Wapshott’s gentlemanly manner belies his philosophy’s violent undertones. In this series of videos, Wapshott defends Lord Keynes’ insane economic theories. Wapshott smoothly dishes out the lies with his refined highbrow English accent, making such claims as:
-Comparing Hayek to a hired gunslinger
-Hayek simply didn’t understand what Keynes was trying to tell him.
-It is common sense for government to hire unemployed people.
-The world would collapse into street fighting without government.
-When a country as civilized as London can spill so easily into widespread thuggery and thievery, you have to wonder about all the suggestions that we can do without government, that the people at the top can run the business how they like with no accountability to the public, that they are playing with fire.
And that’s all just in the first video.
His wiki bio tells us that Wapshott obtained a graduate degree in politics from the University of York, and currently he is a regular guest on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC and the Charlie Rose Show. In 2009 he became an adjunct professor at The New School, New York, teaching short biographies and profiles. The same year he became a consultant to Oprah Winfrey’s website Oprah.com. He now writes a column for Thomson Reuters.
Obviously Wapshott sees the violence of State imposed currencies, along with the violence of taxation, as being necessary for a “civil” society to exist. I have to wonder how Wapshott’s twisted logic can arrive at such a conclusion, given that application of violence to impose currency and redistribute private property to crony industrialists, bankers and politicians is the very antithesis of civility.
Does Wapshott assume that because men in government costumes are carrying out this theft that this makes the act of theft civil? Does the fact that the plebes are too scared to resist the leviathan’s thievery somehow make society civil? Under Wapshott’s ideal society, the State is so powerful that no one dares to resist it; and because no one dares to resist the theft, this leads to “peace and civility.”
From Wapshott’s comments, it should be clear that he is so out of touch from the people on the streets that he doesn’t even understand the real reasons why the riots are taking place in London in the first place. Most of the kids rioting are protesting against the removal of welfare and tuition subsidies by the State. Most of the kids rioting are protesting against the crony-capitalism of bank bailouts and industrial subsidies. How are these protests in anyway related to private businesses conducting themselves “with no accountability to the public?”
Indeed, the reality is quite the contrary. It is the absence of market (public) accountability that has lead to the riots in the first place! When the State robs from the middle and lower caste through inflation; when the State robs from the middle and lower caste through taxation; and then hands the stolen booty to crony businesses and political interests, the State removes the public’s ability to bring justice to unscrupulous private businesses by bankrupting them.
Further, contrary to Wapshott’s claim that having the State hire unemployed people is “common sense,” one simply needs to look at how the State goes about employing people. Since the State pays people from money that was obtained through theft and graft, the State has no incentive to spend that money productively. Additionally, the State has no means by which to tell if it is spending money in a productive fashion since it has no market feedback to tell it if it is engaging in productive activities!
Wapshott’s argument is akin to saying that the economy can be improved by having the State hire people to dig ditches and then hire more people to fill them back in. Under Keynes’ twisted theory, how the State employs people is of no relevance, all that matters is that the State employs people in some arbitrary manner. Does anyone besides Wapshott and his crony friends think this makes any logical sense?
It boggles the mind that Wapshott actually wrote a book on Hayek. A ten year old could see the logical flaws in Wapshott’s arguments if it was explained to them in simple terms. I guess people just like his slick accent and effeminate character.