An exercise in ideological dogma

There are large elements in the ALP who are all but begging the community to give it a spell in opposition so that it can do a bit of renewal. They do not want Rudd returned as Prime Minister and I am talking about former members of the cabinet and even about former leaders. What does Julia really think? She’s not saying but how hard is it to guess. But there in the AFR this weekend we find Mark Latham who is being as explicit as he could possibly be. He is here discussing how unfit to govern members of the Parliamentary members of the ALP are. This is what he wrote:

They saw issues as an exercise in ideological dogma, instead of problem-solving. Learning and adapting were foreign concepts.

And as much as it’s true about the Parliamentary party so much more is it true about those who will vote them back no matter what. The rustidons as one comment had it. What to they care about, jobs, education, health, border security or our future prosperity. Their self identity would disintegrate if they put a number n-1 against the name of a Coalition candidate with a Labor candidate at n. But to go back to Mark Latham again in his column, this is, I think, exactly right not just about many in the ALP’s Parliamentary party but about many of their supporters as well:

When the world fails to comply with its ideological template, it uses ignorance as a way of keeping its beliefs intact.

There are queues of disaffected Labor Party people who want supporters to walk away this time but these people won’t do it. They just won’t do it and they make up near on half the voters in the country.

Infrastructure and the private sector

From The Wall Street Journal on the private sector and the provision of infrastructure. By the time you get to the end you wonder why we ever let the government do anything.

For almost five years now, President Obama has been making the argument that government “investments” in infrastructure are crucial to economic recovery. “Now we used to have the best infrastructure in the world here in America,” the president lamented in 2011. “So how can we now sit back and let China build the best railroads? And let Europe build the best highways? And have Singapore build a nicer airport?”

In his recent economic speeches in Illinois, Missouri, Florida and Tennessee, the president again made a pitch for government spending for transportation and “putting people back to work rebuilding America’s infrastructure.” Create the infrastructure, in other words, and the jobs will come.

History says it doesn’t work like that. Henry Ford and dozens of other auto makers put a car in almost every garage decades before the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act in 1956. The success of the car created a demand for roads. The government didn’t build highways, and then Ford decided to create the Model T. Instead, the highways came as a byproduct of the entrepreneurial genius of Ford and others.

Moreover, the makers of autos, tires and headlights began building roads privately long before any state or the federal government got involved. The Lincoln Highway, the first transcontinental highway for cars, pieced together from new and existing roads in 1913, was conceived and partly built by entrepreneurs—Henry Joy of Packard Motor Car Co., Frank Seiberling of Goodyear and Carl Fisher, a maker of headlights and founder of the Indy 500.

Railroads are another example of the infrastructure-follows-entrepreneurship rule. Before the 1860s, almost all railroads were privately financed and built. One exception was in Michigan, where the state tried to build two railroads but lost money doing so, and thus happily sold both to private owners in 1846. When the federal government decided to do infrastructure in the 1860s, and build the transcontinental railroads (or “intercontinental railroad,” as Mr. Obama called it in 2011), the laying of track followed the huge and successful private investments in railroads.

In fact, when the government built the transcontinentals, they were politically corrupt and often—especially in the case of the Union Pacific and the Northern Pacific—went broke. One cause of the failure: Track was laid ahead of settlements. Mr. Obama wants to do something similar with high-speed rail. The Great Northern Railroad, privately built by Canadian immigrant James J. Hill, was the only transcontinental to be consistently profitable. It was also the only transcontinental to receive no federal aid. In railroads, then, infrastructure not only followed the major capital investment, it was done better privately than by government.

Airplanes became a major industry and started carrying passengers by the early 1920s. Juan Trippe, the head of Pan American World Airways, began flying passengers overseas by the mid-1930s. During that period, nearly all airports were privately funded, beginning with the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, created by the Wright Brothers in Dayton, Ohio, in 1910. St. Louis and Tucson had privately built airports by 1919. Public airports did not appear in large numbers until military airfields were converted after World War II.

No matter where you look, similar stories come up. America’s 19th-century canal-building mania is now largely forgotten, but it is the granddaddy of misguided infrastructure-spending tales. Steamboats, first perfected by Robert Fulton in 1807, chugged along on all major rivers before states began using funds to build canals and harbors. Congress tried to get the federal government involved by passing a massive canal and road-building bill in 1817, but President James Madison vetoed it. New York responded by building the Erie Canal—a relatively rare success story. Most state-supported canals lost money, and Pennsylvania in 1857 and Ohio in 1861 finally sold their canal systems to private owners.

In Ohio, when the canals were privatized, one newspaper editor wrote: “Everyone who observes must have learned that private enterprise will execute a work with profit, when a government would sink dollars by the thousand.”

In all of these examples, building infrastructure was never the engine of growth, but rather a lagging indicator of growth that had already occurred in the private sector. And when the infrastructure was built, it was often best done privately, at least until the market grew so large as to demand a wider public role, as with the need for an interstate-highway system in the mid 1950s.

There is a lesson here for President Obama: Government “investment” in infrastructure is often wasteful and tends to support decaying or stagnant technologies. Let the entrepreneurs decide what infrastructure the country needs, and most of the time they will build it themselves.

The 49%

The real question is who are these 49% that the polls say still intend to vote for Labor? Unimaginable really. But I do have an article at Quadrant Online that looks at the election as we enter into our first full day. And what I discuss is the nature of the ballot with the natural constituency of a Labor party made up of those who live by the words they use rather than the goods they produce, those who work for governments at every level (including those crony capitalists) and those who live off the plundering of incomes by the state. It’s a pretty big coalition and it is getting harder to beat every year as their numbers keep growing by political design.

The QoL article is mainly about an article I did just after the American election in Quadrant itself. And here is the point:

The Left’s incompetence and bad government are never enough to ensure its defeat. And the more that outdated notions of personal freedom and independence are moved downwards in the scale of collective values the more difficult a party of the Left will be to dislodge. The ALP has not yet lost the next election. Barack Obama, with hardly a success to his name, is still the president. Polls or no polls, who the Australian prime minister will be a year from today is yet to be determined.

This will be a tough election. Why that is, however, I cannot tell since the allure of the ALP is invisible. But there are plenty on the other side who see it exactly the other way round.

A 1912 Grade VIII test of knowledge

test for the eighth grade in 1912

It is almost unimaginable that anyone at any level could pass a test like this. Yet this would have been pretty standard when I was in Grade VIII which was some fifty years after that. Which is why I can answer them now myself but how likely is it for anyone who graduated from high school since the 1970s? Of course, in any trivia quiz I have no idea who wrote or sang any song at all, at least those written since 1973.

[Via Instapundit]