Following the story over the weekend, and fascinated by the sight of a traditional "run on the bank", I also saw, as expected, the government and the Bank of England team up to guarantee the bank's savings deposits. The Bank offers a line of credit, and the government essentially underwrites as much as is found to be necessary. The government's support is underwritten by the taxpayers.
All perfectly normal, good practice. One thing did occur to me though. I am not sure that such a co-operation to protect a bank could happen in the euro-zone.
As I understand it, the European Central Bank is different in that it is not linked to a government with tax-raising power. Uniquely, it is entirely independent and while it holds the currency reserves of the dozen or so central banks in the zone, the implicit or explicit support of the taxpayers of Europe is not extended to supporting the ECB.
Now, I may be wrong in this. Perhaps the central banks retain the power to issue credit without limit to a bank in trouble. Perhaps the ECB has power to do this anyway. But I am sure that this is what I read years ago when the euro was getting off the ground. It was seen (perhaps by Bernard Connolly) as a fantastic, grotesque gamble with the savings of most Europeans. The politicians were gambling that they could get a constitution in place before a financial crisis (such as had happened with the American S & Ls a few years before) came along and wiped out savings.
Anyone correct me on this?
Tuesday 18 September 2007
Thursday 30 August 2007
Someone's mad at Adminajad
There's an old saying that when the gods wish to destroy someone, they first drive him mad.
The President of Iran has sacked his central bank chief, as well as replacing the finance minister. He apparently wants to get more control over the economy. Like recently when he ordered banks to lend money cheaply as a means to fight inflation.
One can't help feeling that government intervention is more likely to be the cause of the problem, not the solution.
40% annual inflation, soaring unemployment, an oil-rich country needing to import petrol - sounds more like mismanagement.
Managing a modern economy needs modern methods, not those of the middle ages. Trying to do it during a vast arms build up and useless investment in nuclear armaments - well, that takes some doing at the best of times, and not least a little humility is needed.
Unless he's supposing that all problems can be overcome if you want it enough, in a modern "Triumph of the Will".
The President of Iran has sacked his central bank chief, as well as replacing the finance minister. He apparently wants to get more control over the economy. Like recently when he ordered banks to lend money cheaply as a means to fight inflation.
One can't help feeling that government intervention is more likely to be the cause of the problem, not the solution.
40% annual inflation, soaring unemployment, an oil-rich country needing to import petrol - sounds more like mismanagement.
Managing a modern economy needs modern methods, not those of the middle ages. Trying to do it during a vast arms build up and useless investment in nuclear armaments - well, that takes some doing at the best of times, and not least a little humility is needed.
Unless he's supposing that all problems can be overcome if you want it enough, in a modern "Triumph of the Will".
Sunday 26 August 2007
"More Money for Bastards"
This title of this post is a quote uttered by a panellist on the BBC show "Mock the Week" This is a usually funny topical news quix interspersed with jokes and stuff. The subject came up of new Conservative policies.
One panellist mentioned the policy of cutting taxes on business. "Which means", he said "More money for bastards".
One wonders just how to respond to such unfunny and crass stupidity. It's wrong on so many levels.
In the first place, taxes on business are taxes on shareholders. Many of these are not rich, and how can anyone say how many of them are "bastards"?
The sheer prejudice encapsulated in the remark is staggering. Suppose a panellist said "More money for the unemployed - means more money for lazy bastards?" Or "Help for immigrants - more money for welfare scroungers". Or "Moslems - they're all murdering bastards." Or "Christians - they're all hypocrites".
Only shareholders and businessmen, it seems. can be slagged off by the BBC.
On another level, who does he think creates the wealth that payes the tax that goes to teh BBC and pays his appearance fee? Without business there's no wealth at all.
And also, the easy to understand principle of tax incidence applies - who actually pays a tax.
Taxes on business don't fall on the business in a vacuum. It is a cost imposed on business, so inevitably raises prices. If business taxes were cut, we might see inflation fall but the businesses would be more profitable so wages can go up.
There's always a case to cut business taxes to nothing, on the grounds that the simpler the tax system the better. See Tim Worstall for arguments better than I can put it.
One panellist mentioned the policy of cutting taxes on business. "Which means", he said "More money for bastards".
One wonders just how to respond to such unfunny and crass stupidity. It's wrong on so many levels.
In the first place, taxes on business are taxes on shareholders. Many of these are not rich, and how can anyone say how many of them are "bastards"?
The sheer prejudice encapsulated in the remark is staggering. Suppose a panellist said "More money for the unemployed - means more money for lazy bastards?" Or "Help for immigrants - more money for welfare scroungers". Or "Moslems - they're all murdering bastards." Or "Christians - they're all hypocrites".
Only shareholders and businessmen, it seems. can be slagged off by the BBC.
On another level, who does he think creates the wealth that payes the tax that goes to teh BBC and pays his appearance fee? Without business there's no wealth at all.
And also, the easy to understand principle of tax incidence applies - who actually pays a tax.
Taxes on business don't fall on the business in a vacuum. It is a cost imposed on business, so inevitably raises prices. If business taxes were cut, we might see inflation fall but the businesses would be more profitable so wages can go up.
There's always a case to cut business taxes to nothing, on the grounds that the simpler the tax system the better. See Tim Worstall for arguments better than I can put it.
Friday 10 August 2007
Classic kibbutz moment
In 1974, I worked on a kibbutz for six months. At the end of that time, I experienced something that sums up the old kibbutz movement.
I was told that because I had been there six months, I was entitled to draw the ration of casual clothes, to keep as my own. (Work clothes were already given out, and were taken in each week for washing. You didn't get the same ones back.)
So I did as I was told and turned up to the laundry. A shipment of casual trousers and shirts had been brought in and were laid out on the tables and shelves.
All the kibbutz boys (handsome, athletic) and girls (curvy, long-haired) aged between 18 and 25 seemed to be there. They were undressing and trying on the various shirts and jeans.
I did the same, and eventually selected a dark-blue pair of jeans and a smart shirt.
I signed for them and left. No money changed hands.
So, that's everyday socialism. You get what you need, by right of residence and working.
But also, you select from the management's choice, when they choose to give you one. You don't get cash instead, to go to spend it where you want.
So that's the original kibbutz moment.
I was told that because I had been there six months, I was entitled to draw the ration of casual clothes, to keep as my own. (Work clothes were already given out, and were taken in each week for washing. You didn't get the same ones back.)
So I did as I was told and turned up to the laundry. A shipment of casual trousers and shirts had been brought in and were laid out on the tables and shelves.
All the kibbutz boys (handsome, athletic) and girls (curvy, long-haired) aged between 18 and 25 seemed to be there. They were undressing and trying on the various shirts and jeans.
I did the same, and eventually selected a dark-blue pair of jeans and a smart shirt.
I signed for them and left. No money changed hands.
So, that's everyday socialism. You get what you need, by right of residence and working.
But also, you select from the management's choice, when they choose to give you one. You don't get cash instead, to go to spend it where you want.
So that's the original kibbutz moment.
Modern kibbutz moment
I recently visited a kibbutz in israel, where I worked for a few months in 1974. Like most of the kibbutz movement, and the country itself, it is very different now.
They used to have a herd of cows, orchards, beehives, glasshouses for roses, chickens, a shoemaker's workshop. The chickens and the roses have gone, the shoemaker died and his workshop is now a fitness centre. The dairy is larger, they took over a herd of the nearby settlement.
In 1974, the system was straightforward. Strict equality, goods and services awarded according to need, all persons work where they are told to, no differentiation in gross income. Cash was used for the relatively low level of personal spending. Holidays abroad were awarded by choosing recipients by lot.
So changed now.
· The same kibbutz has gone over to cash for salaries and pensions.
· Persons doing more valuable work get higher salaries to reflect that.
· The kibbutz has declined in population by nearly a third. The empty houses are rented out. So: the modern kibbutz is a landlord.
· The kibbutz focuses on high value added activity and exports a lot. The kibbutz participates in the global market.
· The kibbutz has a factory, with a 100 staff. The kibbutz is an investor and entrepreneur. · Half the staff are members, the rest are outside workers, both Jews and Arabs. The modern kibbutz is an employer of wage labour.
· The nuclear family has re-emerged on the kibbutz. The children's houses are no longer used during the night.
· The gardens were originally open-plan, with lawns and trees. Now, the residents mark out their parts with little fences and shrubs. I even saw one mowing his lawn.
The modern kibbutz - where you cook for yourself, look after your children yourself, and mow your own lawn.
Just like a suburb anywhere . . . so that's the modern kibbutz moment.
They used to have a herd of cows, orchards, beehives, glasshouses for roses, chickens, a shoemaker's workshop. The chickens and the roses have gone, the shoemaker died and his workshop is now a fitness centre. The dairy is larger, they took over a herd of the nearby settlement.
In 1974, the system was straightforward. Strict equality, goods and services awarded according to need, all persons work where they are told to, no differentiation in gross income. Cash was used for the relatively low level of personal spending. Holidays abroad were awarded by choosing recipients by lot.
So changed now.
· The same kibbutz has gone over to cash for salaries and pensions.
· Persons doing more valuable work get higher salaries to reflect that.
· The kibbutz has declined in population by nearly a third. The empty houses are rented out. So: the modern kibbutz is a landlord.
· The kibbutz focuses on high value added activity and exports a lot. The kibbutz participates in the global market.
· The kibbutz has a factory, with a 100 staff. The kibbutz is an investor and entrepreneur. · Half the staff are members, the rest are outside workers, both Jews and Arabs. The modern kibbutz is an employer of wage labour.
· The nuclear family has re-emerged on the kibbutz. The children's houses are no longer used during the night.
· The gardens were originally open-plan, with lawns and trees. Now, the residents mark out their parts with little fences and shrubs. I even saw one mowing his lawn.
The modern kibbutz - where you cook for yourself, look after your children yourself, and mow your own lawn.
Just like a suburb anywhere . . . so that's the modern kibbutz moment.
Thursday 7 June 2007
The Bible and productivity
I remembered a Bible text recently and it set me thinking. It turned out to be quite profound. No doubt this view is not original, but still . . . . it's mine.
The text is Leviticus 19, v 9 - 10.
Extract (KJV): "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest . . . . thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger."
The first thing that comes to mind is this: the Bible is telling us that we should not drive for maximum productivity and profit margin, but that we should consider the position of the poor and needy.
The context makes it clear that it isn't about giving alms to the poor, or paying taxes to support them. It's about the actual production process; we are ordered, by the Lord, no less, that the poor should be involved in gathering some sustenance at least from the productive capacity of the counry and region they live in.
Of course, not many live by gleaning nowadays (if ever). But there are numerous ways in which this Biblical injunction is still kept, quite unconsciously. It is kept, in short, whenever compassion for a person's circumstances leads managers and owners of businesses to be less than totally ruthless in getting value from labour.
For example:
The woman in the back of the office who makes mistakes but her workmates cover for her because she's going through an awkward divorce.
The old man who is kept busy doing work that a machine could do, but the foreman likes having someone he can call on for odd jobs.
The manager who allows the local scrap dealer to take away surplus metal but doesn't charge very much because it's good policy to buy services locally.
We can all think of similar examples. They are the little ways in which humanity takes the edge off the tough commercial world.
On the wider scale, it's always better for a society to allow the poor to work and contribute in some measure to the society, than to have them live off the latter day version of alms, the social welfare, which in the old English phrase is "as cold as charity".
The "Anglo-Saxon model", as it is called, maximises employment and then tops up earnings with welfare. The "Continental model" - such as France and Germany - attempts to help the poor by telling business to pay them the minimum wage. The result is unemployment and a ruthless drive for productivity which replaces men with machines at the lower end of the job market.
We shall see, eventually, which one will survive the longest.
Update: I had an e-mail from Germany querying the opposition to the minimum wage, and recommending a citizen's basic income.
Oddly enough, I support the idea in pinciple, though I wonder about the practicality. (Also a bit worrying - "You're a citizen, you get a basic income. You're not, so buzz off and starve.")
Leaving aside that, I wonder if there isn't a simple error creeping into the debate.
The distinction between "wage" and "income" isn't always clear. Guaranteeing a minimum wage per hour is nto the same as guaranteeing a minimum income over the year.
Furthermore, the concept of "income" ought to include the benefits provided in kind, in goods and services funded from taxation or national insurance.
And the traditional socialist argument that the "social wage" (roads, waste disposal, clean water, etc.,) must be taken into account in assessing welfare should be dusted off for a re-think.
Regarding the minimum wage: suppose there are three people doing a basic job in a factory. They are doing the same work, same output per hour. The work is simple so the wage is low.
But the workers are not identical in their needs. One may be a student taking a year off before going to university, and still living at home. One may be a person nearly retired, with no mortgage to pay and working to pay for a nice holiday. One may be a single mother with two children.
Their needs are different. If the wage is raised artificially to help the needy one (the third) then the others say "Thanks very much, more beer money for us".
(There's anecdotal evidence that the main beneficiaries of minimum wage legislation are young single people in rich areas who have easy holiday jobs).
And we should not assume that the employer is necessarily making a profit from the lowwages - that may be the case, but it might not be.
So the employer may decide to invest in a machine to do the job - he won't make anyone redundant, but the one will retire and student will go to univeristy and there are two fewer jobs for the next student.
If, however, the wage is set at the market level, then the employer still provides the jobs, and more people are involved in work.
The student will still get his subsidised training, the mother will still get help with rent and child benefit, the retired person can work to retirement.
Targetting benefits to need works just as well in a market-wage society as in a minimum-wage one. And it maximises contributions to society through work.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
And before anyone says it: yes, some employers are making money out of paying low-wages for valuable work. Certainly unfree labour is an evil, and factory inspectors can shut down unhealthy workplaces. But the best weapon against such employers is free-trade. Other employers will offer better wages and still make a profit - if they are allowed to set up in that market. Barriers to entry have to be low.
The text is Leviticus 19, v 9 - 10.
Extract (KJV): "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest . . . . thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger."
The first thing that comes to mind is this: the Bible is telling us that we should not drive for maximum productivity and profit margin, but that we should consider the position of the poor and needy.
The context makes it clear that it isn't about giving alms to the poor, or paying taxes to support them. It's about the actual production process; we are ordered, by the Lord, no less, that the poor should be involved in gathering some sustenance at least from the productive capacity of the counry and region they live in.
Of course, not many live by gleaning nowadays (if ever). But there are numerous ways in which this Biblical injunction is still kept, quite unconsciously. It is kept, in short, whenever compassion for a person's circumstances leads managers and owners of businesses to be less than totally ruthless in getting value from labour.
For example:
The woman in the back of the office who makes mistakes but her workmates cover for her because she's going through an awkward divorce.
The old man who is kept busy doing work that a machine could do, but the foreman likes having someone he can call on for odd jobs.
The manager who allows the local scrap dealer to take away surplus metal but doesn't charge very much because it's good policy to buy services locally.
We can all think of similar examples. They are the little ways in which humanity takes the edge off the tough commercial world.
On the wider scale, it's always better for a society to allow the poor to work and contribute in some measure to the society, than to have them live off the latter day version of alms, the social welfare, which in the old English phrase is "as cold as charity".
The "Anglo-Saxon model", as it is called, maximises employment and then tops up earnings with welfare. The "Continental model" - such as France and Germany - attempts to help the poor by telling business to pay them the minimum wage. The result is unemployment and a ruthless drive for productivity which replaces men with machines at the lower end of the job market.
We shall see, eventually, which one will survive the longest.
Update: I had an e-mail from Germany querying the opposition to the minimum wage, and recommending a citizen's basic income.
Oddly enough, I support the idea in pinciple, though I wonder about the practicality. (Also a bit worrying - "You're a citizen, you get a basic income. You're not, so buzz off and starve.")
Leaving aside that, I wonder if there isn't a simple error creeping into the debate.
The distinction between "wage" and "income" isn't always clear. Guaranteeing a minimum wage per hour is nto the same as guaranteeing a minimum income over the year.
Furthermore, the concept of "income" ought to include the benefits provided in kind, in goods and services funded from taxation or national insurance.
And the traditional socialist argument that the "social wage" (roads, waste disposal, clean water, etc.,) must be taken into account in assessing welfare should be dusted off for a re-think.
Regarding the minimum wage: suppose there are three people doing a basic job in a factory. They are doing the same work, same output per hour. The work is simple so the wage is low.
But the workers are not identical in their needs. One may be a student taking a year off before going to university, and still living at home. One may be a person nearly retired, with no mortgage to pay and working to pay for a nice holiday. One may be a single mother with two children.
Their needs are different. If the wage is raised artificially to help the needy one (the third) then the others say "Thanks very much, more beer money for us".
(There's anecdotal evidence that the main beneficiaries of minimum wage legislation are young single people in rich areas who have easy holiday jobs).
And we should not assume that the employer is necessarily making a profit from the lowwages - that may be the case, but it might not be.
So the employer may decide to invest in a machine to do the job - he won't make anyone redundant, but the one will retire and student will go to univeristy and there are two fewer jobs for the next student.
If, however, the wage is set at the market level, then the employer still provides the jobs, and more people are involved in work.
The student will still get his subsidised training, the mother will still get help with rent and child benefit, the retired person can work to retirement.
Targetting benefits to need works just as well in a market-wage society as in a minimum-wage one. And it maximises contributions to society through work.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
And before anyone says it: yes, some employers are making money out of paying low-wages for valuable work. Certainly unfree labour is an evil, and factory inspectors can shut down unhealthy workplaces. But the best weapon against such employers is free-trade. Other employers will offer better wages and still make a profit - if they are allowed to set up in that market. Barriers to entry have to be low.
Tuesday 5 June 2007
England forever !
There's a lot on the internet at least about the English "national identity". Especially since the government comes up with its cack-handed proposal for a "Britain Day". First they erode democracy with devolution to everone but the majority, thereby creating two classes within the country, then they want to celebrate the "things that we have in common".
A sense of fair play, for starters.
And a recognition that England is a country - perhaps start by getting Europe to put the name on its map? And to give us a vote on devolution.
We only want the rights everyone else has.
But to the point.
One can hear people denying that there is an "English national identity". After all, there are so many different cultures that make up the country, so many different national origins, they aren't really one nation, are they?
Are these commentators on another planet? Does anyone say that the Welsh are a single culture? Are the Lowland Scots the same as the Highlanders? Blue and Green Glaswegians wouldn't agree they are the same. And the Northern Irish?
The fact is - and it's a remarkable fact that this is rarely noted - that the English are what they are simply because we all live here.
There is no requirement to be of "English blood". (Unlike Germany, which still has a race-based nationality).
Just one simple question: are you born here? Makes you English.
Or, you voluntarily come to live here and to submit to our laws.
England is here, and will not go away. And don't forget that.
Years ago, I lived abroad and had to fill in official forms.
Address: easy - "United Kingdom".
Nationality: easy - British passport, so "British".
Country of birth: I often paused and wondered what to put. Neither of the above options seemed right. Eventually I settled on "England", but did wonder what the significance was.
Now I know. England is home, England is the source of our liberties and traditions and rights. England is forever.
A sense of fair play, for starters.
And a recognition that England is a country - perhaps start by getting Europe to put the name on its map? And to give us a vote on devolution.
We only want the rights everyone else has.
But to the point.
One can hear people denying that there is an "English national identity". After all, there are so many different cultures that make up the country, so many different national origins, they aren't really one nation, are they?
Are these commentators on another planet? Does anyone say that the Welsh are a single culture? Are the Lowland Scots the same as the Highlanders? Blue and Green Glaswegians wouldn't agree they are the same. And the Northern Irish?
The fact is - and it's a remarkable fact that this is rarely noted - that the English are what they are simply because we all live here.
There is no requirement to be of "English blood". (Unlike Germany, which still has a race-based nationality).
Just one simple question: are you born here? Makes you English.
Or, you voluntarily come to live here and to submit to our laws.
England is here, and will not go away. And don't forget that.
Years ago, I lived abroad and had to fill in official forms.
Address: easy - "United Kingdom".
Nationality: easy - British passport, so "British".
Country of birth: I often paused and wondered what to put. Neither of the above options seemed right. Eventually I settled on "England", but did wonder what the significance was.
Now I know. England is home, England is the source of our liberties and traditions and rights. England is forever.
Saturday 2 June 2007
Protestantism & wealth
http://andrewleigh.com/?p=1477
The above link connects to a study which queries the basis of the "Protestant ethic" explanation for wealth creationm expounded by Max Weber.
Briefly, this theory states that the teachings of Protestantism created the conditions for economic growth. Protestantism recommends that we be thrifty, careful with money, scorning adornment and superficial conspicuous consumption; that we shoudl save for the future, just as we look to the life after death.
A sub-set of the theory states that Calvinism in particular taught that only the elect go to heaven, but nobody knows who they are. Because God blesses those who believe in him, then your wealth indicates how blessed you are and is an indicator of whether you are one of the elect. So Calvinists become wealthy.
The theory isn't popular nowadays, except the bit about wealth being an indicator of faith. The "prosperity Gospel" teachers say that if you believe faithfully then you will receive all manner of good things, which they interpret as being large lumps of money. In particular, if you give to the church (i.e., them) then you will certainly receive ten times that much back.
Yes, they are disgraceful scum. Not a very good reading of the New Testament, or the prophets of the OT either, come to that. Never heard about the "eye of the needle" story, clearly.
But that's another story.
Another flaw in the Weber thesis is evident nowadays. There's a dstinct lack of Calvinism in the highly wealthy Shintoist Japanese. The Jews in business and the professions, and in Israel, are not famous for being Protestants and the religion doesn't even teach life after death. Indians used not to care about wealth because it was all the result of previous lives. Moslems - well, if you can find a reason why Islam doesn't have a good track record in wealth creation, you're cleverer than me.
Back to the link.
The link above identifies the connection between Protestantism and prosperity, but sees the causality elsewhere. It's the focus on literacy that made the difference. Because Protestants are taught to study the Bible, they had to learn to read. So there is a correlation between literacy and wealth. (Though numeracy is probably just as important. If a worker can't count, how does he check his overtime?)
And not mentioned is another spin-off from religion. If you study the Bible and stand up for the interpretation, you develop an independent attitude. You are not subservient to another's view, and not dependent on him. This may breed an entrepreneurial attitude.
Only a theory, no evidence for it.
The above link connects to a study which queries the basis of the "Protestant ethic" explanation for wealth creationm expounded by Max Weber.
Briefly, this theory states that the teachings of Protestantism created the conditions for economic growth. Protestantism recommends that we be thrifty, careful with money, scorning adornment and superficial conspicuous consumption; that we shoudl save for the future, just as we look to the life after death.
A sub-set of the theory states that Calvinism in particular taught that only the elect go to heaven, but nobody knows who they are. Because God blesses those who believe in him, then your wealth indicates how blessed you are and is an indicator of whether you are one of the elect. So Calvinists become wealthy.
The theory isn't popular nowadays, except the bit about wealth being an indicator of faith. The "prosperity Gospel" teachers say that if you believe faithfully then you will receive all manner of good things, which they interpret as being large lumps of money. In particular, if you give to the church (i.e., them) then you will certainly receive ten times that much back.
Yes, they are disgraceful scum. Not a very good reading of the New Testament, or the prophets of the OT either, come to that. Never heard about the "eye of the needle" story, clearly.
But that's another story.
Another flaw in the Weber thesis is evident nowadays. There's a dstinct lack of Calvinism in the highly wealthy Shintoist Japanese. The Jews in business and the professions, and in Israel, are not famous for being Protestants and the religion doesn't even teach life after death. Indians used not to care about wealth because it was all the result of previous lives. Moslems - well, if you can find a reason why Islam doesn't have a good track record in wealth creation, you're cleverer than me.
Back to the link.
The link above identifies the connection between Protestantism and prosperity, but sees the causality elsewhere. It's the focus on literacy that made the difference. Because Protestants are taught to study the Bible, they had to learn to read. So there is a correlation between literacy and wealth. (Though numeracy is probably just as important. If a worker can't count, how does he check his overtime?)
And not mentioned is another spin-off from religion. If you study the Bible and stand up for the interpretation, you develop an independent attitude. You are not subservient to another's view, and not dependent on him. This may breed an entrepreneurial attitude.
Only a theory, no evidence for it.
Friday 1 June 2007
Economic lunacy
Is the President of Iran an agent of the Mossad?
During a recent economic crisis, he telephoned from germany to give the solution to the crisis, involving inflation hitting 15%.
He ordered the banks to cut interest rates to 12%.
If that continues, there will be more inflation, a fall in the value of the currency, more expensive imports and a squeeze on living standards for the poor. Who voted for the President.
If there is an economic disaster, in a volatile country, can the nuclear programme continue?
So: is he an agent of Israel?
During a recent economic crisis, he telephoned from germany to give the solution to the crisis, involving inflation hitting 15%.
He ordered the banks to cut interest rates to 12%.
If that continues, there will be more inflation, a fall in the value of the currency, more expensive imports and a squeeze on living standards for the poor. Who voted for the President.
If there is an economic disaster, in a volatile country, can the nuclear programme continue?
So: is he an agent of Israel?
Monday 28 May 2007
Venezuela - it's all geography
The Socialist government of Hugo Chavez has this week mpved to extend its totalitarian grip on the country. A well established TV station has been closed down, and demonstrations crushed by tanks. Curiously ignored by the media, though it's on a par with the Greek colonels coup and Pinochet's seizure of power, though not quite so savage a rperession (yet) as Castro.
The government has oil money, of course, just like Castro had money, from the Soviet Union. So Chavez will be able to continue his massive arms build-up, to feed the demand for luxuries for the ruling elite, and give the increasing numbers of urban poor a regular supply of food and possibly even health care.
But, as ever, they will undoubtedly ignore the basic fact of economics; that wealth comes from value-added, not an infusion of money. This means professional people and entrepreneurs, using a free flow of good and information brought by a free press and capitalism. So the real wealth will not materialise, and the country will decline, relatively and absolutely.
It has already begun; the proportion of poor people has already increased.
Another example of the curse of oil; no country ever became wealthy from being resource rich (OK, Australia did, but that's the Anglosphere exception.)
What's this got to do with geography? Simple, really. How easy will it be to escape from the country? Cuba is an island, it is a natural prison and has been for 50 years. North Korea is a peninsula and has tightly controlled, relatively short borders.
Venezuela has a large land border which will be very difficult to police. When the repression gets unbearable - say, in a year or two - the professional classes will be able to leave the country. They will be able to walk out, voting with their feet.
Perhaps Chavez will try to build a new Iron Curtain to keep them in. Perhaps the country will collapse because of an oil price slide deprives the population of the essentials. Perhaps he will use his Russian guns and tanks to massacre the demonstrations.
Nothing is certain. But the determining factor will be geography.
The government has oil money, of course, just like Castro had money, from the Soviet Union. So Chavez will be able to continue his massive arms build-up, to feed the demand for luxuries for the ruling elite, and give the increasing numbers of urban poor a regular supply of food and possibly even health care.
But, as ever, they will undoubtedly ignore the basic fact of economics; that wealth comes from value-added, not an infusion of money. This means professional people and entrepreneurs, using a free flow of good and information brought by a free press and capitalism. So the real wealth will not materialise, and the country will decline, relatively and absolutely.
It has already begun; the proportion of poor people has already increased.
Another example of the curse of oil; no country ever became wealthy from being resource rich (OK, Australia did, but that's the Anglosphere exception.)
What's this got to do with geography? Simple, really. How easy will it be to escape from the country? Cuba is an island, it is a natural prison and has been for 50 years. North Korea is a peninsula and has tightly controlled, relatively short borders.
Venezuela has a large land border which will be very difficult to police. When the repression gets unbearable - say, in a year or two - the professional classes will be able to leave the country. They will be able to walk out, voting with their feet.
Perhaps Chavez will try to build a new Iron Curtain to keep them in. Perhaps the country will collapse because of an oil price slide deprives the population of the essentials. Perhaps he will use his Russian guns and tanks to massacre the demonstrations.
Nothing is certain. But the determining factor will be geography.
Unintended consequences
There is yet another new scheme to help us be more what the government would like us to be: a nation of sober people. The drinks companies (most of them) have agreed to put the number of alcohol units on drinks bottles. So we'll check the content and drink less.
Hmmm. Well, apart from the obnoxious assumption that the government can legislate to make us good, this is likely to create some results not quite intended by the do-gooders who come up with these schemes. It stems from the psychology of youngsters going to pubs.
When I was a teenager, we went to the local bar and consumed Watneys Starlight beer. By the gallon. All night long.
Eventually we cottoned on to the fact that it was actually very low in alcohol content, so low it could legally be sold to children (so it was said.) We moved on to Guinness and proper beer, with a taste.
We guessed that the Starlight beer had been developed to enable teenagers to drink large quantities.
And it so happened that our idea was correct. 30 years later I happened to speak to a marketing man (not in the drinks trade) and he mentioned that he had worked on the advertising campaign for Starlight. It had, indeed, been designed as a "session drink", to be consumed in a a large quantity over a period.
The last thing Watneys would have wanted was for teenagers to realise the low alcohol content, They would have switched immediately to something stronger.
Advertising the units of alcohol in a drink won't put people off at all. It will become a badge of honour (cor, guess what I drank last night?!!)
We are indeed ruled by morons.
Hmmm. Well, apart from the obnoxious assumption that the government can legislate to make us good, this is likely to create some results not quite intended by the do-gooders who come up with these schemes. It stems from the psychology of youngsters going to pubs.
When I was a teenager, we went to the local bar and consumed Watneys Starlight beer. By the gallon. All night long.
Eventually we cottoned on to the fact that it was actually very low in alcohol content, so low it could legally be sold to children (so it was said.) We moved on to Guinness and proper beer, with a taste.
We guessed that the Starlight beer had been developed to enable teenagers to drink large quantities.
And it so happened that our idea was correct. 30 years later I happened to speak to a marketing man (not in the drinks trade) and he mentioned that he had worked on the advertising campaign for Starlight. It had, indeed, been designed as a "session drink", to be consumed in a a large quantity over a period.
The last thing Watneys would have wanted was for teenagers to realise the low alcohol content, They would have switched immediately to something stronger.
Advertising the units of alcohol in a drink won't put people off at all. It will become a badge of honour (cor, guess what I drank last night?!!)
We are indeed ruled by morons.
Thursday 24 May 2007
Magic moments - an old woman
Many years ago, I worked for a few months in a kibbutz. After a few weeks I was sent to work in the kitchens, washing dishes. Then this happened.
I am standing at a sink, scrubbing aluminium trays and stainless steel pots. The staff are mostly older women, in aprons and headscarves.
As I work, an older woman, with lined face but with black hair, seeming older than her years, comes over to collect a new pot.
She has short sleeves; her arm as she reaches past me is tanned above, with melanomic spots, and the underside of her forearm is paler.
It is marked by an ancient tattoo, a triangle followed by six digits.
I know what it means, I have heard of this but have not seen it before.
For a frozen instant, I pause, glance and raise my eyes to hers.
She sees the direction of my gaze and knows that I recognise the mark. She gives the faintest nod and a glimpse of a grin, then carries on with her work.
I hope I conveyed sympathy. She knows I know what it means.
But I know that I cannot truly understand. For she survived Auschwitz.
I am standing at a sink, scrubbing aluminium trays and stainless steel pots. The staff are mostly older women, in aprons and headscarves.
As I work, an older woman, with lined face but with black hair, seeming older than her years, comes over to collect a new pot.
She has short sleeves; her arm as she reaches past me is tanned above, with melanomic spots, and the underside of her forearm is paler.
It is marked by an ancient tattoo, a triangle followed by six digits.
I know what it means, I have heard of this but have not seen it before.
For a frozen instant, I pause, glance and raise my eyes to hers.
She sees the direction of my gaze and knows that I recognise the mark. She gives the faintest nod and a glimpse of a grin, then carries on with her work.
I hope I conveyed sympathy. She knows I know what it means.
But I know that I cannot truly understand. For she survived Auschwitz.
Religion: a feature, not a bug
When people ask, "why did God make Man?" it is common for theologians of monotheistic faiths to reply, "So that we could worship him".
I've always found that rather an odd response. Why should we pretend to know why God does something? And why should the omnipotent creator want to create beings of limited perception just so they can worship him?
But recently I've seen the subject with other eyes. I realised that, while the deeper philosophical questions remain, there can be little doubt that we are made to worship.
Anti-religious writers try to disprove the existence of God - as does Richard Dawkins in his most recent book. (Not read it yet, but his others have been good.) Having proved to his own satisfaction that God doesn't exist, presumably he regards human outreach to God, in prayer, ritual and worship, as falsehood and fraud. Well, that's his opinion, and he is entitled to it.
Now to the title of the piece. Worship, I contend, can be shown to be such a part of human life - any time, any where, that it should be refgarded as a faeature of our make-up, not a bug in the system.
Our mind consists of hardware, firmware (that's embedded software), software, instructions and information. These approximate to our brains, our instimcts, our learned experiences, our knowledge and our environment. Religious belief can be regarded as a bug in the system, to be decoded and removed - or it can be seen to be a feature which we can't remove.
More seriously - if the capacity for religion is denied, it will emerge somehwre else, like any other repressed drive. Represss sex and it will come out as obsession or perversion. Suppress any feature and it will emerge again.
And as open religion declined in the 20th century, we have seen the emergence of false gods.
Political leaders in totalitarian societies.
Celebrity culture.
Shopping and materialism
Screen idols and pop idols (the use of the term "idol" says it all).
Obsession with sports teams, the World Cup, the Ashes cricket trophy (I plead guilty).
The list can be extended.
So, to worship is a feature of life, not a bug. Whether we believe we are made by a "blind watchmaker" in an evolutionary process, or made by a benevolent creator, or a malevolent one for that matter, it is sheer folly to deny that our make-up inclines us to worship.
Recognising that we are made that way enables us to apply ethics to the object of worship, and to our relationship to it. Denying that worship is normal means the question is not raised.
Recognising idols as false gods - as did Abraham - means we can dethrone them from our hearts and place them in proper perspective.
Maybe it is possible to do this without believing in a god or in his son, the suffering servant. But if we stand in awe and wonder at the magnificence of the world, I do find it somewhat easier to relate to it when seeing it as a creation, not an accident of nature.
I've always found that rather an odd response. Why should we pretend to know why God does something? And why should the omnipotent creator want to create beings of limited perception just so they can worship him?
But recently I've seen the subject with other eyes. I realised that, while the deeper philosophical questions remain, there can be little doubt that we are made to worship.
Anti-religious writers try to disprove the existence of God - as does Richard Dawkins in his most recent book. (Not read it yet, but his others have been good.) Having proved to his own satisfaction that God doesn't exist, presumably he regards human outreach to God, in prayer, ritual and worship, as falsehood and fraud. Well, that's his opinion, and he is entitled to it.
Now to the title of the piece. Worship, I contend, can be shown to be such a part of human life - any time, any where, that it should be refgarded as a faeature of our make-up, not a bug in the system.
Our mind consists of hardware, firmware (that's embedded software), software, instructions and information. These approximate to our brains, our instimcts, our learned experiences, our knowledge and our environment. Religious belief can be regarded as a bug in the system, to be decoded and removed - or it can be seen to be a feature which we can't remove.
More seriously - if the capacity for religion is denied, it will emerge somehwre else, like any other repressed drive. Represss sex and it will come out as obsession or perversion. Suppress any feature and it will emerge again.
And as open religion declined in the 20th century, we have seen the emergence of false gods.
Political leaders in totalitarian societies.
Celebrity culture.
Shopping and materialism
Screen idols and pop idols (the use of the term "idol" says it all).
Obsession with sports teams, the World Cup, the Ashes cricket trophy (I plead guilty).
The list can be extended.
So, to worship is a feature of life, not a bug. Whether we believe we are made by a "blind watchmaker" in an evolutionary process, or made by a benevolent creator, or a malevolent one for that matter, it is sheer folly to deny that our make-up inclines us to worship.
Recognising that we are made that way enables us to apply ethics to the object of worship, and to our relationship to it. Denying that worship is normal means the question is not raised.
Recognising idols as false gods - as did Abraham - means we can dethrone them from our hearts and place them in proper perspective.
Maybe it is possible to do this without believing in a god or in his son, the suffering servant. But if we stand in awe and wonder at the magnificence of the world, I do find it somewhat easier to relate to it when seeing it as a creation, not an accident of nature.
Friday 18 May 2007
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID
In the little Wiltshire town of Corsham, the local council this week had its first BNP member.
There was a loud demonstration when he arrived for the first time to take his seat. Trade unionists, liberals, and other activists protested against racism.
How stupid they were.
Because he only won the seat BECAUSE NOBODY STOOD AGAINST HIM.
He was elected unopposed. All they had to do to stop him was to be involved enough in local politics to put up a candidate. But they couldn't be bothered.
As ever, the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
There was a loud demonstration when he arrived for the first time to take his seat. Trade unionists, liberals, and other activists protested against racism.
How stupid they were.
Because he only won the seat BECAUSE NOBODY STOOD AGAINST HIM.
He was elected unopposed. All they had to do to stop him was to be involved enough in local politics to put up a candidate. But they couldn't be bothered.
As ever, the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Friday 27 April 2007
Of the human footprint
There's much being published nowadays on the subject of the individual's footprint on the earth - that is, the amount the individual living on the earth will consume. Most recently, a TV show had a piles of all the vegetables we'll eat in our lifetime, all the cars we'll use, etc.
Image being presented: Mother Earth being looted. The BBC magazine Radio Times gave us the lesson we're supposed to take away: the earth would be better off without us.
A bit of a misanthropic tone, perhaps? And a huge value judgement, too, that the earth without reasonably intelligent life on it would be "better".
It's also one-sided. Because one could also make a show illustrating how much we all produce during a lifetime. That would show the other side of the ledger - everthing we consume has been produced by someone too - otherwise we'd never buy it. Even "free" stuff like water, has to be purified and delivered to us.
An honest review would comment that some resources are being depleted, used up. But similarly, we are also adding to a long-lasting store of knowledge, which never runs out and can be used gain and again to invent ingenious solutions to our problems.
So let's not be pessimistic, shall we?
Image being presented: Mother Earth being looted. The BBC magazine Radio Times gave us the lesson we're supposed to take away: the earth would be better off without us.
A bit of a misanthropic tone, perhaps? And a huge value judgement, too, that the earth without reasonably intelligent life on it would be "better".
It's also one-sided. Because one could also make a show illustrating how much we all produce during a lifetime. That would show the other side of the ledger - everthing we consume has been produced by someone too - otherwise we'd never buy it. Even "free" stuff like water, has to be purified and delivered to us.
An honest review would comment that some resources are being depleted, used up. But similarly, we are also adding to a long-lasting store of knowledge, which never runs out and can be used gain and again to invent ingenious solutions to our problems.
So let's not be pessimistic, shall we?
Tuesday 24 April 2007
Capitalist rip-off
Compact fluorescent light bulbs !
Not normally associated with the above term. But there's more to the subject than just a better light bulb, which, like the proverbial improved mouse-trap, should have people queueing to buy it.
So why don't they? Several reasons:
The light is less clear, and not so good for reading.
The bulb takes a few seconds to light up with full brightness.
They are larger and less decorative for ambience.
But: they should last longer and save many times the cost during the lifetime.
And they are being recommended by teh EU, which will make them compulsory.
Now, when a good idea is made obligatory, arhter than letting the market decide, one must smell a rat.
Epecially when the product they are recommending is subject to a taxon imports. The government in Brussels wants us to buy itk, but not enough to lift the tax to make them cheap.
So why do they tax these bulbs? To keep out cheap Indian and Chinese bulbs.
Who benefits? The German company Siemens, who make them in Europe and now have a 450m market to itself.
Not normally associated with the above term. But there's more to the subject than just a better light bulb, which, like the proverbial improved mouse-trap, should have people queueing to buy it.
So why don't they? Several reasons:
The light is less clear, and not so good for reading.
The bulb takes a few seconds to light up with full brightness.
They are larger and less decorative for ambience.
But: they should last longer and save many times the cost during the lifetime.
And they are being recommended by teh EU, which will make them compulsory.
Now, when a good idea is made obligatory, arhter than letting the market decide, one must smell a rat.
Epecially when the product they are recommending is subject to a taxon imports. The government in Brussels wants us to buy itk, but not enough to lift the tax to make them cheap.
So why do they tax these bulbs? To keep out cheap Indian and Chinese bulbs.
Who benefits? The German company Siemens, who make them in Europe and now have a 450m market to itself.
Monday 23 April 2007
England forever !
William Pitt: "I fear not for England. She will stand till the Day of Judgement".
It was St. George's Day. I celebrated by signing an online petition for an English Parliament.
Visible at: http://www.toque.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/04/vote_england_20.php
It was St. George's Day. I celebrated by signing an online petition for an English Parliament.
Visible at: http://www.toque.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/04/vote_england_20.php
Tuesday 17 April 2007
Numberwatch
Drawing your attention to the excellent blog "Numberwatch", dediceted to the misuse of statistics and science to scare the public.
See side bar for link.
The "Number of the Month" collects the latest insanities, errors and downright lies that infest the popular press.
This month he picks apart a fancy scheme to fly wind turbines in the upper atmosphere and produce electricity that way. (Briefly, the real problem is not flying it - it's getting the electricity down the cable).
Might also be a problem with conservation of energy too - if the wind is providing enough energy to lift it, can it also be providing a surplus too?
Worth a regular look.
See side bar for link.
The "Number of the Month" collects the latest insanities, errors and downright lies that infest the popular press.
This month he picks apart a fancy scheme to fly wind turbines in the upper atmosphere and produce electricity that way. (Briefly, the real problem is not flying it - it's getting the electricity down the cable).
Might also be a problem with conservation of energy too - if the wind is providing enough energy to lift it, can it also be providing a surplus too?
Worth a regular look.
Girl in the desert
Another in my occasional series of "Magic Moments".
This happened 30 years ago, but I never forgot it and I swear it is true in every detail.
Three of us were camping in the Sinai desert, on the coast near Dahab. This was long ago before the tourists got to it. A mixed group - one German, one Dutch, one English.
We got up early in the morning to make a hike off road into the desert ravines and sandtone hills around the oasis. After several hours in the parched, rocky wilderness, we made our way back towards the coast and ended up following a small dry wadi down to the gritty, gravelly beach.
As we reached the level ground, we came across someone else by the path. A youngish woman, though it is hard to tell the age of desert dwellers, sat on the ground by a small shelter, barely more than a windbreak. A tiny fire smouldered in front of her, a few possessions lay behind her.
She paid no attention to us - these foreign interlopers into her world. She sat impassive, in her black and dark blue robes, a head covering hanging loosely round her shoulders.
We did not pause long. But it was long enough for the complete "otherness" of the Bedouin woman to penetrate. I realised, without words, that she was utterly different from us. I felt, bizarrely, that she was not human like us, but had grown there, out of the ground.
And then - I promise this is true - the following words came to me:
"For God has made of one blood all nations of men . . . for we are all children of Adam".
We passed on, back to the Bedouin village and the primitive tourist site where we stayed. We will never know why she was there, away from the others. But I never forgot it either.
This happened 30 years ago, but I never forgot it and I swear it is true in every detail.
Three of us were camping in the Sinai desert, on the coast near Dahab. This was long ago before the tourists got to it. A mixed group - one German, one Dutch, one English.
We got up early in the morning to make a hike off road into the desert ravines and sandtone hills around the oasis. After several hours in the parched, rocky wilderness, we made our way back towards the coast and ended up following a small dry wadi down to the gritty, gravelly beach.
As we reached the level ground, we came across someone else by the path. A youngish woman, though it is hard to tell the age of desert dwellers, sat on the ground by a small shelter, barely more than a windbreak. A tiny fire smouldered in front of her, a few possessions lay behind her.
She paid no attention to us - these foreign interlopers into her world. She sat impassive, in her black and dark blue robes, a head covering hanging loosely round her shoulders.
We did not pause long. But it was long enough for the complete "otherness" of the Bedouin woman to penetrate. I realised, without words, that she was utterly different from us. I felt, bizarrely, that she was not human like us, but had grown there, out of the ground.
And then - I promise this is true - the following words came to me:
"For God has made of one blood all nations of men . . . for we are all children of Adam".
We passed on, back to the Bedouin village and the primitive tourist site where we stayed. We will never know why she was there, away from the others. But I never forgot it either.
Friday 13 April 2007
On Moses and John Newton
The brilliant site "Ship of Fools" (see sidebar) has both humourous and serious features. Today a brief one on the slave-trader John Newton, who converted, campaigned against the trade and lived to see it abolished thanks to the activities of Wilberforce. He also wrote the famous hymn, "Amazing Grace".
Nice story it is - just one teensy-bit of a problem. Read the feature.
http://ship-of-fools.com/Features/2007/john_newton.html
Newton converted during his time as a slave-trader. But he continued in the trade for six years, and only left on ground of ill-health. During the latter years he had been a "humane" slaver, who ensured very few died. Looked after them well, except that - well, they were still slaves.
This isn't to deny his role in the campaign - he wouldn't be the first to live with a dreadful system as part of the background of life. And he did eventually see the horror and turn against it.
I am reminded of the rabbinic story about Moses, based on the text "He saw their burdens" - that is, the slaves with their labour. Of course, the rabbis do not claim this happened exactly - it is a midrash, that is, it is a parable, on change in society.
The rabbis say that his first reaction was to help the person next to him.
His second reaction was to use his influence at court to lighten the tasks loaded onto the Hebrews.
The third and final reaction was - revolution, a complete overthrow and end to the slavery of his people.
So Newton had the same experience. First, he chose not to impose tortures on his slaves, then he developed a system so that his slaves survived the Middle Passage. Finally he realised that the whole system needed to be rejected utterly.
It's a timely reminder that the situations we grow up with can all too easily be seen as "inevitable" or "the way things are". And we must be ready, eventually, to change things completely if necessary.
Nice story it is - just one teensy-bit of a problem. Read the feature.
http://ship-of-fools.com/Features/2007/john_newton.html
Newton converted during his time as a slave-trader. But he continued in the trade for six years, and only left on ground of ill-health. During the latter years he had been a "humane" slaver, who ensured very few died. Looked after them well, except that - well, they were still slaves.
This isn't to deny his role in the campaign - he wouldn't be the first to live with a dreadful system as part of the background of life. And he did eventually see the horror and turn against it.
I am reminded of the rabbinic story about Moses, based on the text "He saw their burdens" - that is, the slaves with their labour. Of course, the rabbis do not claim this happened exactly - it is a midrash, that is, it is a parable, on change in society.
The rabbis say that his first reaction was to help the person next to him.
His second reaction was to use his influence at court to lighten the tasks loaded onto the Hebrews.
The third and final reaction was - revolution, a complete overthrow and end to the slavery of his people.
So Newton had the same experience. First, he chose not to impose tortures on his slaves, then he developed a system so that his slaves survived the Middle Passage. Finally he realised that the whole system needed to be rejected utterly.
It's a timely reminder that the situations we grow up with can all too easily be seen as "inevitable" or "the way things are". And we must be ready, eventually, to change things completely if necessary.
Monday 9 April 2007
Easter
The excellent Archbishop Cranmer at http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/ has thoughts on Easter, not surprisingly.
Notable is the quote from Lord Salisbury (quote of a quote of a quote, actually, but this is the internet) in which he says that you can't have the Christian ethic without the Christian theology. It does out within three generations.
Generally that's correct, the first generation has both the theology, the Christian "Identity" and the Christian ethic, the second generation has the identity and the ethic, the last one wants to keep the ethic but doesn't know why.
So then we have people paying lip service to the value of charity, forbearance, duty to family and neighbours, but not really knowing why they should suffer for that. The result is the ME-ME-ME generation and instant gratification of material desires.
This is found in Judaism too. One generation has the belief, the structure of faith and the ethic, three generations later there'll be nothing left, once the original belief has gone.
But: revival is possible, even inevitable. It just won't be the same old bottles into which the new wine is poured.
Notable is the quote from Lord Salisbury (quote of a quote of a quote, actually, but this is the internet) in which he says that you can't have the Christian ethic without the Christian theology. It does out within three generations.
Generally that's correct, the first generation has both the theology, the Christian "Identity" and the Christian ethic, the second generation has the identity and the ethic, the last one wants to keep the ethic but doesn't know why.
So then we have people paying lip service to the value of charity, forbearance, duty to family and neighbours, but not really knowing why they should suffer for that. The result is the ME-ME-ME generation and instant gratification of material desires.
This is found in Judaism too. One generation has the belief, the structure of faith and the ethic, three generations later there'll be nothing left, once the original belief has gone.
But: revival is possible, even inevitable. It just won't be the same old bottles into which the new wine is poured.
Surprising
Never thought I'd quote this guy in a favourable way.
So who said this?
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-ridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked, appraised, seized, censured, and commanded by beings who have neither title, knowledge, nor virtue."
Proudhon, French anarchist and left-wing theorist, better known for the "property is theft" aphorism.
Still, you recognise truth when it's stated so accurately.
Hat tip to http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/ for the quote.
So who said this?
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-ridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked, appraised, seized, censured, and commanded by beings who have neither title, knowledge, nor virtue."
Proudhon, French anarchist and left-wing theorist, better known for the "property is theft" aphorism.
Still, you recognise truth when it's stated so accurately.
Hat tip to http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/ for the quote.
Sunday 8 April 2007
Gospel raiment
C. S. Lewis wrote in "The Screwtape letters" that the new Christian is likely to be put off by the appearance of the people at the local church. Irrational to be so, but then the new Christian isn't at his most rational. He knows he himself looks liike everyone else, but expects the others to look more spiritual. More biblical, perhaps. Sandals? Togas? Hollywood epics?
So I was sitting at the back of the church, on Easter Day, big day in the year. People greeting each other with the words "He is Risen !". So what do they look like?
I think there were four ties worn today, including mine. With two suits, two smart blazers.
The rest?
Football shirts.
Rugby shirts.
Sloppy sweatshirts.
Windbreaker jackets.
Saggy jeans (on boys)
Tight jeans (on girls)
Faded jeans
Combat trousers.
Skirts topped with home-made cardigans.
T-shirts with logos (e.g., JC/DC = Jesus Christ/Demon Crusher)
Dresses with bright patterns (on West Indians)
Smart trouser-suits (on Pakistani women)
One set of Goth hippy gear
Mini-skirts made out of what looks like old curtain material, over tights reaching six inches below the knee.
Wide leather belts with big buckles, and lots of metal studs.
One such - proving that the Spirit can sanctify anything - has the studs spelling out JESUS in capital letters across the girl's rear.
There's a reason it's called "Non-conformist" or "low church". The unity doesn't come from external appearance.
So I was sitting at the back of the church, on Easter Day, big day in the year. People greeting each other with the words "He is Risen !". So what do they look like?
I think there were four ties worn today, including mine. With two suits, two smart blazers.
The rest?
Football shirts.
Rugby shirts.
Sloppy sweatshirts.
Windbreaker jackets.
Saggy jeans (on boys)
Tight jeans (on girls)
Faded jeans
Combat trousers.
Skirts topped with home-made cardigans.
T-shirts with logos (e.g., JC/DC = Jesus Christ/Demon Crusher)
Dresses with bright patterns (on West Indians)
Smart trouser-suits (on Pakistani women)
One set of Goth hippy gear
Mini-skirts made out of what looks like old curtain material, over tights reaching six inches below the knee.
Wide leather belts with big buckles, and lots of metal studs.
One such - proving that the Spirit can sanctify anything - has the studs spelling out JESUS in capital letters across the girl's rear.
There's a reason it's called "Non-conformist" or "low church". The unity doesn't come from external appearance.
Wednesday 4 April 2007
Capitalist rip-off
The first of an occasional series.
Fair trade coffee. Not what you'd expect to see so described. But it is when sold in a cup by Starbucks or any other major chain.
So you choose to pay (say) 10 cents extra in order to help the poor people of the world.
But the poor farmer only gets 2 cents of that. The other 8 cents go to the retailer. All other costs are identical.
Of course he does this knowingly. His aim is to split his customers into those who are price-driven, and pay the basic, and those for whom a different choice will be attractive - a flavour, or an ethical choice.
There's also a paradox. If the retailer realised this and chose not to mark-up the fair trade coffee, there would only be a 2 cents differential. Customers would sniff - not very generous, is it? The difference has to be enough for the customer to think he's helping. So the profit soars. The retailer increases both sales and his profit margin by increasing the price.
Of course it does help the poor farmer in Africa. But not by as much as it helps the coffee shop
Fair trade coffee. Not what you'd expect to see so described. But it is when sold in a cup by Starbucks or any other major chain.
So you choose to pay (say) 10 cents extra in order to help the poor people of the world.
But the poor farmer only gets 2 cents of that. The other 8 cents go to the retailer. All other costs are identical.
Of course he does this knowingly. His aim is to split his customers into those who are price-driven, and pay the basic, and those for whom a different choice will be attractive - a flavour, or an ethical choice.
There's also a paradox. If the retailer realised this and chose not to mark-up the fair trade coffee, there would only be a 2 cents differential. Customers would sniff - not very generous, is it? The difference has to be enough for the customer to think he's helping. So the profit soars. The retailer increases both sales and his profit margin by increasing the price.
Of course it does help the poor farmer in Africa. But not by as much as it helps the coffee shop
Magic Moment
Some moments in one's life are so unique, so memorable, that they stick there forever. Here's one of mine; it occurred when I was travelling.
We had been working on a kibbutz for various reasons; some were travellers, some were not, some were Jewish, most were not, some were there to see a country in the news. We were staying at a youth hostel near the village of Beit Jalla, just outside Bethlehem.
We arrived in the evening, took to our beds (and some slept outside on the ground - we were like that then.) We were due to wake early for a hike in the Judean wilderness.
At first light were were awoken and called to the brow of the hill. We gathered, bleary-eyed and gritty, yawning and shivering in the chill of a desert morning.
We then stood motionless. For the sight that met our eyes was extraordinary.
The entire city of Jerusalem lay spread out before us, across its hills and valleys. We looked down on the city on a hill, from east to west. In the early dawn light, the street lights and windows were pale and silvery in the shades of grey, which eased to black in the deeper valleys.
To the east, the right, the sunrise was imminent. The sky there glowed with a palest lemon tint, shading to blue above and darkness still to the west. Stars there may have been, but I do not remember that. I remember the city.
It sprawled across the hills, the left broken into patches of new development but the right was concentrated to a focus, an area of darker shadow, which I knew to be the walled and crowded Old City. A patch of silver indicated the small dome of the Al-Aksa mosque, the southernmost point of the Temple Mount.
Why was this fascinating and rivetting? Did I guess then that I would later realise that this view of the city is one that pilgrims from three major faiths have longed for - the first glimpse of Jerusalem? This view has inspired the Moslem cavalrymen who rode out from the desert, the Crusaders who fought for their Holy Places, the Turks who came from the north, the Israeli paratroopers who fought across it in 1967.
It was three decades ago now. I wonder how many of us that day still remember that sight?
We had been working on a kibbutz for various reasons; some were travellers, some were not, some were Jewish, most were not, some were there to see a country in the news. We were staying at a youth hostel near the village of Beit Jalla, just outside Bethlehem.
We arrived in the evening, took to our beds (and some slept outside on the ground - we were like that then.) We were due to wake early for a hike in the Judean wilderness.
At first light were were awoken and called to the brow of the hill. We gathered, bleary-eyed and gritty, yawning and shivering in the chill of a desert morning.
We then stood motionless. For the sight that met our eyes was extraordinary.
The entire city of Jerusalem lay spread out before us, across its hills and valleys. We looked down on the city on a hill, from east to west. In the early dawn light, the street lights and windows were pale and silvery in the shades of grey, which eased to black in the deeper valleys.
To the east, the right, the sunrise was imminent. The sky there glowed with a palest lemon tint, shading to blue above and darkness still to the west. Stars there may have been, but I do not remember that. I remember the city.
It sprawled across the hills, the left broken into patches of new development but the right was concentrated to a focus, an area of darker shadow, which I knew to be the walled and crowded Old City. A patch of silver indicated the small dome of the Al-Aksa mosque, the southernmost point of the Temple Mount.
Why was this fascinating and rivetting? Did I guess then that I would later realise that this view of the city is one that pilgrims from three major faiths have longed for - the first glimpse of Jerusalem? This view has inspired the Moslem cavalrymen who rode out from the desert, the Crusaders who fought for their Holy Places, the Turks who came from the north, the Israeli paratroopers who fought across it in 1967.
It was three decades ago now. I wonder how many of us that day still remember that sight?
Sunday 1 April 2007
Politicians
One measure of political interest is the willingness of voters to volunteer to work for the cause.
In France, they have a presidential election. There are huge numbers of posters to be stuck up, for all the parties, paid for by the taxpayer.
The parties could not find volunteers to do this. nor could they find a French company to do it, though the profit margin is believed to run at 50%.
So an American company is to do the job. Including the posters for Le Pen, the three Trotsyite parties and the one to the left of the Communists.
In France, they have a presidential election. There are huge numbers of posters to be stuck up, for all the parties, paid for by the taxpayer.
The parties could not find volunteers to do this. nor could they find a French company to do it, though the profit margin is believed to run at 50%.
So an American company is to do the job. Including the posters for Le Pen, the three Trotsyite parties and the one to the left of the Communists.
Malt whisky
Why, when I drink Laphraoig whisky, can I not smell the smoke it was made with, but I can taste it instead?
Trade Unions
Subject: do trade unions hinder or benefit the workings of a liberal capitalist economy?
On the face of it, the usual right-wing answer is , they hinder it. They impose additional costs on management, they disrupt production with strikes, they prevent modernisation by objecting to new technology.
One must also note, though, that the most successful economies are those that have free trade unions. "Socialist" countries (those with the word in the name, that is) do not have free unions, and they also are very backward technologically in the processes of industry. Oligarchies such as the former Soviet union countries are also not exactly roaring ahead economically.
So I wonder, then, whether the answer is the exact opposite.
Consider.
Before unions, wages were adjusted by the management at will. In times of slow trade, staff were laid off at will, wages cut, in order to keep profit margins at the required level.
But when unions came along, it became much less easy to cut wages. Unions campaigned for protection of employment rights, so sackings without compensation were limited by law.
Management had to manage better. They had to invest in better procedures to control stock and produce better goods. Everyone gains from that - the customer, the management, the workers.
Before unions, the usual rate of expansion in the economy was barely 2% p.a. Since then, the long-term growth rate has been higher and sometimes at 5% for years. One can't credit unions with this - technological change was a major driver. But unions keep management on their toes, keep them honest, they punish incompetent companies by exposing weaknesses.
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" at work, perhaps?
One other thing, though. Unions did make it more costly to employ staff, by reducing the rights of management to sack people at will. So unemployment has, I believe, settled at a higher rate than would have been the case.
Another consequence has been raising of the barriers to entry to a trade. Businesses need more capital to start up nowadays. So to enable the necessary competition to flourish, there has to be the capacity to hire economical workers at the price set by the market.
This means that there should be no minimum wage.
Conclusion: unions good. Labour legislation good. Minimum wage bad.
Update:
Realised later that it can be said that trade unions wanted to create Democratic socialism. They got deomcratic capitalism as well.
On the face of it, the usual right-wing answer is , they hinder it. They impose additional costs on management, they disrupt production with strikes, they prevent modernisation by objecting to new technology.
One must also note, though, that the most successful economies are those that have free trade unions. "Socialist" countries (those with the word in the name, that is) do not have free unions, and they also are very backward technologically in the processes of industry. Oligarchies such as the former Soviet union countries are also not exactly roaring ahead economically.
So I wonder, then, whether the answer is the exact opposite.
Consider.
Before unions, wages were adjusted by the management at will. In times of slow trade, staff were laid off at will, wages cut, in order to keep profit margins at the required level.
But when unions came along, it became much less easy to cut wages. Unions campaigned for protection of employment rights, so sackings without compensation were limited by law.
Management had to manage better. They had to invest in better procedures to control stock and produce better goods. Everyone gains from that - the customer, the management, the workers.
Before unions, the usual rate of expansion in the economy was barely 2% p.a. Since then, the long-term growth rate has been higher and sometimes at 5% for years. One can't credit unions with this - technological change was a major driver. But unions keep management on their toes, keep them honest, they punish incompetent companies by exposing weaknesses.
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" at work, perhaps?
One other thing, though. Unions did make it more costly to employ staff, by reducing the rights of management to sack people at will. So unemployment has, I believe, settled at a higher rate than would have been the case.
Another consequence has been raising of the barriers to entry to a trade. Businesses need more capital to start up nowadays. So to enable the necessary competition to flourish, there has to be the capacity to hire economical workers at the price set by the market.
This means that there should be no minimum wage.
Conclusion: unions good. Labour legislation good. Minimum wage bad.
Update:
Realised later that it can be said that trade unions wanted to create Democratic socialism. They got deomcratic capitalism as well.
Thursday 29 March 2007
Endlosung
When Hitler wrote about destroying the Jews, few people believed him. Just rhetoric, they thought. The result was the "Endlosung", or, for non-German speakers, the "Final Solution".
Jews don't doubt any more. So when this is announced by Hamas:
"Our position is the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine. This is the final and strategic solution for us. There is a Qur’anic message for us, that we will enter the Al-Aqsa mosque, and the entrance to the mosque means the entrance into all of Palestine. This is the message, no one can deny it. Anyone who denies it must check his faith and his Islam.”
And when they even use the same terminology - then let no-one doubt that Israel means it too - they will defend themselves.
Evidence at Palestinian Media Watch - http://www.pmw.org.il/
Jews don't doubt any more. So when this is announced by Hamas:
"Our position is the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine. This is the final and strategic solution for us. There is a Qur’anic message for us, that we will enter the Al-Aqsa mosque, and the entrance to the mosque means the entrance into all of Palestine. This is the message, no one can deny it. Anyone who denies it must check his faith and his Islam.”
And when they even use the same terminology - then let no-one doubt that Israel means it too - they will defend themselves.
Evidence at Palestinian Media Watch - http://www.pmw.org.il/
More on Slavery
Wat Tyler on Burning our Money blog has some background to the ludicrous idea of slavery reparations.
First off, let me state that the idea of putting a financial value on some things is actually impossible. It's commonplace nowadays to claim compensation for any and everything, but to me it's a moral madness. No money can "restore" the position before the crime, when death, torment and horror is involved, let alone the long-drawn out abomination of the slave trade and slavery itself.
The right response of the victims, is to treat the tormentor with utter contempt and to throw the offer of blood-money back in their faces.
However, since the question is raised, and we are engaging in a thought-experiment, we can assess the value of the income from the trade.
Which modern research has shown to be less than actually was believed.
Against that has to be set the cost of defending the sugar islands, if we are to speak of the net benefit to Britain. So that cost was higher than it would have been if the plantations had been freely established with free labour.
So the net benefit to Britain was not that great. It really amounted to scheming planters manipulating politicians to spend other people's money to protect their monopoly profits, rather than paying for protection themselves.
Still, let's assume it was a net benefit.
But against that is the benefit to Africa from Britain ruthlessly suppressing the trade on the high seas (probably in contravention of international law, but let that pass).
This cost is believed to have been higher than the cost of the benefit from the trade in the first place.
Plus the benefit from being colonised (all those railways and ports.) More money went in than came out, in many places.
So: can we stop this morally dubious talk of reparations for 200 year old crimes?
Details, including references, at:
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/
(Scroll down for the item)
First off, let me state that the idea of putting a financial value on some things is actually impossible. It's commonplace nowadays to claim compensation for any and everything, but to me it's a moral madness. No money can "restore" the position before the crime, when death, torment and horror is involved, let alone the long-drawn out abomination of the slave trade and slavery itself.
The right response of the victims, is to treat the tormentor with utter contempt and to throw the offer of blood-money back in their faces.
However, since the question is raised, and we are engaging in a thought-experiment, we can assess the value of the income from the trade.
Which modern research has shown to be less than actually was believed.
Against that has to be set the cost of defending the sugar islands, if we are to speak of the net benefit to Britain. So that cost was higher than it would have been if the plantations had been freely established with free labour.
So the net benefit to Britain was not that great. It really amounted to scheming planters manipulating politicians to spend other people's money to protect their monopoly profits, rather than paying for protection themselves.
Still, let's assume it was a net benefit.
But against that is the benefit to Africa from Britain ruthlessly suppressing the trade on the high seas (probably in contravention of international law, but let that pass).
This cost is believed to have been higher than the cost of the benefit from the trade in the first place.
Plus the benefit from being colonised (all those railways and ports.) More money went in than came out, in many places.
So: can we stop this morally dubious talk of reparations for 200 year old crimes?
Details, including references, at:
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/
(Scroll down for the item)
Monday 26 March 2007
Slavery reparations
Lots of absolute tosh being talked today about slavery and its long-term impact.
African countries want $777 trillion (yes, trillion) in compensation. 10 times the entire world's GDP. Why? BECAUSE WHEN THEY SOLD THEIR SURPLUS LABOUR INTO SLAVERY IN THE ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN WORLD THEY UNDERCHARGED.
Also total rubbish to suggest that Africa is poor because of a policy carried out 200 years ago. After Ghana became independent, it was richer per head than South Korea. Compare them now. one still produces cocoa beans and the other makes mobile phones, cars, ships and everything else.
They had the advantage of a coherent culture, a region that was broadly stable after the Korean war stopped, but the main thing was education and good government. Nothing that Ghana couldn't have done.
Looking to slvaery as an alibi for failure doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help the black kids at school in the UK, and it doesn't help the Africans trying to get ahead either.
Nothing diminishes the horror of the practice of slavery, but it would help no end if the descendants of slaves would respond by getting the chip off their shoulder.
African countries want $777 trillion (yes, trillion) in compensation. 10 times the entire world's GDP. Why? BECAUSE WHEN THEY SOLD THEIR SURPLUS LABOUR INTO SLAVERY IN THE ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN WORLD THEY UNDERCHARGED.
Also total rubbish to suggest that Africa is poor because of a policy carried out 200 years ago. After Ghana became independent, it was richer per head than South Korea. Compare them now. one still produces cocoa beans and the other makes mobile phones, cars, ships and everything else.
They had the advantage of a coherent culture, a region that was broadly stable after the Korean war stopped, but the main thing was education and good government. Nothing that Ghana couldn't have done.
Looking to slvaery as an alibi for failure doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help the black kids at school in the UK, and it doesn't help the Africans trying to get ahead either.
Nothing diminishes the horror of the practice of slavery, but it would help no end if the descendants of slaves would respond by getting the chip off their shoulder.
Sunday 25 March 2007
National Anthem
Went to the pub on Saturday to watch the Israel-England football match. Dull game.
A thought did occur to me though, when the anthems were sung.
If England had chosen to drop "God save the Queen" in favour of a specifically English anthem, they might well have had "Jerusalem", which would be many people's choice.
So the Israelis would have sung "HaTikvah", about the hope of the Jewish people "to be a free nation in the land of Zion and Jerusalem".
And the English would have sung about the desire "to build a new Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land".
No doubt confusing to a neutral.
A thought did occur to me though, when the anthems were sung.
If England had chosen to drop "God save the Queen" in favour of a specifically English anthem, they might well have had "Jerusalem", which would be many people's choice.
So the Israelis would have sung "HaTikvah", about the hope of the Jewish people "to be a free nation in the land of Zion and Jerusalem".
And the English would have sung about the desire "to build a new Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land".
No doubt confusing to a neutral.
"Communism that works"
Some people writing in Spiegel Online (English version) think that the Chinese have proved what all unrepentent left-wingers have secretly wished for: that Communism can be made to work after all.
View it here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,465007-2,00.html
It's a good overview of the was "China, Incoprorated" functions as a vast low-cost factory, witht he politburo functioning as a board of directors, which can get on with the job of focussing on the job in hand, without the boring political bit of relating to voters, appearing on talk shows and generally looking after the appeal of the party.
It is undeniably a remarkable transformation going on in China. The phrase "economic miracle" has been over-used and in this case its not really miraculous, of which more in a moment.
(Incidentally, I think I was about 11 when I learned my second German phrase - it was "wirtschaftwunder". The first, obviously, was "blitzkrieg".)
First comment, though, on the Spiegel feature is the crass assumption in the article that the Chinese like it this way. They aren't asked whether this is what they want their country to do. They just have to suffer the pollution, land-grabs, corrupt officials and everything else.
Asks people in India, and they say - freely - that they prefer to have democracy. The wealth is on its way anyway.
Second, and more importantly, is this.
You're the rulers of a country with over 1 billion people. You have fortuitously managed to free agriculture and as a result the countryside can now feed the towns. You have a large, docile, cheap labour force, the right to use any piece of land for a state purpose, nobody can obstruct your plans by legal objections, because you own the judges.
You look at Hong Kong and see that 4 million people can create a world class manufacturing, finance and toursit centre and become very rich.
Not a difficult call, is it, to decide that you can do it with 1 billion people?
You don't have to invent anything, you don't have to make tough calls about what system will work best. You just copy what is done in Europe, Japan and America.
Adam Smith noticed that colonies have second-mover advantage - they know what will work. They become rich very fast.
China is doing the same. The managers of the country know that they will need motorways, railways, airports and regional airports, so many power stations and so many dams etc. They can plan for these by noting how many are needed elsewhere.
The comparison with with the last time a country was tagged with the suffix "Incorporated". This was Japan, in the 60s and 70s. Then, too, it was thought that the Ministry of Industry and Technology had a genius for economic indicative planning. But the exchange rate was 250 yen to the dollar. At that rate, they could make anything cheaply and sell it.
Their problems came when the economy matured, the exchange rate rose and they had to compete properly. China will have the same issues - but without a democratic process to provide the outlet for people's complaints.
I predict that they will get the worst of both worlds: a Communist system with enough wealth to buy the surveillance to control everybody, and a capitalist system with a capacity for brutalising the labour force and driving down wages relentlessly in the desperate need to compete. At present wages are rising 14% per year. Whether that will happen when the exchange rate rises and squeerzes profit margins is another matter.
View it here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,465007-2,00.html
It's a good overview of the was "China, Incoprorated" functions as a vast low-cost factory, witht he politburo functioning as a board of directors, which can get on with the job of focussing on the job in hand, without the boring political bit of relating to voters, appearing on talk shows and generally looking after the appeal of the party.
It is undeniably a remarkable transformation going on in China. The phrase "economic miracle" has been over-used and in this case its not really miraculous, of which more in a moment.
(Incidentally, I think I was about 11 when I learned my second German phrase - it was "wirtschaftwunder". The first, obviously, was "blitzkrieg".)
First comment, though, on the Spiegel feature is the crass assumption in the article that the Chinese like it this way. They aren't asked whether this is what they want their country to do. They just have to suffer the pollution, land-grabs, corrupt officials and everything else.
Asks people in India, and they say - freely - that they prefer to have democracy. The wealth is on its way anyway.
Second, and more importantly, is this.
You're the rulers of a country with over 1 billion people. You have fortuitously managed to free agriculture and as a result the countryside can now feed the towns. You have a large, docile, cheap labour force, the right to use any piece of land for a state purpose, nobody can obstruct your plans by legal objections, because you own the judges.
You look at Hong Kong and see that 4 million people can create a world class manufacturing, finance and toursit centre and become very rich.
Not a difficult call, is it, to decide that you can do it with 1 billion people?
You don't have to invent anything, you don't have to make tough calls about what system will work best. You just copy what is done in Europe, Japan and America.
Adam Smith noticed that colonies have second-mover advantage - they know what will work. They become rich very fast.
China is doing the same. The managers of the country know that they will need motorways, railways, airports and regional airports, so many power stations and so many dams etc. They can plan for these by noting how many are needed elsewhere.
The comparison with with the last time a country was tagged with the suffix "Incorporated". This was Japan, in the 60s and 70s. Then, too, it was thought that the Ministry of Industry and Technology had a genius for economic indicative planning. But the exchange rate was 250 yen to the dollar. At that rate, they could make anything cheaply and sell it.
Their problems came when the economy matured, the exchange rate rose and they had to compete properly. China will have the same issues - but without a democratic process to provide the outlet for people's complaints.
I predict that they will get the worst of both worlds: a Communist system with enough wealth to buy the surveillance to control everybody, and a capitalist system with a capacity for brutalising the labour force and driving down wages relentlessly in the desperate need to compete. At present wages are rising 14% per year. Whether that will happen when the exchange rate rises and squeerzes profit margins is another matter.
Monday 19 March 2007
Property rights mean power
"The Economist" last week reported on the move in China to grant property rights to the people.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RRTVDSV
That's the link, but it's subscription only.
It's not quite what it might appear. But it's a step in the right direction, of course. Trouble is, once a ruling class holds all the property in the country, how easy will it be to prise their hands off it?
It's commonly reported that the majority (some say 70%) of Chinese industry and commerce is privately run in recent years. The report shows, though, that this has been achieved without there actually being clear title to the assets in use and even the land the new factories are built on hasn't been bought and sold for the purpose. Whoever has the power to do so, can take land from peasant farmer for a pittance. Corrupt officals do it, or connive at it with the rich class.
Communist theory says that goods of value to the community should be held in common, that is, they are not privately owned but managed in the community's interest. To control such assets for your own use, means to deprive the community of them - stealing from the wider group. Hence the slogan "Property is theft" (was that Proudhon?).
Apart from the issue of stewardship - property is better kept by people who own it - there is the issue of who decides what is the best interest of the community. If a farm is to be turned into a factory, who takes the higher income - the farmer who no longer has the land? Or the factory owner who turns the peasants into wage earners?
In a world of private property, enforced by law with independent judges, the farmer has rights which have to be compensated. The factory owner has to ensure that his business plan covers the real costs to the community from the loss of the farmland.
So: private property protects the community.
But pity the poor Chinese peasants.
Exploited by landlords and corrupt officials under the old Empire.
Subjected to tyranny and destructive taxation by the Kuomintang.
Seduced by the Communists
Starved in the Great Leap Forward.
Tormented by the Cultural Revolution.
Crushed at Tiananmen Square.
Given a glimpse of hope by the spectacular economic growth of modern times.
Now back to exploitation and corrupt officials.
Unless the new element - the growing skilled middle class - can flex its muscles and change things. Everyone must hoep that that can happen.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RRTVDSV
That's the link, but it's subscription only.
It's not quite what it might appear. But it's a step in the right direction, of course. Trouble is, once a ruling class holds all the property in the country, how easy will it be to prise their hands off it?
It's commonly reported that the majority (some say 70%) of Chinese industry and commerce is privately run in recent years. The report shows, though, that this has been achieved without there actually being clear title to the assets in use and even the land the new factories are built on hasn't been bought and sold for the purpose. Whoever has the power to do so, can take land from peasant farmer for a pittance. Corrupt officals do it, or connive at it with the rich class.
Communist theory says that goods of value to the community should be held in common, that is, they are not privately owned but managed in the community's interest. To control such assets for your own use, means to deprive the community of them - stealing from the wider group. Hence the slogan "Property is theft" (was that Proudhon?).
Apart from the issue of stewardship - property is better kept by people who own it - there is the issue of who decides what is the best interest of the community. If a farm is to be turned into a factory, who takes the higher income - the farmer who no longer has the land? Or the factory owner who turns the peasants into wage earners?
In a world of private property, enforced by law with independent judges, the farmer has rights which have to be compensated. The factory owner has to ensure that his business plan covers the real costs to the community from the loss of the farmland.
So: private property protects the community.
But pity the poor Chinese peasants.
Exploited by landlords and corrupt officials under the old Empire.
Subjected to tyranny and destructive taxation by the Kuomintang.
Seduced by the Communists
Starved in the Great Leap Forward.
Tormented by the Cultural Revolution.
Crushed at Tiananmen Square.
Given a glimpse of hope by the spectacular economic growth of modern times.
Now back to exploitation and corrupt officials.
Unless the new element - the growing skilled middle class - can flex its muscles and change things. Everyone must hoep that that can happen.
Sunday 18 March 2007
The Balkans remain weird
Milosovic's grave has been violated to stop him returning from the dead.
http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/1330114.html
Unless this is a spoof report, of course.
Maybe that's why Arafat's grave is covered with a very thick concrete cover and is constantly guarded.
http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/1330114.html
Unless this is a spoof report, of course.
Maybe that's why Arafat's grave is covered with a very thick concrete cover and is constantly guarded.
Saturday 17 March 2007
The Evil Empire
A new book claims to blame England for the evils of the world,
It's called "The evil Empire: 101 ways that England ruined the world".
And the site is here: http://www.evilempirebook.com/
It must be tongue in cheek. One way listed is that Elton John was knighted.
More seriously, the scholarship looks dodgy. Hiram Maxim is mentioned as the inventor of the machine gun.
But the Gatling gun, invented in America, preceded it, so the concept was already out there. And the French had the Mitrailleuse, a primitive machine gun, in 1870.
More importantly, Sir Hiram Maxim was actually American, not English. He emigrated to the UK at the age of 41, became naturalised and was knighted. One can echo the remark of the Duke of Wellington: if you go to live in a stable it doesn't make you a horse.
The comments about the industrial revolution leading to slums, pollution and child labour are merely ignorant. Whoever was first would have been the first to experience those evils and find the solutions - town planning, sewers, Factory Acts.
The world should thank us for being the first to try out industrialism.
The world learned from our mistakes.
Adam Smith observed in "The Wealth of Nations" that colonies quickly become richer than the mother countries, because they can go stright to the finished product without waste.
I think the world owes us - say No to the claim for reparations !!
It's called "The evil Empire: 101 ways that England ruined the world".
And the site is here: http://www.evilempirebook.com/
It must be tongue in cheek. One way listed is that Elton John was knighted.
More seriously, the scholarship looks dodgy. Hiram Maxim is mentioned as the inventor of the machine gun.
But the Gatling gun, invented in America, preceded it, so the concept was already out there. And the French had the Mitrailleuse, a primitive machine gun, in 1870.
More importantly, Sir Hiram Maxim was actually American, not English. He emigrated to the UK at the age of 41, became naturalised and was knighted. One can echo the remark of the Duke of Wellington: if you go to live in a stable it doesn't make you a horse.
The comments about the industrial revolution leading to slums, pollution and child labour are merely ignorant. Whoever was first would have been the first to experience those evils and find the solutions - town planning, sewers, Factory Acts.
The world should thank us for being the first to try out industrialism.
The world learned from our mistakes.
Adam Smith observed in "The Wealth of Nations" that colonies quickly become richer than the mother countries, because they can go stright to the finished product without waste.
I think the world owes us - say No to the claim for reparations !!
The Market
Interesting snippet in "The Economist" last week. Studies in America show that while it's possible to pick a worthwhile investment and make a provide as it rises on the stock market, it isn't so easy to hedge against risk by investing in "safe" products which always increase in value.
Most major fields of investment rise together with eath other, keeping within 95% of each other. Property, government bods, commercial loans - all rise and fall together.
It was Thatcher said: "You can't buck the market" - though it was scarecely an original thought.
So many financial instrucments to invest in, all information is available, free movement of capital, all evens out. The market works.
Most major fields of investment rise together with eath other, keeping within 95% of each other. Property, government bods, commercial loans - all rise and fall together.
It was Thatcher said: "You can't buck the market" - though it was scarecely an original thought.
So many financial instrucments to invest in, all information is available, free movement of capital, all evens out. The market works.
Of cuckoos and cowbirds
Everyone knows about the cuckoo and that it lays its eggs in other birds' nests. "The Economist" ( a regrettably subscription-only feature) last week reported on the cowbird, a bird that also lays its eggs in another 's nest.
But the evolutionary strategies are completely different.
The cuckoo disguises its egg by laying eggs of the same colour as the host eggs. The host doesn't recognise it - otherwise, it would throw it out. So it raises the egg as its own.
It's what evolutionists call an "arms race". The defensive strategy is for the host bird to recognise hostile eggs and thrown them out. The cuckoo's tactic is to develop eggs that look like the hosts.
But the cowbird is different. It lays the egg, then checks round regularly. If the egg it laid is missing, it wrecks the nest and tries to kill the other eggs and nestlings.
So the host bird goes along with it and raises the one egg as its own, in order to protect its own two or three eggs.
None of this is conscious, of course. It's all done by genetics and instinct. But it's as explicit a protection racket as you'll see in nature. "Look after my egg or I kill yours".
What was that about Gaia and benevolent Mother Nature again?
But the evolutionary strategies are completely different.
The cuckoo disguises its egg by laying eggs of the same colour as the host eggs. The host doesn't recognise it - otherwise, it would throw it out. So it raises the egg as its own.
It's what evolutionists call an "arms race". The defensive strategy is for the host bird to recognise hostile eggs and thrown them out. The cuckoo's tactic is to develop eggs that look like the hosts.
But the cowbird is different. It lays the egg, then checks round regularly. If the egg it laid is missing, it wrecks the nest and tries to kill the other eggs and nestlings.
So the host bird goes along with it and raises the one egg as its own, in order to protect its own two or three eggs.
None of this is conscious, of course. It's all done by genetics and instinct. But it's as explicit a protection racket as you'll see in nature. "Look after my egg or I kill yours".
What was that about Gaia and benevolent Mother Nature again?
Tuesday 6 March 2007
"The Wages of Destruction"
The best book I read last year.
Was Adam Tooze's economic history of the Third Reich, called "The Wages of destruction". It's a monumental, comprehensive survey of Nazi economic policy and the links between them. He's a master of the subject, and shows with chilling detail how the racial ideology, the imperialist strategy, the industrial fundamentals and the agricultural basis interacted to drive the Nazi state.
He shows how they were linked.
More arms and ammunition meant more use of chemicals.
More use of chemicals meant less fertiliser
Less fertiliser meant reduced food production
Less food drove the need to loot Europe.
That meant that supplies had to be taken from occupied countries by force.
So they starved.
And the surplus was eliminated by any means necessary, including teh Final Solution.
Yes, it was the vilest regime in history. And every organ of the Nazi state was involved, from the central bank down to the company of soldiers stealing food. They were indeed the "willing executioners" of the Reich.
Best thing we did was to hammer that state into unconditional surrender. Negotiation - even towards the end - had to be out of the question. They had nothing to negotiate about.
Was Adam Tooze's economic history of the Third Reich, called "The Wages of destruction". It's a monumental, comprehensive survey of Nazi economic policy and the links between them. He's a master of the subject, and shows with chilling detail how the racial ideology, the imperialist strategy, the industrial fundamentals and the agricultural basis interacted to drive the Nazi state.
He shows how they were linked.
More arms and ammunition meant more use of chemicals.
More use of chemicals meant less fertiliser
Less fertiliser meant reduced food production
Less food drove the need to loot Europe.
That meant that supplies had to be taken from occupied countries by force.
So they starved.
And the surplus was eliminated by any means necessary, including teh Final Solution.
Yes, it was the vilest regime in history. And every organ of the Nazi state was involved, from the central bank down to the company of soldiers stealing food. They were indeed the "willing executioners" of the Reich.
Best thing we did was to hammer that state into unconditional surrender. Negotiation - even towards the end - had to be out of the question. They had nothing to negotiate about.
Friday 2 March 2007
Forests
Saw the BBC2 feature this week about the Forest of Dean. A group of wild boar were filmed in the dusk. They are breeding there for the first time in 300 years or more.
Interesting because - put simply - the animals died out or were hunted to extinction at that time, when there were one tenth as many people as now. Yet now the boar live in forests in Sussex, in the most densely populated part of the country.
Obviously, they are not being hunted. But also, forests are not being utilised the way they were in the past.
There is no such thing as untouched, pristine forest nowadays, and there never was. Mediaeval woods were a resource for feeding animals and gathering firewood (by hook or by crook). The land was cleared of undergrowth by the villagers, and it became the greenwood of Robin Hood.
That process, perhaps, made the environment unsuitable for the wild boar.
It was similar in American forests; the native Americans cleared the ground by fire.
Beautiful environments are as much the product of mankind's intervention as they are the product of nature.
Interesting because - put simply - the animals died out or were hunted to extinction at that time, when there were one tenth as many people as now. Yet now the boar live in forests in Sussex, in the most densely populated part of the country.
Obviously, they are not being hunted. But also, forests are not being utilised the way they were in the past.
There is no such thing as untouched, pristine forest nowadays, and there never was. Mediaeval woods were a resource for feeding animals and gathering firewood (by hook or by crook). The land was cleared of undergrowth by the villagers, and it became the greenwood of Robin Hood.
That process, perhaps, made the environment unsuitable for the wild boar.
It was similar in American forests; the native Americans cleared the ground by fire.
Beautiful environments are as much the product of mankind's intervention as they are the product of nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)