|
|||||
|
My dad was a newsagent, I went to state school, I’m Asian, I work in the city and I earn loads of money. I do it so my parents and future children can have something close to the only kind of life Toynbee has ever known. Me explain my position? How about she explains her right to speak for the poor? – Peter Hoskin singles out that comment by Raj Chande on an excerpt from Polly Toynbee and David Walker’s book entitled Unjust Rewards August 9th, 2008 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
 If you can speak and write mandarin Chinese to the extent that you can also teach it, then chances are that this is going to be one hell of a lucrative career right now, according to this report. I fear that this is a trend I am going to miss out on. Even if I had a flair for languages – and I speak French and German a bit – Chinese is a whole different ball game. And at my age – 42 – it would be probably far too late to start anyway. Mind you, an old colleague of mine who is in his 40s had been learning for several years and is how working in China, in the media business. So it is possible if one is determined enough, I guess. July 24th, 2008 | 17 comments - (Comments are closed)
Consider the fact that the Federal Reserve is a central planning committee. We are lucky, I think, to have intelligent, highly professional planners, but there are in-principle limits to what they can do with limited information, and so there is no way they are not going to get it wrong sometimes, or a lot of times. The housing “bubble”, which has turned out very badly for a lot of people, and the historically high price of gas, which is to a large extent a function of the low value of the American dollar, probably has had a lot to do with the policies chosen by our monetary central planners. Failures of government planning don’t discredit free markets. Rather, they suggest free markets might be worth trying some time. – Will Wilkinson, of the CATO Institute, on their blog. But of course, blaming the credit crunch, or high oil, or expensive bread and rice prices on evil speculators is soooo much more satisfying! July 24th, 2008 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
A few days back, I pointed out what a collection of dishonest, inaccurate drivel was contained within Naomi Klein’s recent book, in which she wrongly accused the late Milton Friedman of, among other things, supporting the invasion of Iraq (he opposed it, as a cursory Google search could have shown her). Jonathan Chait, of The New Republic, a left-leaning US publication, also stamps hard on the woman. Now, I might disagree with the late Professor Friedman about the rights and wrongs of invading Iraq but what interests me is why some people on the left, and the right for that matter, get themselves so confused about what the likes of Milton Friedman were about. And yet his views are hidden in plain sight, or not hidden at all. He was, in the best sense of the word, a liberal. He opposed the War on Drugs. He opposed military conscription. (Does Klein?). He thought sexual relations between adults was no business of government. He opposed censorship. He opposed robbing the poor of their savings via inflation. He opposed trade union closed shops as injurious to the non-unionised worker. He opposed exchange controls and countless other controls on our lives, of all kinds. He supported school vouchers as beneficial for the children of the poor and politically overlooked. Being the son of poor Jewish immigrants, Professor Friedman was a classic example of the American Dream. His influence on American public life, and the wider world of ideas, was and still is immense. At some gut, non-intellectual level, Ms Klein knows this. So instead of wrestling with such ideas, she has to create this conspiracy-theory: that free market ideas depend on there being brutal shock events to succeed. Really? Now, it may be true that crises such as hit Britain in the late 1970s may sweep pro-market governments to power, but there is nothing pre-ordained about this. Instead of a Maggie, we could quite easily have elected an extreme socialist government dedicated to total state central planning, as has indeed happened before. Wars and recessions are typically no friend of small government, or of the open society in general. Ms Klein is a moron. The smarter parts of the left are starting to notice. July 21st, 2008 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
I am currently watching the head of Equitable Life, the UK life insurer that made massive losses a few years ago, demanding that you and I, the UK taxpayer, put our hands in our pockets to compensate EL’s policyholders for their losses. They are complaining that mistakes taken by government caused many of the problems it suffered. Leaving aside the ins and outs of the case, in general principle, I think it is outrageous that anyone claiming to be a senior manager of a commercial business like Equitable Life should have the brass neck to demand that governments, ie, taxpayers, should bail them out. Yes, some of the rule changes made by governments can harm a business – the tax changes on pensions by Gordon Brown in the late 1990s are a classic case in point. There may, as a result, be something to be said for demanding repayment of taxes wrongly levied on a company, for example. But why should a taxpayer, say, who has no likelihood of a decent private sector pension, be taxed to save the blushes of business executives on six-figure salaries or affluent policyholders who have lost a portion of their pensions? There seems to be no awareness of the perverse, and often regressive, redistribution of wealth that is entailed when these demands for compensation emerge. It is true that Equitable Life has done quite a bit to honour some of its debts. However, asking the UK general public to put right the rest of the mess is a step too far. And there is another reason for objecting to such corporate welfare, since every time taxpayers foot the bill for another financial Snafu, it creates a fresh moral hazard, and encourages financially inept firms to imagine that if anything goes seriously wrong, the taxpayer will put everything right. July 17th, 2008 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
At a time when the credit/money bubble financial institutions are in crises the Economist chooses to lead with a story on Mr Cameron – the leader of the British Conservative party. I can not claim to have read the story as I do not find Mr Cameron very interesting – at least compared to other matters. And, as I am British and have been an active member of the Conservative party since the end of the 1970’s, if he was of such great interest to anyone (other than his family and friends) it would be surely be me. In case anyone makes the defence that the financial crises was not known at the time when the Economist went to press… Well the absurd government created Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had not lost 50% of their stock market value when the Economist went to press – but their problems were obvious, as were the problems of the compassionate lender to the poor (always run a mile from a company that says it is in business to help the poor) Indybank of California, the run on that enterprise was well under way. The people at the Economist could have made some reasonable predictions about the general financial situation, but they did not – or at least did not lead with them. I will make the prediction now that the the gutless Bush Administration will not order the arrest of the corrupt Mr Johnson (the ex head of Fannie Mae and leading Democrat) as this would upset his friends, such as Senators Obama and Durbin and Congressman Barney Frank – and we must not upset these upstanding individuals… …Any more than we must upset Speaker Nancy Pelosi by having a Presidential press conference asking people to telephone her to ask why she will not allow a vote in Congress on whether or not to allow more drilling for oil at a time of record fuel prices – although it is fine for Speaker Pelosi to have a press conference telling everyone to telephone the President Bush to blame him for high fuel prices. Of course the Economist did have other stuff in it: A brief look, thanks to the library, showed an article sneering at Governor Bobby Jindal (the upcoming Republican and someone the Economist shows signs of fearing) and another puff piece about the all wise Senator Obama – this one claiming that his cynical habit of saying anything to get elected (even, supposedly, reversing positions he has held all his life – well reversing them till after the election) is a good thing, and pointing to his economic advisers as the height of “sensibleness”. No doubt they will prove about as sensible as the fanatical collectivist Paul Krugman – a man the Economist long favoured. I could go on, for example examining their obituary of the late Senator Richard Helms and showing how the obituary shows the Economist writers do not understand the nature or effects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but I will stop here. Anyone who is still buying the Economist is beyond rational argument. July 12th, 2008 | 49 comments - (Comments are closed)
Apparently, the humourless twerps who lead many of the world’s main industrial nations got a touch of the vapours over these parting remarks from the President as he left the G8 cant-fest in Japan:
Oh please. Mr Bush, who I imagine is fed up to the back teeth at the preening hypocrisy, moral posturing and downright dishonesty of the Green lobby, has clearly decided that the US is not going to be ashamed of being an industrial nation. The constant calls by various environmental groups for the US and other major states to slash CO2 emmissions by more than a half by tomorrrow afternoon or whatever are unworkable, and they know it. The massive cost of shifting energy sources to supposedly cleaner ones could help to tip parts of the world economy into recession or make the existing slowdown even worse; the push for biofuels, for example, is, arguably, hurting poor people in countries that are traditionally highly dependent on grains etc for basic foodstuffs. In case any commenters ask, no, I am not a climate change denier, but I do seriously doubt whether a massive cut in carbon emissions over the timescale demanded by some is going to work without causing havoc. No, I am glad Mr Bush gave his rival leaders the verbal equivalent of a kick in the nuts. More please. July 10th, 2008 | 51 comments - (Comments are closed)
I must admit I have tended to view Naomi Klein, the author of No Logo, the anti-capitalist book, as a committed socialist but not obviously a downright liar. If this scathing review of her recent book, The Shock Doctrine, is accurate, then she he has appallingly traduced the late Professor Milton Friedman, accusing him of holding attitudes that he did not actually hold, such as over the recent invasion of Iraq (she claims he was for it, in fact he opposed it). The book, according to the review, reveals that she cannot figure out what the difference between a classical liberal and a neo-conservative is, for example. As the reviewer, Johan Norberg makes clear, a lot of “shock” events, like terrorist attacks, wars and hyperinflation do not work in the interests of classical liberals, but quite the opposite. In Weimar Germany, inflation destroyed much the middle class, helping to pave the way for Hitler. Wars have been used by national leaders to justify big increases in government powers that are often not rescinded. And so on. Klein either knows this, or cannot be bothered to mention it as it does not fit into her thesis. Anyway, read the review. It is superb. Apologies: I got the woman’s surname wrong, now fixed. July 7th, 2008 | 21 comments - (Comments are closed)
A report in the Daily Telegraph today over the Group of 8 gathering of political leaders in Japan carries this:
A panel of experts? Surely, the best judges of long term trends are those investors who have been putting their own and their clients’ money on the line. Those evil people – speculators – have a strong vested interest in getting these long-term trends right. I would rather listen to the famed investor and commodities writer Jim Rogers than a bunch of academics hired to form some form of panel.
How about not spending taxpayers’ money on such ventures and instead, removing trade barriers and other trade restrictions, such as production quotas and the like? As for encouraging research, there is no need for states to do this. Large companies in the agricultural sphere, such as Monsanto and Bayer do oodles of research already. These governments would do better to resist attempts to outlaw GM foods and other “frankenstein” technologies. July 7th, 2008 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
That great economist Gordon Brown is at it again. His depth of understanding of real people and the real world is unrivalled after 11 years of prudent stewardship of the UK’s whole economic wellbeing:
Back-to-front puritanism. Sounds to me like the ‘problem’ is food is so relatively cheap that Britons don’t mind wasting it. (Encouraged by bureaucratic nonsenses such as use-by dates, no doubt.) If something is genuinely expensive and hard to get, people do not throw it away.They don’t plan meals in advance and store food carefully because they can afford to live at their convenience and with less effort. We are so rich in the western world that the price of basic food and of energy has only a marginal effect on our living standards. That’s not to say consumers and producers, unless prevented from doing so by state bullying in some unpredicted direction, won’t change their behaviour because of that marginal increase in costs. They certainly will. What they won’t do is simply less of the same thing, nor will they without threats follow the puritan agenda. The whole social and economic system will adapt in a million different ways by changes in factor prices, taste and technology. Brown seems to think we should always be striving and suffering towards some abstract common goal, however. So the facts don’t suit. So it is with ‘recycling’. Driven by targets and prohibitions and propaganda, it has become a national obsession. But this is at the cost of subsidy and taxation that uses up resources and displaces people from other activity. Some re-uses are enforced; others are now forbidden. It has more to do with the taboos of governmentalism than any rational allocation of resources. There used to be quite a lot of voluntary recycling, the measure of the utility of waste reclamation being the price of the materials. Much of it has been stopped. That ‘waste’ food would have had value and been sold to pig-farmers not so long ago. Banned. On no evidence. For no other reason than it suited the bureaucracy. July 7th, 2008 | 16 comments - (Comments are closed)
A person calling him or herself “Thorkel” left a comment over at Wired magazine’s recent item on water shortages:
How “significantly” we should reduce the human population, or by what means, is not explained. Apart from “curtailing our own breeding” (by forced sterlisation, compulsory abortions on the Chinese model, perhaps?) is not explained either. Neither is this writer, I expect, aware of how previous predictions of disastrous shortages of water and food been shown to be utter nonsense. More than two-thirds of the Earth’s surface is covered in water. That seawater is not drinkable but then the problem is therefore one of using resources to convert that water into drinkable form. But to suggest that the Earth has a water shortage problem is a nonsense; what it has is currently an under-investment in the systems that might be needed to convert seawater into liquids fit for human use. The always readable Leon Louw, who spoke at last year’s Libertarian Alliance conference on the issues raised here, is good on this topic. July 1st, 2008 | 45 comments - (Comments are closed)
Data is accumulating that the British residential property market is now undergoing a significant fall. The commercial side of it has been suffering for some time. Apart from some prime residential bits in central London – and even these parts are not immune to change – average prices have now fallen month on month across the country for quite some time. Some of this may abate eventually. I hope so, since a collapse in house prices would presage a major recession. It is all well and good for people to say that a shakeout is necessary to clear all this cheap money out of the system – and I understand that point – but it is pretty grim having to endure the process first-hand. But beyond that, what this episode reminds me of is the unwise move by many people to put all their long-term retirement savings options into property. I know quite a few people who cheerfully tell me that they have no pension and are relying on a business or set of properties to do the job. Well, they have a half-decent point: many pension savings schemes are a rip-off and poorly invested. But relying on bricks and mortar to keep us comfortable in our rocking chairs does not strike me as very smart. Maybe market developments will act as a wakeup call. And anyway, as I have remarked before, more and more people are going to have to re-think the whole notion of “retirement” anyway, particularly if we are going to live longer, and in healthier shape, than our ancestors. July 1st, 2008 | 18 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. |
|||||