Further Thought on the Referendum


Sean Gabb

If you look only at the native English, we may have voted 3:1 to leave. The critical mass came from the Northern working classes. After everything that cow Thatcher did to them, they are still our people, and they still love their country. If we ever do get our country back, I suggest doing whatever it takes to reindustrialise the North, to give them back their jobs. They’ve earned them back.

Advertisements

16 comments

  • In my opinion, the deindustrialisation (or at least, the scale of it) and London/country divide is entirely the consequence of current economic policy based on finance capitalism. Before anyone calls me some kind of leftie, this is an Austrian analysis. Von Mises many decades ago demonstrated that currency inflationism harms everyone not directly in front of the central bank’s printing press (they get the money at high value, everyone else gets it at lesser value as it has inflated).

    We have seen across Europe that the current system enriches the people around the Central Bank at the expense of more distant (in economic terms) areas. This necessitates the State to make ever greater money transfers to the hinterland as subsidies. Britain at least is able to do this politically. Where there is no unitary state- as in the Eurozone- the hinterland is devastated. This is what has happened to Greece et al, and why the German economy is the strong one. The currency is priced to German needs, or City of London needs for sterling, and it becomes less and less worthwhile to do any sort of business anywhere else. Thus, the devastating collapse of a British economy that was once multipolar, with the money men in London, but other businesses focussed on other great cities and regions.

    What needs to be done therefore in my view is an end to 20th century concepts of managed inflationary currencies, as us economic Austrians have been saying for a very long time.

    • When did Britain go off the gold standard?

      • Same as everyone else, when Bretton Woods collapsed and Nixon closed the Gold Window, 1971 I think.

      • Around or before 1930.

        • 1931

          • Depends whether you count the Bretton Woods gold exchange standard as the gold standard. The formal abandonment of gold backed currency was 1971.

  • You’re all a bunch of socialists!

  • Is this even a libertarian site anymore? “Do whatever it takes”? I always thought the answer was for government to do as little as possible.

    • As I said above, whatever it takes would be a return to the sound economics supported by Libertarians.

    • Libertarianism is about a natural order. The destruction of the landed classes, the Church, Britain’s coal mining industry etc, all were the results of Statism and the results unnatural. What many people fail to understand is that when the Government has caused a problem through its coercive power, it is sometimes necessary to use that coercive power again, in a different way, as a corrective force, before you can just step back and have the Government “do as little as possible.”

      • Exactly, well said, Keir. Very few thoughtful people in my experience fetishise government or state power per se. It’s a means to an end.

        • Immigration is the obvious example of such a problem. We have let millions of people into the country who have no right to be here. Is the solution simply for the Government to do nothing?

          • I think the line some libertarians seems to take is that the government should solve the problem simply by withdrawing aid (i.e. welfare) and other government services, but the problem with this is that it will also hit a lot of the indigenous white Europeans who belong here and who have suffered and had jobs taken away from them due to the abusive policies of successive governments.

            • I’ve been arguing for some time that Libertarians need to step back from taking the same position as Marxists; that everything is superstructural to economics and everything can be modelled and solved economically. The economy is a subset of human social interaction, not the driver of it.

      • I understand where you’re coming from, but isn’t this basically what drives all the increasing regulation of commerce and society by government? Isn’t every new law and regulation attempting to correct a problem caused by an earlier law or regulation? What makes you think your own prescriptions for new regulation will fare any different or not have any unintended consequences?

  • [quote]”If we ever do get our country back, I suggest doing whatever it takes to reindustrialise the North, to give them back their jobs. They’ve earned them back.”[unquote]

    As pure a statement of national-socialism as I have yet to see, and from the keyboard of a leading libertarian thinker too. We truly do live in interesting times.

    The national owning class have deserted the national working class of their own country. The vote is now in. The working class aren’t having it.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s