Rob Fisher, another occasional commenter at our threads who has his own blog, has this to say about a new TV show about border security guards (yes, that’s right). On the basis of his comment, I think I will be watching the rest of Mad Men instead.
|
|||||
|
If you want an, er, interesting take on the global warming alarmist/doomonger/population-controller mindset, check this out. Not safe for work, well, at least not in some offices I know of. March 3rd, 2010 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
 NickM, Samizdata comment thread regular who gigs over at CountingCats, pretty much sums up my own views about the Tories and David Cameron at the moment. Which got me thinking: what would happen if, heaven forbid, we got another few years of Gordon Brown in Number 10? This is all getting very ugly indeed. For a start, sterling is falling fast in the exchanges. There is, I think, more than an outside chance that if long-term government bond yields start to rise faster to attract lenders to lend, it will push the UK back into the recession from which it only recently – if you believe the data – recovered. I also think this government is quite capable of reiimposing exchange controls, which means that tourists, for example, would not be allowed to take more than a piddling amount of cash out of the UK. Of course, such a policy would not be announced in advance but imposed as an immediate measure. But it is a prospect to bear in mind. It is a bit academic in my case, but it is worth moving any spare cash you might have offshore, assuming you can do this without incurring a heavy charge. With what investments I do have, I tend to make sure that a fairly high proportion are in economies that are not heavily exposed to sterling. I am also a bit of a long-term dollar bear, given that the US also suffers from massive debt problems and that the dollar is also losing its reserve currency status, albeit slowly. I also favour commodity-backed currencies (the Australian dollar, for instance.) Next year, I can qualify to get a Maltese passport, which, among other things, makes it easier for me to live in places such as Canada, apparently. I am going to look into this seriously. In the current environment, it pays to have a Plan B. I am lucky: as we don’t – yet – have kids, me and the missus will not have too great a trouble getting out, although I would contemplate it perhaps even more so if I did have children. I have worked abroad from time to time, so some of the logistics would not be a mystery to me. My only major reservation at the moment is that if I did move, I would not want to be too far from my parents, who haven’t been in the best of health lately and are not getting any younger. UPDATE: Thanks for the feedback (well, most of it, anyway). First of all, my support for the freedom to migrate – as in the above instance – does not mean that I can expect to go where I like, or change the culture of the country to which I choose to live, or impose my values on such places. Which means that I do not dismiss the worries of those who have been concerned about, say, the influx of folk from very different cultures into the UK (ie, from the Muslim world). There is also the injustice, of course, of migrants taking up welfare benefits in the countries to which they enter – that clearly should stop. But such important caveats aside, as I have said, the freedom of exit is, if you think about it, the ultimate freedom as it protects other freedoms. If the situation becomes intolerable, it is glib for someone to argue that I am somehow “harming” my fellows who stay behind by leaving. If a state can ban or seriously hamper any individual from leaving a country of his birth, tht person is a serf. One commenter by the name of Tim thinks my argument for leaving is somehow unprincipled as I will be causing, albeit in a tiny way, the very sort of problems (a falling pound, etc) that is bothering me in the first place. That argument does not convince. One might as well object to my refusing to use the services of a firm any longer because the firm will lose sales. Yet the firm, if it is run by intelligent people (big if) will react to the loss by trying to make itself more attractive. If a country is losing people and their departure is a “harm”, then surely that very fact is an incentive for countries to change course, to encourage people to enter that country rather than leave. Or take another analogy: socialists get upset by the idea of school choice because a school will be “harmed” if dissatisfied parents pull their kids out and send them somewhere else. March 3rd, 2010 | 78 comments - (Comments are closed)
Trawling around some sites to find a corporate statement, I came across this gem: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Attend The Daily Beast’s Women in the World Summit.” Blimey. Is the writer of that headline channelling the late Evelyn Waugh? March 1st, 2010 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
“The declaration of neutrality on the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands issued by the US State Department is clear proof of the uselessness of the Obama administration.” James Corum, military expert, ex-US soldier and writer in the Daily Telegraph. I would point out, in fairness, that in the early phases of the Falklands conflict in 1982, some members of the Reagan administration initially were sympathetic to Argentina, or at least tried to prevent a UK military recovery of the islands. But the Obama administration clearly has little love for the UK. Fair enough: let the UK follow its national interest and f**k the White House. February 26th, 2010 | 66 comments - (Comments are closed)
Over at Devil’s Kitchen, the blogger uses justifiably salty prose to describe what he thinks of Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, after Mr Clegg gave various proposals for taxing City bankers and the like, including such brilliant ideas as raising the rate of capital gains tax to 50 per cent on top earners, in line with the new, 50 per cent income tax rate due to kick in at the start of April. Clegg gave an interview to the daily freesheet, CityAm. Clegg, let us not forget, could be in a position to be an important power-broker if the outcome of the next UK general election produces a hung parliament in which no one single party has an overall majority. Given that both the Tories and of course Labour have shown no reluctance to pander shamelessly to anti-banker, anti-capitalist sentiment, it is likely that if any of these parties gets into bed with the LibDems (a truly gruesome thought, Ed), that such “bash-the rich” crapola will get worse. So we can expect the exodus of wealthy people from this country to continue if this sort of zero-sum economics nonsense holds sway. Under trade descriptions legislation, the LibDems’ own brandname would be declared as false advertising. Liberal they are certainly not. February 25th, 2010 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
Eric Raymond has a thoughtful and compassionate article at his blog about two people he knows who are down on their luck in the US economy. They are not uneducated bums, or lacking in motivation. But they are examples, he says, of how the rising costs of hiring and firing people has, when coupled to other factors, meant that many people will not enjoy the benefits of any subsequent economic recovery. Money quote:
I tend to associate labour market rigidities with Western Europe – where high levels of unemployment have persisted alongside relatively high GDP growth (that’s assuming you believe government GDP figures, Ed). It is tragic that the same process is at work in the US, at least if Mr Raymond’s article is indicative of a broader trend. February 24th, 2010 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
“What’s really going on, I think, is that the nature of class war has changed. The old virus has mutated. The old social and political divisions have given way to two new classes — rather as on the trains. Those in economy are most of us, paying for the comforts of those in first class. And those in first class are the new political class — all those who owe their advancement and their security and their pensions and their privileges not to their backgrounds or their talents, or even necessarily their political parties, but to the state and our taxes.” February 24th, 2010 | 24 comments - (Comments are closed)
Patrick Crozier has an interesting list of things that might disappear if AGW alarmism, now very much on the defensive, loses support from policymakers. Here are a few suggestions from me about products that might wane or go into defensive mode: Carbon-trading hedge funds and other financial firms trying to make money out of cap-and-trade rules. Alas, I don’t expect the alarmism theme to diminish in Hollywood movies or BBC documentaries. Mind you, as I said in a comment on one of Brian Micklethwait’s posts the other day, you know the prevailing climate of opinion (excuse the pun) has changed depending on the kind of villain chosen for a Bond movie. When they cast a deep Green scientist as a baddie, and put the villain’s lair in a bunker in deepest East Anglia, we’ll have won. Suggestions welcome. February 23rd, 2010 | 23 comments - (Comments are closed)
Back into the Westminster Village. Readers may have already seen the news reports alleging that Gordon Brown bullied members of his own staff in Downing Street (his office, it should be said, denies such claims). Apparently, a charity that runs a sort of hotline service took a call or calls from folk at Number 10 pleading for help. The issue threatens to turn into a major political storm. On the BBC Breakfast News this morning, one of the presenters was trying quite hard to put the charity on the defensive but the charity adamantly backed up the claim that complaints of bullying had been received. It did not, it should be noted, state that it believed Brown was in the wrong. Some may say that harping on such matters misses the “Big picture”: should it matter whether a prime minister is a decent person to work for or is a total jerk? I think it does matter, just as it matters when it turns out that so-called climate scientists fabricate evidence and then try and lie about it, or bully or generally try to intimidate anyone who disagrees. It matters, in other words, that some of the people that we might disagree with in our ideological battles are shits and liars. For one of the emotional tactics that collectivists of various hues have used over the ages is that “We are good people.” To be an AGW skeptic, for instance, is not just to be wrong, it is a sign that you are a Bad Person. To have disagreed with socialism was, for a long period of time, also a sign that you were “bad” in some way, or that you failed in terms of compassion, etc. Mr Brown is a man who goes on a lot about “values”: indeed, he waves his morally excellent beliefs around like a badge. So to find out that he allegedly bullied junior staff who might be reluctant to answer back is a useful fact to know about. This point should not be pressed too far. After all, people whom I regard as being broadly on the side of the angels can sometimes be hard work and be rude. But it is interesting, I think, that a person known to be tough as a debater and sometimes rude to cabinet colleagues, as was the case with Mrs Thatcher, was well known for treating her staff in Downing Street with great kindness and consideration, according to various accounts that I have read. In the end, I think it matters in how a powerful person treats those who are not powerful. On that basis, the stories coming out about Brown are very damaging indeed. This could be an interesting week in UK politics. Update: I see that Rod Liddle has suggested that the alleged victims of workplace bullying grow a bit of backbone. I guess he has a bit of point, but Mr Liddle would presumably draw the line when an employer starts throwing physical objects at staff, causing potential injury. Many years ago, I used to hear stories about a news editor for a regional publication who would hurl typewriters at staff, lose his temper uncontrollably, etc. In that case I think an employee should not only sue, but if necessary, hit the employer in self defence. February 22nd, 2010 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
“Here the most fundamental relevant principle is the one discovered by Bastiat: economic value lies in service; an economic exchange is an exchange of services, each valued more highly by its beneficiary than the alternative situation in which the service is not performed. We are accustomed to talking about “goods and services”, of course. But the distinction, while perfectly all right in its place, does not reflect anything fundamental – rather, it obscures what is fundamental. When A buys some object, x, from B, what he gets from B is the right to use x. That is what it is to “have” x, in normative terms.” Jan Narveson. His essay – which touches on an old bugbear of mine (!) – nicely slices through the fallacies that people engage in when they disparage services as opposed to manufacturing or other, more supposedly “real” kinds of wealth, as happened on the thread in this article. February 18th, 2010 | 19 comments - (Comments are closed)
Over at the Adam Smith Institute blog is this nice item on a recent performance of s Tom Stoppard play, touching on the themes of oppression under the old Soviet Union. Apparently, as the ASI commenter notes, this makes some theatre reviewers a bit sniffy, since all this stuff about the USSR is so, well, dated, dahling. As the blog points out, it is not. The kind of issues that arose under the Soviet Empire are as relevant now as they were during the Cold War. Some of the names have changed a bit, that’s all. Talking of dramatists, here is an old post of mine about David Mamet, who has had a bit of a Road to Damascus political conversion. February 17th, 2010 | 5 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. |
|||||