顯示具有 free market 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 free market 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2026年1月2日 星期五

海布里的幽靈:在現代英國政壇尋找海耶克的身影



【海布里的幽靈:在現代英國政壇尋找海耶克的身影】

海耶克(Friedrich Hayek)曾警告,通往奴役之路是由中央計畫與經濟自由的侵蝕所鋪就的。2026 年,英國處於高稅收、高監管的環境中,究竟有沒有政黨在言行上真正實踐海耶克的思想?

政黨分析與批判

1. 保守黨 (Tory)

  • 言論: 歷史上,保守黨視海耶克為精神教父(如柴契爾夫人)。當代人物如 特拉斯 (Liz Truss)雷斯莫格 (Jacob Rees-Mogg) 常掛著「小政府」口號。

  • 行動: 實際上,近年保守黨執政下的稅收負擔創下歷史新高,且在疫情與能源危機期間進行了大規模國家干預。海耶克會將其「工業戰略」視為「知識的狂妄」——即官僚自以為比市場更懂資源配置。

2. 改革黨 (Reform UK)

  • 言論: 黨魁 泰斯 (Richard Tice)法拉吉 (Nigel Farage) 主張大幅去監管化,削減民官體系。

  • 行動: 雖然口號接近自由市場,但其立場帶有濃厚的民粹民族主義。海耶克是支持勞動力與資本自由流動的國際主義者,改革黨在移民與貿易上的保護主義傾向,其實與海耶克的自發秩序背道而馳。

3. 工黨與自由民主黨

  • 批判: 這兩黨並不標榜海耶克主義。施凱爾 (Keir Starmer) 的工黨推行「安全經濟學」(Securonomics),本質上是國家主導的投資,正是海耶克所反對的集體主義。

誰才是真正的追隨者?

誠實地說,目前沒有主要政黨在行動上追隨海耶克。 現代英國已成為海耶克最恐懼的「轉移支付國家」,大部分人口依賴政府再分配。真正的海耶克主義者僅存在於智庫中;在威斯敏斯特,真正的海耶克式政策——如大幅削減國民健保(NHS)預算或取消所有補貼——被視為政治自殺。海耶克的「言」被當作招牌,但政黨的「行」依然深陷集體主義。



The Ghost of Highbury: Searching for Hayek in the Modern British State



[The Ghost of Highbury: Searching for Hayek in the Modern British State]

Friedrich Hayek, the patron saint of the "spontaneous order," warned that the road to serfdom is paved with central planning and the erosion of economic liberty. In 2026, as the UK navigates a post-Brexit, high-tax, and highly regulated environment, the question arises: Does any political party truly follow Hayek in both words and acts?

The Contenders and the Critique

1. The Conservative Party (Tory)

  • The Words: Historically, the Tories claim Hayek as their intellectual forefather (famously championed by Margaret Thatcher). Figures like Liz Truss or Jacob Rees-Mogg frequently invoke "supply-side reform" and "smaller state" rhetoric.

  • The Acts: In practice, the modern Conservative legacy has been one of record-high tax burdens and massive state intervention (e.g., during the pandemic and energy crises). Hayek would view their "industrial strategies" and net-zero regulations as a "pretence of knowledge"—the belief that bureaucrats can direct a complex economy better than the market.

2. Reform UK

  • The Words: Lead figures like Richard Tice and Nigel Farage lean into Hayekian themes of deregulation and smashing the "managerial class." They argue for a drastic reduction in the size of the civil service.

  • The Acts: While they talk the talk of the free market, their platform often tilts toward populist nationalism. Hayek was an internationalist who supported the free movement of labor and capital; Reform’s protectionist leanings on immigration and trade often clash with Hayek’s vision of a borderless spontaneous order.

3. The Labour Party & Liberal Democrats

  • The Critique: Neither party pretends to be Hayekian. Keir Starmer’s Labour prioritizes "Securonomics"—a form of modern state-led investment that Hayek would explicitly define as "The Road to Serfdom." The Lib Dems, despite their name, focus more on social liberalism than the radical economic Manchester-school liberalism Hayek admired.

Who is the Real Follower?

If we are honest, no major party follows Hayek in acts. The modern UK state has become what Hayek feared: a "Transfer State" where a vast portion of the population depends on government redistribution.

The closest "Hayekians" are found in the fringes or think tanks (like the IEA), but in Westminster, the political cost of genuine Hayekian policy—slashing the NHS budget or ending all subsidies—is considered electoral suicide. The "words" are used as a brand, but the "acts" remain firmly collectivist.



2025年10月28日 星期二

Why Are We Punishing Success? The Core Principle of Profitable Governance

 

Why Are We Punishing Success? The Core Principle of Profitable Governance

The modern state, Dr. Arthur Laffer argues, must stop viewing its citizens as a finite pool of revenue to be squeezed, and start seeing them as producers to be incentivized. Governing a country should follow a simple business logic: you reward what you want more of, and penalize what you want less of.

The central failure in many economies today, Laffer contends, lies in forgetting this basic principle. The excessive tax burden in places like the UK is a prime example. As Laffer points out, simply put, high taxes kill the incentive to work:"If every time you go to the office instead of getting a check you got a bill, you'd quit working pretty soon"(Soundbite 1).

The False Politics of "Taxing the Rich"

A core political strategy often involves raising taxes on the wealthy, a move Laffer calls politically expedient but economically disastrous. He asks why a nation would pursue such a self-defeating policy: "Why would you want to raise taxes on the rich? You hate the rich so much that you want to kill all the poor people? That's not—it just plays so well politically" (Soundbite 5).

This sentiment ignores the vital, catalytic role of capital creators: "You need rich people to create..." (Soundbite 9)—specifically, to create the jobs and wealth that elevate society as a whole. "The dream in Britain should be to make the poor richer, not to make the rich poorer" (Soundbite 6). Any policy that destroys the means of job creation ultimately hurts those at the bottom most.

Incentives and the Best Form of Welfare

The most devastating policy failure, according to Laffer's economic school, is the misalignment of incentives. If you reward not working while heavily taxing work, you shouldn't be surprised by the outcome. "If you tax people who work and you pay people who don't work, do I need to say the next sentence to you? Don't be surprised if you find a lot of people not working" (Soundbite 3).

The solution isn't complex: make work the most attractive option. The most effective social program isn't a handout, but an opportunity. Laffer quotes President Kennedy to drive this home: "The best form of welfare is still a good high-paying job" (Soundbite 4).  A country's success is not measured by how much it extracts, but by how much opportunity it creates. After all, "There is not a country that has taxed itself into prosperity, I'm sorry to say" (Soundbite 7).



Beyond Conflict: Designing an Inclusive System for Growth

A healthy economy is not a zero-sum game where one person's gain must be another's loss. Dr. Arthur Laffer stresses that for a nation to thrive, its economic structure must be designed for cooperation and collective growth, not internal conflict. The current adversarial view—often pitting rich against poor—is destructive.

Laffer calls for a shift in perspective, recognizing that everyone benefits when the entire economy expands: "We are all in this tub together and we all need to agree on what a good tax system is: low rate, broad-based, flat tax"(Soundbite 10). This system eliminates loopholes and complex accounting games, making the tax burden minimal and equitable for all.

Tax Rates Are Too High, Not Just for the Rich

When discussing Britain, Laffer's diagnosis is direct and unsparing: "Britain... it's way too high" (Soundbite 2). This high tax rate not only discourages work (Soundbite 1) but also drives away the highly mobile capital and talent necessary for growth.

While politically popular to focus on the top earners, the true economic drag is the overall burden on all productive activity. Raising taxes, despite being a political winner, is a structural loser because "There is not a country that has taxed itself into prosperity, I'm sorry to say" (Soundbite 7). The focus should be on building a tax base so wide and rates so low that compliance becomes effortless and evasion pointless.

The True Measure of Success

In Laffer's world, a successful government acts like an engine builder, not a simple toll collector. It is concerned with maximizing output and rewarding productive capacity. "The dream in Britain should be to make the poor richer, not to make the rich poorer" (Soundbite 6). The priority must be creating widespread opportunities.

This philosophy demands that political leaders recognize the economic consequences of their actions. The core job of the state is to set the optimal conditions for people to pursue prosperity. As Laffer illustrates, the best way to help those in need is not through ever-increasing welfare spending, but by ensuring they have the chance to earn their own success: "The best form of welfare is still a good high-paying job" (Soundbite 4).