How can we make sense of the political realignment taking place in the United Kingdom?

From the IEA comes this audio of an interview of Steve Davies by Kate Andrews:

How can we make sense of the political realignment taking place in the United Kingdom?

In one of the very first Live from Lord North Street podcast episodes, the IEA’s Dr Stephen Davies discussed this topic with Kate Andrews. Having developed his political realignment theory for several years now, Steve offers in our podcast today an explanation the ongoing political realignment, particularly highlighted the UK’s general election. He discusses the triggers for change (including Brexit and the growing support for socialist ideas), the reshuffle of political structures, parties, voting blocs and redefinition of what it means to be on ‘the left’ and ‘the right’, both in the UK and abroad.

Are there limits to free speech?

In this audio from the IEA Kate Andrews and Steve Davies discuss the limits to free speech.

Are there limits to free speech - and if so, where should they be set?

In this week’s podcast, Dr Steve Davies, Head of Education at the IEA and News Editor Kate Andrews examine this question.

They take a look at free speech on social media, and at universities, where issues like ‘safe spaces’ and ‘no platforming’ are increasingly controversial.

Yet, the situation is rather more complex than it might seem.

Though, Steve argues, speech should be as free as possible - private institutions and private individuals also have a right to determine what speech they permit on their own property. And public funding of institutions can also complicate matters.

How much should we care about inequality?

In this podcast from the IEA, Dr Steve Davies, Head of Education at the IEA, and News Editor Kate Andrews examine this question.

How much should we worry about inequality?

With ongoing Corbyn-mania in UK politics, and the popularity of books like Thomas Piketty’s Capital in The 21st Century, it seems like we’ve never cared more about promoting equality of outcome. But is our concern justified? Is economic disparity a characteristic of modernity - or a persistent feature of human civilization?

As Steve explains, inequality - and public concern about it - has been a feature of societies around the world, for centuries.

They also challenge the commonly held view that inequality has been rising in recent years - and examine whether people care more about some kinds of inequity than others.

The Latest bad idea in town: economic nationalism

From the IEA comes this podcast in which Kate Andrews and Steve Davies talk about the rise of economic nationalism.

From the left-ward shift of the Conservative Party in Britain, to the rise of Donald Trump in America, there seems to be a growing appetite for protectionism and central planning in contemporary politics. Steve and Kate examine some of the reasons behind this trend - and whether advocates of free trade are losing the "Battle of Ideas" in the 21st century.

They also look at what protectionist governments hope to achieve from adopting these policies - and how likely they will be to succeed in "bringing back jobs" for declining domestic industries.

Realignment: The future of British politics

May be not just UK politics but New Zealand politics, at least to some degree, as well. The idea that in the future politics will not be divided by 'left vs right', but rather by 'nationalism vs liberalism' is one worth considering.

In this audio excerpt from a lunchtime lecture, Dr Steve Davies - Head of Education at the Institute of Economic Affairs - outlines his predictions for the realignment of the UK political parties over the next decade.

The lecture, which took place on September 27th 2016, foreshadowed the Conservative Prime Minister's party conference speech, which showed signs of Steve's prediction that the future of politics will not be divided by 'left vs right', but rather by 'nationalism vs liberalism'.

The economy of the Third Reich

Earlier I posted on an essay by Steven Horwitz on The fascist economy. Horwitz made the point that under fascism there was a large degree of distrust of the unplanned order of free markets and that the power of the state was used to set economic goals. Both these points suggest that the fascist economy should be considered as a form of socialism or planning.

Writing in the current issue of The Freeman historian Steve Davies briefly discusses the success of the fascist approach to the economy using the example of the Third Reich:

In the case of the Third Reich, the widely held perception even now is that whatever else may be said about his regime, Hitler managed to bring about a dramatic revival of the German economy. After 1933 Hitler and his finance minister Hjalmar Schacht stabilized the economy and managed to solve the huge unemployment crisis that had destroyed the Weimar Republic’s legitimacy. This was partly due to Schacht’s imaginative monetary policy and partly to massive public works programs, such as the autobahnen. There was a sharp move away from free markets to a much more interventionist economy that worked better than what had gone before. During World War II this economy was able to achieve great success in terms of war production, notably under Hitler’s armaments minister, Albert Speer.

Obviously there is some truth in this account, or else it would not be credible. There was indeed a sharp move in the direction of a more state-controlled economy. In fact few people realize just how interventionist—even socialist—the policies of the Nazi state were (although the full name of the party should give some indication of this). However, the picture overall is mostly wrong. Adam Tooze conclusively debunked this account in his masterful work, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. Tooze shows that the public works programs had little effect on unemployment and wasted resources; that the 1930s saw constant financial and foreign-exchange crises for the Reich; that by 1939 the condition of the German economy was desperate and that this was in fact a major factor in Hitler’s increasingly aggressive policy; that the supposed success of Speer simply did not happen; and that overall the regime was so crippled by its economic incompetence that it is nothing short of a miracle that it had as much military success as it did.

Thus the Nazi planning based approach to economic policy was unsuccessful. An outcome that would not have surprised economists like von Mises and Hayek.