|
|||||
|
The best way any government in the UK can bring prosperity is not by being ‘pro-business’ but rather by being ‘pro-market’. Labour sneeringly loathes both business and markets, the LibDems do not understand either and the Tories do not grasp that there is even a difference. The solution? Try to do your business in Hong Kong, Singapore or New Zealand if you realistically have such a choice. February 6th, 2015 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
 The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees. February 6th, 2015 | 17 comments - (Comments are closed)
Ah, the ‘do it again, only HARDER’ fallacy espoused by so many pro-regulation types. I still wonder why people assume that something will be good if you sprinkle the magic pixie dust of government on it. – ‘Toastrider‘, discussing ‘Net Neutrality’ February 5th, 2015 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
I just noticed this:
Well, well, this should be interesting. February 2nd, 2015 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
Question: why have overseas subsidiaries at all if you are a US business? Why not just hive off any non-US based businesses into actual, and not just nominal, separate businesses? As other nations do not try to tax and regulate non-domicile activities in the way the US does, surely it make more sense to simply do business elsewhere, have your HQ elsewhere and just make deals to sell your stuff to US only based companies if you want to access the US market (i.e. do it indirectly)? February 1st, 2015 | 41 comments - (Comments are closed)
If you see the man shown in this article, please do not inform the Police of his whereabouts. But do tell the bloke, who it must be said may well be a low IQ scumbag who likes to insult strangers on a bus, that he is quite mistaken if he thinks people in the UK have a right to freedom of expression. That is not the case, for it is only politically approved speech that passes a Guardian/BBC sniff test that is permitted. Mutter the wrong things on a bus and you are likely to end up in front of the Beak, with your arrest applauded by those valiant custodians of truth, the Press. January 30th, 2015 | 39 comments - (Comments are closed)
… not for Greece, which is screwed regardless of who wins, but rather for the rest of Europe on the basis that cutting a gangrenous limb off is often a good idea. After all, to yet again use one of my favourite quotes from H. L. Mencken: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard”. And if ever there was a nation filled with people who deserve to keep getting what they voted for, it is Greece circa 2015. Discuss. January 25th, 2015 | 68 comments - (Comments are closed)
Yet Oxfam also claims, without any real evidence, that excessive inequality hampers economic growth. It suggests that, since we want that economic pie to be as large as possible, we should tax wealth and capital. The problem is that all taxes destroy some economic activity, shrinking that pie. And different taxes do so differently. We also know that capital and wealth taxes destroy more of the pie than almost any others (other than that Robin Hood Tax Oxfam also supported). So the argument is that we must shrink the economic pie in order to stop inequality shrinking it. This has shades of having to destroy the village so as to save it. January 20th, 2015 | 19 comments - (Comments are closed)
Did David Cameron just say something… um… well… sensible and manifestly correct? I can hardly believe my eyes!
Did Dismal Dave really say this? I need to lie down. January 18th, 2015 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
Odious figures of the totalitarian regimes are not objects of the cultural heritage of either national or local significance January 15th, 2015 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
The latest edition of Charlie Hebdo has a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed on the cover. This is when we see who are the men, and who are the boys, so… well done to all the various newspapers who have shown some defiance to those who urged submission, and republished the image.
January 13th, 2015 | 27 comments - (Comments are closed)
Peretti is no stranger to bizarre theories. His recent offerings for the BBC have included The Men Who Made Us Fat and The Men Who Made Us Spend. Personal responsibility doesn’t seem to be on his ideological radar. This is fine, but we should expect more from a public broadcaster than to repeat theories nobody subscribes to, particularly when we are forced to pay for the privilege. When they denounce “trickle-down economics”, Peretti and the figures above project their own world view. For many of them, it is spending that matters to an economy – and they disagree that the rich having more money to spend is as beneficial as others having it following redistribution. Yet free marketeers don’t believe in low taxes because of their effect on spending. They believe in low taxes because they provide a strong incentive to earn more income in the first place. And the best way to earn more in a competitive, dynamic, market economy is to provide goods and services people want. Low taxes can therefore engender the sorts of entrepreneurial activity that enrich our lives through better and cheaper products – the productivity improvements we recognise as economic growth. January 13th, 2015 | 28 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
