners who are responsible for its operations, but answerable to Parliament through me.

So what if it’s operationally independent of Ministers? It’s institutionally dependent upon Ministers, who are responsible for executing the will of Parliament: and, in this case, screwing up big time. If HMRC is answerable to Parliament through Darling, Darling should be held responsible by Parliament.

That’s quite an elementary point of ministerial responsibility, as espoused by Gordon Brown yesterday:

In accordance with the Ministerial Code, Ministers are accountable for the decisions and actions of their Departments, including answers to parliamentary questions.

Huh. Do what the real Chancellor says, Darling. Fall on your sword now, lest one of the 25m people you’ve betrayed and endangered runs it through you. Back to what the condemned man said today:

If someone the innocent victim of fraud as a result of this incident, people can be assured they have protection under the Banking Code so they will not suffer any financial loss as a result.

Wait a minute. The Banking Code? The Banking Code states (under s. 12.12) that the banks accept liability for the loss of financial details of their customers’ details. So, in this case, the government has given away the details, exposed every bank and building society in the UK to yet more risk, and claims that it’s done nothing wrong, because the Banking Code protects consumers. Yes, it protects consumers, but it passes liability to banks, which have done nothing wrong.

In his devastatingly understated attack on the government, George Osborne raised this issue:

If fraud does occur—and of course it is good to hear that there is no evidence of that at present—where will the liability for any losses rest? The Chancellor said at the end of his statement that people would not lose out. Does that mean that the responsibility now rests with the Government, and, in effect, is the Chancellor now offering another general guarantee to depositors and people with bank accounts?

I would say the government should guarantee the deposits, and bear the brunt itself, but they’d only increase taxes to pay for it. It’s lose-lose-lose.

Let me reiterate:

1. There is no evidence this data has reached the wrong hands
2. There is no evidence of fraud or criminal activity
3. Banks and building societies are putting in place safeguards to protect people’s accounts
4. Banks and building societies will continue to monitor their accounts
5. No-one will suffer any loss if they are an innocent victim of fraud

No, let me reiterate:

1. We have no evidence that it has not reached the wrong hands. We know for certain that it’s not where it should be: under lock and key and not allowed to see the light of day.
2. Given the scale of the cock-up, with 25m victims, it’s almost impossible to detect fraud.
3. Why the heck should they do anything? You dropped them in it. You sort it out.
4. Again, why should they? Banks have enough to worry about right now than monitoring people’s accounts because the government screwed us over.
5. No-one will suffer any loss. Except banks and building societies and, therefore, their customers and members.

There is no excuse for this fiasco. They shouldn’t have had that information in the first place. They certainly shouldn’t have put it all in one database. And it goes without saying that they shouldn’t have sent it by courier to the wrong address without registering the transit. This is a disaster of monumental proportions, and the government pretends that it’s all OK.

The least that should happen is that Alistair Darling’s head should roll. There is no escaping the fact that the ministerial code requires him to be responsible for all activities in his department, and that includes all agencies over which his department presides, including HMRC.

A more salient lesson can be learned from the government’s attitude towards the debacle. Not only can HMRC not be trusted to handle our information with care, but their refusal to take the blame suggests that they believe this to be an occupational hazard. The fact is that we knew that already, which is exactly why we have consistently opposed the government’s ID card scheme.

This, coupled with recent outbreaks of rank stupidity and incompetence at the Home Office, only go to show that we can trust ministers as far as we can throw them. But, so long as we are throwing them, how about we throw them out? Now: before they give away the other 35m people’s financial details. I’m sure they’ll find a way to do it.

We’re conditioned to accept the prevailing ideas of society, and most people inculcated with an inherent moderation and deference in the way that we act towards the authorities.  As a result of that deference in actuality, legend and popular folklore often tell us as much about our understanding of justice and freedom from tyranny as actions do.  The tale of William Tell is one such story.

In the 14th century, Switzerland was a very different place to the one known to us toward.  Yes, it still had the Alpine peaks and valleys and it was still back then known for its agricultural output (although chocolate may have been pushing it).  However, it was most certainly not neutral, but held firmly under the control of the Habsburgs, then a major dynasty, although not yet the preeminents that they would become, in the Holy Roman Empire.

Three Swiss cantons had signed the Federal Charter in 1291, affirming their sovereignty and independence from external forces.  The Habsburg governor of Uri, Hermann Gessler, eager to prove his dominance of the area, raised a pole in the centre of the capital, Altdorf, crowned by his hat, and ordered that all locals bow down before it, and, by it, show allegiance to the Habsburg regime and his own arbitrary rule.

Tell had other ideas, and refused.  Angered, Gessler ordered Tell to shoot an apple off the head of his son, Walter, with a crossbow, on punishment (of refusal or failure) of both being executed.  Fortunately, as that legend records, Tell proved himself to be an expert marksman, and, on 18th November 1307, 700 years ago today, successful took the apple from his son’s head.

When Gessler asked Tell why he carried a second bolt in his quiver, when Tell was clearly so talented, Tell replied that he intended to shoot Gessler if he had accidentally killed his son.  Enraged even more, Gessler had Tell locked up in a nearby castle, but, escaping thanks to a storm during transit, Tell returned to Altdorf, and killed the governor with his remaining bolt.  This sparked the people of the three cantons to rise up, and forever cast off the shackles of the Austrian regime.

Like the tale of Prometheus and that of John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, Tell defied the illogic of his overlords, and cast off his chains through righteous action against arbitrary tyranny.  All three legends, whilst none of them historically accurate, tell a similar story.  All three heroic individuals refused to bow to the absolute and unjustified rule to which they were subjected, and fought back, using both their brains and brawn.  If we judge the people by the tales that they tell, we can tell that freedom, whether in Ancient Greece, in 14th century Switzerland, or in the 20th Century, is an eternal desire, and one that cannot be denied.

I was delighted to hear that the Dutch Minister for Public Health, Wellbeing, and Sports (no comment on his title) Ab Klink has suggested that the Netherlands adopts a system to pay people to donate kidneys:

The plan to reward donors with free insurance was drawn up by the Dutch Health Council, which advises the health ministry.

Although it is illegal for a donor to sell a kidney, the council argues that the insurance option would provide an incentive to donate. It claims the dearth of kidneys has already boosted an illicit trade in organs from living donors.

Trust the Dutch to come up with good ideas, particularly whenever it comes to selling one’s body.

A little while ago, Mark Wallace wrote a great article arguing in defence of one’s right to sell one’s own organs (specifically a kidney) for LibertarianUK.  That was in response to a reality television programme, called ’The Big Donor Show‘, based around a terminally-ill woman whose task was to choose a worthy recipient for her kidneys.  Since it was a Dutch programme, made by Endemol, it’s an idea that’s come full circle.

There are clearly still flaws with the system.  The fact that the government has set the price at the cost of health insurance, independent of the rules of supply and demand, means that the reward doesn’t reflect the outlay.  If free health insurance isn’t reward enough, there won’t be enough donors.  If free health insurance is too high a price to pay, taxpayers will be punished, and kidneys will be wasted.

Moreover, it undermines the very principle of health insurance: that one pays for the risk that one accumulates oneself.  If health insurance is free, whatever it costs, the reward is lowest for the most-valuable kidneys (i.e. those owned by healthy people, who have low premiums), and highest for the least-valuable kidneys (i.e. those owned by morbidly obese alcoholics with a penchant for playing knife games on their abdomens).  Indeed, providing free health insurance for life may induce or encourage some people to traverse from the former group to the latter, by removing the financial disincentive to doing so.

Instead of improving health, by increasing the number of organ donors, it may lead to either an over-supply or under-supply of organs, in addition to the spread of a malaise of apathy towards one’s own health, as observed in this country after the NHS was established.

Take a better system.  Iran has a relatively free market in kidneys, which are priced at $2,000 to $4,000 each, depending on conditions, circumstances, and (of course) the private agreement of the donor and the recipient.  The consequence is that Iran has more kidney donors per head of the population than any other country, and 150% more than the UK.

Far be it from me to proclaim either Iran or Mark Wallace as paragons of perfection, but Iran’s policy and Mark’s argument are far more developed and intellectually-consistent than this proposal.  If it’s yours, it’s yours, without qualification or qualm, whilst a completely free market in organs will be far more effective, removing all the pragmatic barriers to the success of the system.

At the same time, this is no damp squib.  In pursuing this policy, the Dutch government is taking a courageous step towards the free market model, and slaying a supposedly sacred cow in the process.  To allow people a choice over whether they have one kidney or two, and to reap the benefits of whichever they choose, is an eminently sensible idea.  It’s too bad that the Dutch seem to have all the sensible ideas, and leave none to our government.  Is an idea donation on the cards?

It’s a rare and glorious day for British democracy when an MP comes out, not just in direction opposition to the position taken by his party, but proposes the exact opposite action altogether.  As Gordon Brown has announced the extension of compulsory education to 18, starting in 2013, that’s the exact position that Frank Field finds himself in.

Field, Labour MP for Birkenhead and former Minister of State in the Department of Social Security, has urged the government to reduce the age of the end of compulsory education to 14.  If the pupil’s parents wanted them to continue, he or she could.  But, for a pupil to qualify for this early leaving age, he or she would have to pass the equivalent of the standard Key Stage 3 tests in Maths, English, and Science: showing a basic literary, numeracy, and proficiency in each of these subjects.

In conjunction with this, the government could concentrate their pre-14 education on getting these basics right, making sure that everyone is literate and numerate at the age of 14, and making sure that nobody falls through the cracks.  This would allow people to leave education with the foundations upon which to build a career, whilst also giving them two extra years to see if their vocation is for them.

At the same time, the government could save the £11.8bn that he estimates is wasted educating people that don’t reach those basic levels.  That money could be used to fund school vouchers, scholarships for those early school-leavers to return to education later, or returned to the taxpayer from whom it came.

This is an encouraging move towards liberalising what is a very draconian and inefficient one-size-fits-all education system, and moving towards personal choice as the arbiter of a person’s education.

By this system, basic education is improved, making sure that everyone gets a level of literacy required to understand one’s legal and moral rights and participate in society.  Those people not suited to academic education get to work for two years, build up vocational experience, and contribute to, rather than take out of, the taxpayers’ pocket.

That Frank Field is the great promoter of the policy is unsurprising, given his track record.  He has displayed an unwavering belief, derived from his staunch Christianity, in the power of self-improvement and opportunity.  Because of this, and despite representing a very working class constituency, he has actively campaigned in favour of ending the welfare state.

If we want to allow people opportunities, our government has to realise that people can make the vast majority of decisions - even pertaining to the holy cows of education or health - for themselves, and for their families.  Only they can know what’s best for them.  What we all know, though, is that this system benefits nooone: letting down the underachieving children, letting down those that are saddled teaching or learning alongside them, and letting down the taxpayer.

To adopt Brown’s way of thinking, and extending this failure of a system to all those aged under 18, is madness.  To adopt Field’s way of thinking, and removing people from that trap, is common sense.

For us heartless capitalists, can be truly thankful we don’t live in North Korea or Cuba, where the free market is a demon to be slain with all due and undue haste. However, in the words of Ron Paul, “Capitalism should not be condemned, because we’ve never had it.”

The idea that we live in a fully-fledged market economy, abiding by capitalist principles, has been severely dented in recent times by the government’s reaction to the Northern Rock crisis. It started off with the government throwing £24bn at the bank in a misguided attempt to restore confidence, and has continued farcically for the past month.

In today’s PMQs, we had Gordon Brown refuse to answer a perfectly valid question by Lib Dem acting leader and Orange Booker Vincent Cable about whether the government had indeed spent £24bn propping up Northern Rock. And Brown astonishing refused to explain or justify such a massive expenditure of taxpayers’ money.

As far as Northern Rock is concerned, matters about what is actually happening within the company are obviously of commercial confidence. I gather that the stories in the newspapers this morning are about papers unrelated to the Treasury, the Bank of England or the Financial Services Authority, and only to Northern Rock itself. I cannot comment on those confidential papers.

But, since the government just paid Northern Rock £24bn - with the expectation that it’ll lose £2bn of it - the taxpayer would be quite justified in arguing that we own Northern Rock’s arse. If we want them to jump, they’d bloody well jump. And if we want to know how Northern Rock is getting itself out of trouble, the government had better tell us. Either that or the crooks should give us our £24bn back.

It’s another tale of the government being secretive about state business, following the disclosure that the government didn’t tell the public about the employment of illegal immigrants to guard Metropolitan Police sites because they didn’t think it would play well with the voters (the issue that David Cameron raised in PMQs today).

Equally bad for government-voter relations would be the collapse of a high street bank, so the government decided to do something fundamentally stupid by guaranteeing a business that frankly shouldn’t have been operating as it was. Mervyn King has said:

What we want to do is to give incentives for people to behave properly, so in judging the interest rate at which we lent to Northern Rock we asked ourselves the question: “At what interest rate would they have to pay in borrowing from us today that would make them regret not having taken out an insurance policy as Countrywide did before the 9th of August?”

But they should have asked, “How the hell can we make them regret it more than making them go out of business?” That would cost the taxpayer nothing, and create a pretty darn strong disincentive for companies to act that irresponsibly in future.

Instead, this government rewards irresponsibility by loaning them taxpayers’ money at below commercial rates. That is, they rob from those people that made the right decisions, and reaped what they sowed, and gave it to people that made the wrong decisions. They should have been made to reap the whirlwind.

Former astronaut Frank Borman said, “Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell”, and, as CEO of Eastern Air Lines - which itself went bankrupt - he should know. Capitalism can’t work without the incentives; if there are no incentives to succeed, no disincentives to fail, the market resorts to socialist lethargy: encouraging bad behaviour and cutting off the invisible hand in an orgy of Sharia retribution.

Here we have a government hell-bent on taking the ’sharp corners’ off capitalism, when it’s those ’sharp corners’ that are the cutting edge of capitalism, and its actual purpose. We need, instead, a government that doesn’t despise the free market. On that doesn’t rob taxpayers blind. One that isn’t afraid to take tough decisions or stand by as others make them for themselves. We need a government that’s open and honest. Sadly, in the vein of Ron Paul, we can barely condemn this government’s dishonesty, because we’ve never had one that has shown a shred of decency.

For the thirteenth year in succession, the European Union’s auditors have refused to sign off on the European Union’s accounts, and, in doing so, has lambasted the EU’s accounting system for its systemic flaws.

The European administration has, as usual, buried its head in the ground, and mistaken a fleck of paint for a silver lining.  Apparently, the EU being found to be - once again - ungovernable and unaccountable is a good news story, at least for Siim Kallas, European Commissioner for auditing and former PM of Estonia:

I am glad to see the Court now gives its green light to over 40% of total payments, compared to roughly 1/3 last year, and only 6% three years ago.

Which, of course, means that 60% of the budget is completely and utterly unaccountable.  Is that really a good news story?

Despite this outbreak of insanity, I like Kallas a lot, and often cite the Reform Party that he once led into government as a working European libertarian party. In their own words (fortunately in English, because my Eesti is rusty):

We want Estonia to become a state of free citizens, where the Government intervenes as little as possible in peoples’ lives, doing this only where it is absolutely necessary for ensuring society’s security and preserving and developing the Estonian society and culture.

Sound!

But they also claim:

The policy of the Reform Party is based on the principle of open society.

Popper may not be entirely happy with them hijacking his work and claiming it works for them when their ex-leader, their ex-Prime Minister, defends the indefensible and presides over the worst-managed public accounts in the world.

Worse for claims of governmental transparency and the promotion of the free society, the European Union’s accounts continually fail, despite the EU having its own in-house auditing team, working by its own rules. This is illegal for any company auditing in the European Union. Perhaps more damning is the fact that it’s also illegal for any statutory auditor:

Articles 24 and 25 of this Directive require EU Member States to prescribe that statutory auditors do not carry out statutory audits, either in their own right or on behalf of an audit firm, if they are not independent.

And that’s because independence is critical to making sure that the numbers do add up, rather than relying on the institution employing wishful thinking and the honour system.  As far as the European Union is concerned:

Independence is also the profession’s main means of demonstrating to the public and regulators that statutory auditors and audit firms are performing their task at a level that meets established ethical principles, in particular those of integrity and objectivity.

So, there you go.  By not opening their accounts to external auditors, they’re proving themselves to have no ethical principles, integrity, or objectivity.  For an institution that styles itself as a ‘court’, they’re a bit hopeless, aren’t they?

The complexity of the European Union’s system of financial governance makes good accounting almost impossible, so it can’t come as much of a surprise that their accounts once again failed to make the final cut.

However, that complexity is the EU’s own fault.  The decision to rob European citizens of their right to know how government acts, supposedly in their name and certainly with their money, runs counter to the principles of responsible government and democratic values.

The inability of those in the ivory towers to justify their actions and spending is entirely in-keeping with the other policies of the European Union, which serve to obfuscate and deny a say to the people whom they are governing: the worst practices of the worst of despotisms.  That is not in the interest of the people or their governments, and must be addressed before it undermines what is left of virtue in the ‘European project’.  If, however, that is the EU’s intent, they must perish as would any despotism.

Government’s always trying to save our souls by moralising to us, no matter how many times they damn us to the eternal fires, dancing daemons, and countless pointy thingies of hell. Anti-discrimination legislation is a perfect example of this. Racial or religious discrimination is stupid, and bad for the perpetrator as well as the victim, but this story just takes the biscuit.

A hair salon owner is being sued for religious discrimination after refusing a Muslim teenager a job as a stylist because she wore a headscarf. Sarah Desrosiers said she refused 19-year-old Bushra Noah the position because it was an “absolutely basic” requirement that customers could see their stylist’s hair.

I was a bit slow in commenting on this story, and I’m ashamed of that because it’s some bloody indicative of how incredibly stupid most government regulation is. However, I had only read about it in the London Lite and thelondonpaper (bastions of only the highest of journalistic standards, and as an ex-reporter for the Sun, I should know). Having just read the Telegraph’s account, my jaw dropped, as I just noticed the detail that brings home how silly the whole situation is.

The 32-year-old, whose “alternative” salon in London specialises in “urban, funky punky” cuts, has already spent £1,000 fighting the case.

“Urban, funky punky?” She wears a hijab! How on Earth does she keep her own hair “urban, funky punky”? Heck, who’s to say that she has any hair at all, let alone urban, funky punky hair? It’s like sitting James May down in front of a particularly angry-looking skinhead with a big pair of clippers. I don’t care how many times he’s watched Top Gear, he’s probably not going to be as clued-up and reassuring as he could be otherwise.

However, fortunately, it seems, the government’s religious discrimination legislation may force employers to consider the hijabi as equally qualified to style hair - HAIR!! - as someone that is actually willing to show it off. Such a requirement reduces the quality of service that a customer receives, and may put the business at risk, just as Ms Noah has in this case by suing them for refusing to hire someone that doesn’t meet the job description.

A requirement for a free society is a free market, and that involves allowing people to hire whoever they want, for whatever reasons their business may have. Maybe they need male bouncers, rather than put women on stilts to inspire fear in the local drunkards. Maybe they need black actors, rather than ask white people to daub blackface to portray black characters. Or, maybe, just maybe, they need hair stylists that are willing to prove they have some basic hair-styling sense by showing their own hair.

If the business has a legitimate reason, as those given above, the ‘discrimination’ will increase their profits. If there is none, they will be punished by having to hire inferior alternatives that suit their bigotries. Thus, as with almost all things, the market mechanism solves the social problem by providing an automatic righting system, without government regulation. If only the state realised that, and stopped moralising, businesses like this salon wouldn’t go out of business. We’d be climbing the ladder out of hell, rather than riding snakes down into its pits.

In over 15 years in state education in this country, I’ve encountered enough bad teachers to know they don’t deserve the time of day. In fact, I was suspended from secondary school for having the temerity to suggest that one be given her P45. That’s the sort of gratitude I get for saving them all that money on HR consultancy fees…

And so it’s nice to hear that the government is finally taking my advice and kicking out the lazy socialist bums that congregate in the nation’s school staff rooms. Well, at least an adviser is now advising the same. Sir Cyril Taylor, chair of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, has said:

We’ve got 400,000 of our children attending low-attaining schools; 75,000 leave schools at 16 with hardly any qualifications at all; five million adults are functionally illiterate. That’s a serious problem.

Clearly. I don’t think it’s that major a problem that people leave school without being able to analyse Shakespeare’s sonnets, but reading is slightly more important.

The head teacher that is good can take the necessary action; you get the wrong people off the bus and get the right people on the bus in the right seats.

Get off the bus and on your bike? I likesies. But the lefties are, quite predictably, angry. After all, the fewer socialist bums there are picking up taxpayers’ money, the… fewer socialist bums there are picking up taxpayers’ money. Good old self-interest.

But the main point of ROFLMAOing as far has to be the head of the NUT, John Bangs, who said:

I cannot understand where he’s got those figures from. We have the best teaching force we’ve had for years and years.

If anyone in the country thinks state sector teachers are better today than they were a generation ago - achieving worse standardised results with vastly more money and better technology - they’re kidding themselves. If anyone overseas looks over at the UK and envies our teachers - who can’t control a class or teach the most docile of grammar school students - they have similarly poor judgment.

The fact is that the introduction of a stick by which to beat bad teachers around the head can only be a good thing. A carrot, in the form of truly performance-related pay, would be a nice addition, but striking the fear of God into teachers with a massive stick with spikes in sounds like more fun.

For, you see, children, that’s called incentivisation. It’s what makes the free market so damn good: rewarding productivity and success and not rewarding inefficiency and failure. I know, the lefties will tear this policy apart with their fearsome argument of reductio ad capitalisum. But it’s true, and the opposite system, of teachers being rewarded for failing to teach 16-year olds to read, sounds a trifle absurd.

So, there you go. Unions prefer state schools remaining inefficient bastions of tenured teachers, depressing teaching quality and hindering the advancement of those pupils that the state forces to attend such inferior schools that they see fit for the taxpayer to fund. Sadly, unlike his heroine Baroness Thatcher, Gordon Brown hasn’t got the best track record of standing up to public sector trade unions, so you can bet your bottom dollar that he’ll pay no attention whatsoever to Sir Cyril. The result can only be 17,000 useless teachers, and 400,000 betrayed pupils.

Apparently, ‘caveat emptor’ means something completely different as far as the Guardian is concerned. Meera Selva seems to be very confused when it comes to what Africa’s major problem is when it comes to employing its mineral resources.

Apparently:

China has been quite rightly criticised for exploiting Africa, buying up mining concessions and primary goods in opaque deals that benefit African leaders but not necessarily their people.

And that’s the fault of the African governments, not of the Chinese companies. May this be a very timely warning to the lefties that populate the hills and vales of Guardiland: sometimes (read: “always”) government’s objectives aren’t the same objectives as their peoples. Maybe smaller government is the answer?

Elsewhere, Chinese self-interest is genuinely helping African economies. This week, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China bought a 20% stake in the Standard Bank group, Africa’s largest bank. The deal helps China diversify its financial services and sends a signal that Africa’s nascent investment banking and insurance industries are worth investing in. The deal also treats Standard Bank as an equal, not an institution that needs to be lectured by a more powerful group.

That’s because Standard Bank, unlike the other investments the Chinese are making, is a private company. Chinese self-interest helps Africans in this case because the Africans are interested in helping themselves. The invisible hand only works to the benefit of all when there’s a profit motivation.

If the regulatory system is such that there is illegitimate profit to be made, as is the case with “l’État c’est moi” dictators siphoning off billions to their own bank accounts, the invisible hand leads to illegitimate profit. The only way one can avoid such illegitimate profit is by privatising industry and guaranteeing private property rights more effectively than is the case in most African countries.

Africa is still being lectured to by western institutions that offer aid with one hand and put up trade barriers with the other. China on the other hand, sweeps in offering to do business. Guess which side Africa would rather deal with?

They’d rather deal with the sanctimonious Western governments that feel they have to spend their taxpayers’ money to soothe their guilt over slavery. However, since we don’t ask for anything in return, the Africa governments can deal with the Chinese at the same time. It’s not either-or; because of our ineptitude in forcing institutional reform in Africa, the Africa leaders can give Western aid to their people, and funnel Chinese investment into their Swiss bank accounts.

On the plus side, at least she supports free trade, right? Actually, she probably doesn’t understand what it even means, because that implies just as much institutional reform in Africa as it does in Europe. There are more barriers to trade between African countries than between Africa and other continents, and trade between African countries is derisory 10.5% of the continent’s total trade. Another example of government failure in Africa.

The fact of the matter is that Africa is the poorest continent in the world, the continent hit by the most debilitating military conflicts, and the most afflicted by the health and social problems that afflict it because it is governed by bad people doing bad things. The way to combat all the ills of the continent is to combat its tinpot dictators. If Meera Selva is truly interested in helping the world’s neediest, she’ll help them, rather than help their oppressors.