And guess who the new owner of this leftist newspaper is? I wonder how Robert “my brain hurts” Fisk, columnist at that paper, is taking the news.
|
|||||
|
March 25th, 2010 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
 It was grimly amusing to watch as TV interviewers tried to get some straight answers out of the UK government and the Tory opposition about what items of public spending would and could be cut to get the finances under control. George Osborne, shadow Chancellor, was pretty evasive, as I have come to expect. Well, for those who want to see some sort of shopping list of cuts, the Taxpayers’ Alliance has come up with a handy list of items deserving of termination. March 25th, 2010 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
A quick entry from me: take a look at this item via Reason TV spot about the monster of a healthcare bill that passed at the weekend in the US. (I love the Incredibles-style music in it, by the way). As Gillespie puts it, the government underestimates of spending on things like health is not a bug, but a feature. The message that comes through, of course, is one that applies to governments worldwide. Do we honestly expect that politicians who are capable of the sort of accounting tricks surrounding building projects like the Olympic Games in London can be trusted to give accurate, costed predictions on things like healthcare spending, or education, or defence procurement? Bear that in mind as we read the latest performance by UK finance minister, Alistair Darling, today. March 24th, 2010 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
“Congratulations, Democrats. Beginning now, you own the health-care system in America. Every hiccup. Every complaint. Every long line. All yours.” I wish that were true. Here in Britain, where filthy wards in NHS hospitals, for example, have been a regular staple of the UK newspapers, the standard response is usually to demand even more money, more rules, and so forth. If you challenge the model of tax-funded healthcare free at the point of delivery, then you are political dogfood. And Mr Obama and his allies know that. As Mark Steyn has been putting since before Mr Obama’s election, Mr O. is counting on what the UK politician Sir Keith Joseph once dubbed the “ratchet effect”: ratchet socialism a little more, and make it harder and harder for anyone to push back. Of course, sometimes this argument will be proven wrong. I do get the impression that a lot of Americans, including those middle-of-the-road voters who gave Obama a chance in 2008, are now very alarmed at the huge debt that his administration seems to be encouraging. So it may be that Mr Obama is a one-term POTUS. But his legacy might take a lot longer to reverse. On a more philosophical line, here is what I wrote a while back about the bogus nature of healthcare “rights”. March 22nd, 2010 | 64 comments - (Comments are closed)
It is a melancholy fact to face that while most of us, most of the time, like to imagine that we live our lives by some sort of moral code, and respect our fellows as beings deserving of respect if they do not threaten our lives or property, some people do not live by such a code, nor care. One particular species of maggot in our world is the person who likes to verbally and physically abuse disabled persons. The issue of care and protection of the mentally and physically handicapped, raising as it does issues of personal autonomy, concerns about abuse of state power and medicine, etc, is too big an issue to push into a blog post. No, the point I want to address is the narrower one of whether it makes any sense at all to create another “hate crime”: the crime, as it were, of hating disabled people. In brief, I think creating such a “hate crime” is foolish, albeit an understandable move driven by those with honorable motives to protect the weak. Let’s be clear from the get-go that I regard those who hate, and who act on that hate, of disabled people to be scum of the earth. It does bother me, though, that a crime of say, assault on a person and his property should be treated as being far more serious because the state has tried to measure, or establish, the hate that exists in the mind of the attacker. A crime is a crime, surely. If an able-bodied man is mugged in the street, does it make any specific difference in terms of sentencing the criminal, assuming the criminal is caught? The area where physical or mental disability comes into play in sentencing a criminal is where, say, the disability clearly meant that the disabled victim could not defend himself. That is why assaults on the aged and infirm, and on children, are treated – at least supposedly – more severely than assaults on say, the holder of a karate black belt. Of course, in investigating a crime, the fact that a suspect has a motive such as hate of group X or Y might be useful in helping to narrow down a list of suspects. However, as a factor in sentencing, the idea of “hate crime” strikes me as nonsense. What next – political hate crimes where a person is sentenced for the crime of “hating” those in public office or who are members of certain ideological/political groupings? March 22nd, 2010 | 43 comments - (Comments are closed)
The sheer venality of the current political class, while not necessarily a radical departure from what has been the case in the past, still has the capacity to make me rub my eyes in amazement. Get a load of this:.
Of course, the fact that Mr Blair makes a lot of money is hardly a reason for criticism per se, and given that the story is in the Daily Mail, a noisy mixture of rightwing populism on social issues, economic nationalism and Blimpish anti-Americanism, I tread a little carefully. But even so, it is pretty galling that a man like Blair who has largely risen to where he is on the back of artifice and bullshittery of heroic proportions should be making so much money. Also, considering that one of his most contentious decisions to support the war to topple Saddam was always going to be attacked by the usual types as being “all about oil”, it does seem incredibly crass for this man to validate the usual Blair/BushHitler/Halliburton/Blackwater/blah blah conspiracy theory tropes of the Michael Moore left and Raimondoesque right. Oh well, at least he can keep Cherie Blair in the lifestyle to which she is accustomed. I would not be at all surprised if Blair ends up becoming a tax fugitive from the UK. Mr Blair is, of course, a classic example of the political class so ably described by Peter Oborne, the British journalist. No doubt Messrs Obama and Sarkozy are taking notes. In some ways UK politics has reverted to the 18th Century model, as described by the likes of Lewis Namier, when different gangs of folk with remarkably similar views scrapped for the spoils of office. And as Mr Blair now shows, those spoils are remarkably lucrative indeed. March 19th, 2010 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
Well, as it is St Patrick’s Day, I cannot think of a person more able to sum up certain features of Irish culture than Denis Leary. (Not safe for all work environments). March 17th, 2010 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
Just a quick link on an interesting story about how the growing, affluent middle class in China is taking the view that it likes taxes as about as little as the Tea Party campaigners in the US. March 15th, 2010 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
“I think one of the things I especially like about the IPL is that lefties, I sense, don’t like it at all. They preferred India when it was a basket case, taking its economic policy advice from them and from the USSR. Now that it has liberalised, i.e. turned its back on lefty/USSR economic policy crap, India is doing outrageously well, at any rate by comparison with the bad old days. And IPL showcases that outrageous economic wellness for all the world to see. Ludicrously rich Indian film stars owing entire teams that cost a billion quid. Cheerleaders. Spoilt rich brats making painted faces at the cameras. And above all, Indians hitting sixes and bowling really fast and looking like ancient mythic warriors, rather than all thinking and looking like Mahatma bloody Gandhi and being glad if they scrape a draw. Hurrah!” – Our own Brian Micklethwait, writing over at his own blog about innovations in the glorious sport of cricket, and what it says about India. March 14th, 2010 | 34 comments - (Comments are closed)
A short item, which takes the breath way, on how the problems of countries like Greece has encouraged the German government to insist that unless these countries are as economically “fit” as Germany is or claims to be, they cannot participate in EU decisions. Well, I guess such a comment makes it explicit that as far as Germany is concerned, the strong states rule, and the weaker ones should shut up and do as they are told. Sometimes, it really amazes me why anyone ever doubts that this is the consequence of the single currency project. The Greeks, and other such countries, have just had a lot of illusions broken up into atoms. Update: well, I guess I should thank Glenn Reynolds for the “instalanche” of comments, some of which, I assume, are from the US. Let me consider a few of the points made. First of all, I am not – which seems to be the view of some – defending the Greek state, and by implication, some of their voters. To the Germans, or indeed other euro zone countries, it must indeed be an outrage that a country expects to be able to continue enjoying the luxuries of early retirement, generous welfare and short-work week. If the Germans are irritated about this, they are entitled to be. But you see, this is what happens in a currency union where one bit of it is subsidising another bit. In the US, where the poorer parts get subsidies from the richer or at least not bankrupt bits, the poorer bits are not then told, by their neighbours, to shut up. I am not aware, for example, of a rich state of the US demanding that poorer parts be banned from sending Congressmen or Senators to DC (if you have examples, please let me know). The Germans knew, when they choose to sacrifice a perfectly solid currency – the Deutschemark – in exchange for the euro, that there were risks. Some German politicians may have naively assumed that the less prosperous bits would raise their game, but given the cussedness of human nature, that was not a sure-fire bet. As Michael Jennings points out in the comment thread, Germany itself had the experience of reunification and the problems of integrating the post-communist East into the capitalist West. But at least it had a common sort of political identity. But it is a much more difficult thing for a German politician to demand that a member of a currency union should not be allowed to participate in discussions relating to that currency. I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for the Greek government, but I don’t feel much sympathy for the Germans, either. They wanted this currency union, and arguably, imposed an unsustainable interest rate straitjacket onto the continent. Much of their political and media elite has invested a huge amount of emotional and political capital into this. They made their bed, now they must lie on it. March 12th, 2010 | 64 comments - (Comments are closed)
I really, really hope that Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal Democrats, does not hold the balance of power at the next General Election, if this Spectator article, “Can Nick Clegg Sing the Blues?”, is a guide (the article is behind the Speccie’s subscription firewall). Mr Clegg, the article says, is trying to reach out to supposed Conservative voters by arguing for tax cuts. But as is clear, the cuts are only for low-earners and not for anyone else (I certainly do support tax cuts for the poor, in case anyone brings this up). He wants, for example, to impose a so-called “mansion tax” on properties worth £2 million or more and wants to raise the level of capital gains tax from its current 18 per cent to 50 per cent – a huge jump – on those whose annual income is £150,000 or more. In other words, CGT will skyrocket for the sort of entrepreneur who can, or hope, to make a decent capital gain on a business that has been launched. As the supply-side school of economists likes to point out, once depreciation for wear and tear and inflation is taken into account, a 50 per cent CGT rate can in fact be more like 70 per cent, largely nullifying the gain and likely to hammer entrepreneurial activity. Given that top earners are already due soon to be paying 50 per cent income tax, not to mention other tax hikes, the process will drive yet more folk abroad and deter wealth creators from coming into the UK. The likely upshot of this will be a less active stock market – which will hit pension fund investments – hardly a great idea from the LibDems’ point of view – and likely as not, erode, rather than acquire, more revenues. There is also a quote, on page 14 of the magazine, that also proves to me that Mr Clegg is a numbskull: “The Tory inheritance tax cut, he said, would help people who don’t actually spend their money, they just squirrel it away'”. In other words, if you have wealth, either from your own efforts or from inheritance, and save it – you are a parasite, a dead weight. Mr Clegg clearly thinks that saving is bad, that “hoarding” of money in a bank account, or whatever, is a terrible thing, and that we should all be spending our money like mad down the High Street. Maybe he thinks it would be better if trustafarians were all down the dog track or the casino rather than sitting on a portfolio. It is almost hard to summon breath to point out that it is precisely the high level of consumer spending, funded by debt rather than by real savings, that in part explains much of the current economic mess. We need to encourage, not discourage, savings. And given that as folk get richer, they typically invest and “hoard” a relatively high percentage of wealth, it is folly to hit them since they are a key source of capital for future investment. Folk on low incomes, by contrast, have low savings for the rather obvious reason, of course, that they struggle to make ends meet with what little income they have. In fact, if the Tories have any sense – not much unfortunately – they should boldly confront the insane, Keynesianism-on-drugs mindset that says that spending is always a good thing and that savers are all rich, selfish bastards who should be taxed. Many years ago, FA Hayek likened this form of economic thinking to quackery. As usual, the great Austrian economist was being far too polite. March 12th, 2010 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
I have been rushed with work lately – hence no update on the blog yesterday by me or indeed, by anyone else. But hey, it is Friday, and time for a spot of photo nonsense. I am not sure I would want to play chess with any of them, mind. (H/T, David Thompson). March 12th, 2010 | 4 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. |
|||||