Moonbat Again.

Friend Moonbat asks an interesting question today:

Why is Britain using aid money to persuade South Africa to privatise its public services?

Difficult one Georges old boy. Steel, coal, telecoms, water, electricity, the National Grid, British Leyland, well, you name it, we privatised it. We found that these private companies acted in a more economically rational manner than they had when in the public sector. I may be being a little over the top here but I would think that if you found out some truth about the world and then refused to tell that truth you would be, what, silly? If you further refused to tell that truth to a country that you wished to aid, indeed were spending money on aiding, and refused to tell this truth because it was a predominantly black country, why, I think you could be justifiably accused of racism.
In short George, we’re telling them to privatise services because we’ve found that doing so works.

One response

  1. Moonbat’s issue appears to be the encouragement to privatise, something which you and I regard as beneficial. Where I agree with him and disagree with you is in the use of ‘aid money’, ie UK taxes, to do so. I would also oppose, had I been given the opportunity, the allocation of public funds to ASI (although I would be quite happy for my share to have taken that route).
    Incidentally, George’s use of the term ‘ultra-rightwing’ in reference to ASI is a little off.
    Tim adds: Well, I actually agree with you\, partially, on hte issue of taxes paying for it. I’m with Peter Bauer, in that govt. aid is simply taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries. It is positively harmful in its effects upon those poor countries. So I oppose it in principle.
    If, however, we’re going to spend tax money on aid, then we should do so in themost efficient manner possible. Which is why I would support it being spent on making an economy more efficient via privatisation. Rather a second best justification I know.
    I agree about ASI not being “ultra-right wing”. 100 years ago their views would have been almost exactly the same as those of the Manchester Guardian, and its the paper that’s moved, not ASI.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading