21 Jun 2016

Bob and Tom Talk Brexit

Contra Krugman 9 Comments

I really liked this episode of Contra Krugman. We give some good learnin’, and I deliver one of the most brutal zingers to Tom in recent memory. (And don’t stop it near the end when you think we’re just doing wrap-up boilerplate; we have some good jokes about the cruise.)

9 Responses to “Bob and Tom Talk Brexit”

  1. Tel says:

    Hey, I just finished listening to Episode 40, which only came out today. Tom had a really good rant in Episode 40, that would be worth its own posting surely?

    I find it strangely soothing while weaving through Sydney traffic and listening to Tom Woods go off his nut.

    Krugman is always a little bit dishonest in a sneaky kind of “Oh you must have taken that the wrong way” kind of style; but the stab at the Ron Paul curriculum was just too blatant. I’m guessing the NYT has hired a work experience kid or something… hope they pay the minimum wage.

    • Jim says:

      They probably do pay the minimum wage. Zero. Isn’t it wonderful how “interns” can work at the true minimum wage for leftists but if someone wants to compensate them, but less than a leftist thinks is “fair” (apparently zero is fair), they’ve now done something illegal.


    • guest says:

      I’m listening to it now because I want to hear Tom go off his nut. Heh.

      Just got to the part where they mention Krugman poo-poo’ing Glenn Beck hocking gold shares.

      I think Glenn Beck understands that gold is ultimately the soundest money and that he means well.

      At any rate, Peter Schiff had already addressed the Glenn Beck Goldline “scheme” at the time:

      Peter Schiff was Right: Goldline – The Peter Schiff Show
      [Duration 12:13; Posted Nov. 2011]

      • guest says:

        While the above YouTube video was posted in November of 2011, the video is actually the audio from the May 9, 2011 Peter Schiff Show.

        Find that show at the following page (I’m choosing not to link directly to the MP3):

        May 2011 [Archive]

        Relevant portion starts at 05:35.

  2. Marc Cohen says:

    I see how you both would want to support a Brexit, but how much research have you actually done? How much time have you spent in the EU? It does not sound like much so maybe the Rothbard suggestion not to speak on things you know little of might be worth remembering.

    • Aby says:

      What did they get wrong?

      • Tom says:

        They spoke about something Marc feels they shouldn’t have.

  3. Tel says:

    Looks like brexit made the distance.

    First step to UK being a free nation.

  4. Tel says:

    Well Brexit has become a big topic now that a population have bucked their betters, and decided that globalization isn’t as much fun as the picture on the box. But there’s some interesting aspects to this:

    Free movement of people (i.e. “open borders”) vs free movement of goods.

    So the EU was originally designed as a free trade zone and the original principles laid down were BOTH free movement of goods and free movement of people. Those are listed here as chapters 1 and 2.


    So we should probably remember Milton Friedman’s explanation that you cannot have both open movement of people and also a welfare state. The reason should be obvious, because if easy welfare is on offer to all comers then your system will just get so loaded down with leeches that everything grinds to a halt. For some time Britain attempted to do exactly what Milton Friedman told them was impossible: they have a generous public health system, public schools, many unemployment handouts, public housing, etc. The result is that they got a lot of immigrants who came and used those facilities (although fair to point out, many immigrants did come to work). With clash of culture type situations (e.g. the rape gangs of Rotherham, where police were not interested in investigating and the city council stubbornly insisted there was no problem) people started getting uneasy about attracting immigration in this way, but at the same time they did not want to give up their generous welfare and free stuff handouts.

    Part of the design of the EU was to put pressure on any nation offering wealth transfer, by including the rule that any immigrant who turns up must get the same provisions that national citizens get. You can see that this means there’s an economic incentive for nations to not be too generous with handouts.

    Meanwhile, the EU has gradually made free movement of goods more difficult by introducing regulations on everything. Not only have they become protectionist in terms of isolating the EU from the outside world, but even within the EU producers have a massive regulatory burden to carry so even though in theory you can ship the goods anywhere within the EU, in practice you need a team of lawyers into order to ship anything at all.

    Outcome of the Brexit

    Basically what the English people have asked for is less movement of people (i.e. tighter immigration controls) and more worldwide movement of goods (i.e. the ability to more easily trade among the old British Commonwealth and also the new trade into Asia, without the EU feeding sand into those gears). Also, they want to maintain the “closed club” atmosphere of a nation where citizenship gives you access to a bunch of nice things, which are not available to people outside that club.

    It’s also interesting that the biggest supporters of Brexit were the older people in the Labour heartland who are also the strongest supporters of “free stuff” handouts, particularly NHS.

Leave a Reply