Most politicians are feckless creatures driven by their insecurities to say anything and everything in hopes of getting elected. And, once in power, they will do or say anything and everything in hopes of getting reelected. “Public choice” theory explains how these conventional politicians behave.
But not all politicians fit in that box. There are also evil politicians in the world. Maduro in Venezuela would be a prime example, and you can add the dictators of North Korea, Cuba, and other hellholes to that list.
There are even a few admirable politicians, though that’s a very limited list.
But there’s also another category, at least in my mind. These are the ones who behave conventionally but say things that are really blur the line between foolish and despicable. For lack of a better phrase, these are the morally blind officials.
The politicians who eulogized Cuban dictator Fidel Castro belong in this group.
Another example would be Michael Higgins, the President of Ireland, who urged a return to “collective values” and condemned the “Celtic Tiger” era for being too individualistic and selfish – even though that was the period when the people of Ireland enjoyed both rapid income growth and huge improvement in quality-of-life measures ranging from central heating to infant mortality.
Now I have another politician who belongs in this special category.
The new Prime Minster of New Zealand just demonstrated her profound ignorance of world history and New Zealand history by declaring that capitalism is “a blatant failure.”
New Zealand’s new prime minister called capitalism a “blatant failure”, before citing levels of homelessness and low wages as evidence that “the market has failed” her country’s poor. Jacinda Ardern, who is to become the nation’s youngest leader since 1856, said measures used to gauge economic success “have to change” to take into account “people’s ability to actually have a meaningful life”. …Ms Ardern has pledged her government will increase the minimum wage, write child poverty reduction targets into law, and build thousands of affordable homes. …The Labour leader said her government would judge economic success on more than measures such as GDP.
She sounds like a clueless college student, regurgitating some nonsense she heard in a sociology class. Is she not aware that capitalism is the only successful strategy for reducing poverty? Does she not understand that the entire world was mired in poverty before free markets took hold?
Is she unaware that horrible material deprivation in countries such as China and India only fell after those nations opened themselves to some economic liberalization?
I wish some journalist would ask her a version of my two-question challenge. Or, better yet, have Bono talk with her about how to genuinely help poor people. Heck, let’s sign her up for an economic history class with Deirdre McCloskey.
She reminds me of Pope Francis, who has a knee-jerk view that capitalism is bad. I’ve explained why those views are wrong, though I’d first recommend reading what Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell wrote on the matter.
By the way, I don’t know enough to comment on homelessness and child poverty in New Zealand, but if their welfare state is anything like the mess in the United States, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the government is actually subsidizing destitution and dependency.
But even if that’s not the case, Ms. Ardern is condemning capitalism because it doesn’t solve every problem in society. That might be a fair assertion, except the alternatives to capitalism have never solved any problem. Indeed, the various forms of statism are the cause of much misery around the world.
For what it’s worth, I would not be agitated if she simply had made a conventional left-of-center argument about being willing to accept less growth to get additional redistribution because the benefits of capitalism aren’t “equally shared,” or something like that. That’s the standard equity-vs-efficiency debate. But she apparently doesn’t have the depth or knowledge for that discussion.
The bottom line is that New Zealand is now governed by a politician who doesn’t know what she doesn’t know. That doesn’t mean she’ll be any worse than the standard elected official, but I’m not overflowing with optimism that New Zealand will continue to be ranked near the top by Economic Freedom of the World.
By the way, I appeared on New Zealand TV earlier this month while in the country for a speech. But we talked about America’s top politician (and his worrisome protectionist mindset) rather than what’s happening in Kiwi-land.
Though I did mention that New Zealand made great progress because of sweeping economic reforms in the 1980s and 1990s. Hopefully Ms Ardern won’t have much success in moving her country back in the wrong direction.
P.S. Obama came close to joining the morally blind club when he suggested we could learn from communism. And Bernie Sanders deserves to be in that club, but may belong in an even worse category.
[…] P.P.P.S. New Zealand is still in the “Free” group, but it’s decline is worrisome. […]
[…] in his presidency, I happened to be in New Zealand and was asked about Trump in a TV interview. I basically said he’s like a grouchy and opinionated uncle who shows up on holidays and dominates the conversation […]
[…] in his presidency, I happened to be in New Zealand and was asked about Trump in a TV interview. I basically said he’s like a grouchy and opinionated uncle who shows up on holidays and dominates the […]
[…] that doesn’t mean policy is perfect. The current Primer Minister already has demonstrated she has a very limited understanding of economics, and now she’s proving her lack of […]
[…] I’ve gone on TV and referred to Trump as being akin to the crazy uncle you deal with during family holidays, […]
[…] Reprinted from International Liberty. […]
[…] Trump, a novice politician who has random-guy-from-the-phone-book opinions (as I described him to a TV audience in New Zealand, he’s “your Uncle who spouts off at Christmas […]
[…] most amusing part is the “PROBABLY OK” for the Antipodes, which actually matches what I told a New Zealand TV audience last […]
Modesto,
I’m afraid that the prevailing response is not to wake up. And that is the biggest problem. When the going gets tough the siren song of redistribution becomes a desperate hope.
Look at Greece, or most of the European countries for that matter. Western Europe mired in growth less than half the world average (a path of arithmetically deterministic decline) keeps becoming more and more static. Greece, down -26% in prosperity since the crisis, elects self declared marxists.
The time for a nation to be wise is when it’s wealthy. Once it starts going down, the natural electoral tendency is to double down on coercive collectivism and redistribution. The vicious cycle then closes.
It’s a classic:
“We are wealthy now, sure we can afford a little more socialism”
Then the cycle and struggle of merely being able to keep up with average world growth starts all over again.
Well, electoral stupidity is the great equalizer of developed and developing nations- though it keeps humanity further away from the wonderful things awaiting us in the now near future.
First Chile in 2014, now New Zealand? I hope, and suspect, that in due course Jacinda Ardern will face Michelle Bachelet’s fate — hopefully she won’t inflict the economic damage in Bew Zealand that Bachellet did in just a few years in Chile. Voters can fall for the siren’s song of socialism — especially when capitalism has delivered prosperity — but when things start going down, they wake up.
The irony here is that the cause of NZ’s housing affordability crisis is the flow of capital out of China into NZ’s housing market (a la Vancouver). So the cause is communist state control and milllions of people too scared to reinvest in their own country (China) so they are pumping up property prices all over the world. Communism, not capitalism, is to blame. But then we also need to conisder the economic boost of this inflow of capital. What happens when they turn off the tap of foreign investment? Clearly she knows not much this woman. The conservative National party won 45pc of the vote but we have a Labour government because of a coalition deal they did AFTER the election with a right wing smaller party called NZ First. It’s immoral. As much as I love seeing another female leader in the world, I would prefer a legitimate government and a smart one.
[…] The New Prime Minister of New Zealand: Vacuous, Sinister, Dishonest, or Clueless? […]
“New Zealand to Foreigners – Get Out !”
by Martin Armstrong
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/australia-oceania/new-zealand-to-foreigners-get-out/
The new PM has just announced a ban on non-resident foreigners buying houses.
Hey Jacinda, if you are looking in, this is what pays for the current account deficit. And if foreigners like buying houses, that’s a signal to build some more for them, and then tax the land value, not to ban business in this sector from having foreign customers.
So much for New Zealand then. New Zealanders elected this person.
I admit I don’t have much first hand experience with New Zealand, other than its ranking in the economic freedom of the world index. But I do know a few Kiwis, and my impression from talking to them was that their good policies and ascent into the world economic freedom rankings was more a result of serendipity rather than rational thought. In particular, I got the impression that enviro-nimby statism (“don’t build anything anywhere”) was quite strong in New Zealand, particularly in the Auckland area. Not surprisingly, one of the least populated countries on earth has some of the most expensive housing in the world. It is ironic that the new prime minister, the new representative of the people, aspires to solve the problem not by lifting restrictions but by more command and control, I’m sure.
The world has now been growing at three to four percent annually and accelerating. In that environment there’s not much room for error before your country is left in the dust. New Zealand voters may just get what they deserve after all.
Wonderful things await humanity in this twenty first century, if warfare can be avoided. But not all countries will participate equally. Naive electorates will be left in the dust- swiftly under the modern unprecedented (and accelerating !) exponentially growing world development rates.
[…] The New Prime Minister of New Zealand: Vacuous, Sinister, Dishonest, or Clueless? […]
The thing about socialistic control of economy versus capitalism is that with socialistic control, at least they feel that they’re in control. It never goes right, but at least they have that feeling. And who doesn’t want to feel that at least they are doing something?
In the times past, doctors used to do blood letting. Years after William Harvey proved that it was more harm than good, doctors continued to employ the practice, because at least it gave the appearance of doing something. Humans have a great problem with learning to keep their hand off the rudder of life.
[…] delicious […]