Revolutionary government scheme for schools

Following the DfEE's comprehensive review of education for 5 - 16 year olds, Michael Gove today announced a root and branch reform of the school system.

"We accept that Local Authorities will have a role to play for some years yet," said the Education Secretary, "but we must make some major changes now."

Inspired by the closing celebration of the 2012 Olympics, the plan is that all schools will fall into one of the following five "Spice Academy" categories:

1. Posh School

These will be well-established private "heritage" foundations, aimed primarily at restocking the governing and senior administrative and judicial classes, the BBC, Courtauld Institute traitors etc.

2. Sporty School



Private schools focusing on the production of "good eggs": clubbable fellows who will be reliable Number Twos in hierarchical organisations, or hard-working members of lesser professions such as mid-level accountancy and land valuation.

3. Scary School

Quirky, idiosyncratic academies for creatives and misfits, combining fee-paying with scholarships. Additional funding available under the new Special Needs provisions.

4. Baby School

Publicly-funded primaries for those who want a school within easy pram-push of home. Teachers will be selected for their physical and mental robustness, and given rudimentary martial arts training. Foreign nationals preferred, for low-salary reasons and also because there is less likelihood of them knowing what the children are calling them.

5. Ginger School

"Hot work" comprehensives for graduates of Category 4. All pupils will have individual access to their own PC and a graduated suite of online war simulations as rewards for producing any work, or for staying in the classroom. The cost of higher payscales for secondary teachers will be offset by the reduced chance of surviving to pension age.

"There should be something in that lot for everybody," said Mr Gove.

Gold manipulation?

 

Is it unreasonable of me to suspect a pattern here, of an obvious demand for gold being disguised by jerky-but-doomed market interventions? 

Does Russell Brand make sense?

Russell Brand appears to think:

1. There is no such thing as addiction. Anyone can give up, as he has.

2. It is for the consuming individual only, to decide whether the substance abuse is a problem.

Is he correct, or is he sending "mixed messages"?

Freedom issue: big business is NOT the opposite of big government

I bumped into an old friend and former colleague a couple of days ago. She's on loan as acting head to a school converting to Academy status.

Wiki:

Academies are intended to address the problem of entrenched failure within English schools with low academic achievement,^[13] or schools situated in communities with few or no academic aspirations. Often these schools have been placed in "special measures", a term denoting a school that is "failing or likely to fail to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education".^[14]

Academies are established in a way that is intended to be "creative" and "innovative" in order to give them the freedoms considered necessary to deal with the long-term issues they are intended to solve. Each academy has a private sponsor who can be an individual (such as Sir David Garrard, who sponsors Business Academy Bexley) or an organisation (such as the United Learning Trust or Amey plc).

My friend sees that part of the hidden agenda is to tear up teacher's contracts and save money by employing and bullying dull functionaries.

Before those who think themselves libertarians strop their hard hearts on this, may I ask them to pause and consider the liberty not just of the educational employees, but also of the students, and providers of instructional materials?

The excellent graphic site Cartoon Brew reveals interesting developments in America, where the chain of Art Institutes Colleges is beginning to show the true colours of large "private" enterprise. Last week's story was about forcing teachers to use certain texts:

Animation artist Mike Tracy claims that his school, the Art Institute of California—Orange County, judges teachers by another criteria: how many e-textbooks each teacher sells to their students.

Tracy, who has taught drawing and digital painting for eleven years at AIC—Orange County, felt that his class didn’t require the textbooks he was suddenly being asked to sell and told the school that he would prefer to teach without them. Tracy’s reward for working in the best interest of his cash-strapped, loan-burdened students was a termination notice from the school.

This week's is about preventing teachers from using other texts. Popular author Ed Hooks explains:

My book Acting for Animators was published late last year in a revised third edition by Routledge/London. Not too long after it came out, I received an e-mail from an Art Institute animation teacher in Texas. He told me that the headquarter of the AI schools, located in Pittsburgh, had established a new textbook policy. From then going forward, all text books must be e-books. No more hard or soft cover. He was worried that my book might not be available in e-book format, explaining that it was one he recommended to all of his AI students.

As it happened, Routledge was at that moment in between E-Book distributors. They were in the process of vetting a new one and expected to announce E-Book available for all of their titles shortly. I passed this positive message along to the teacher in Texas. [...] In the end, Routledge went with some other e-book distributor, and the man in Pittsburgh said he was sorry but that was that. It was out of his hands. No more Acting for Animators book at any of the Art Institutes. 

The Art Institutes chain is owned by the Education Management Corporation (why am I suddenly thinking of Robocop and the Omni Consumer Products corporation?). EMDC (as it likes to term itself) says:

Our schools are dedicated to giving students the skills, tools and confidence they need for a lifetime of success. From preparing graduates for their first, exciting foray into the business world to helping busy professionals broaden their career possibilities...

Who defines success, and how?

Business world... careers... I have this sense of square pegs being banged efficiently (and cost-effectively) into round holes; of the spiritual death of daily life in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

Just wait until the British (sorry - Team GB, the nation that dares not speak its name) Government awards a major contract to, say, K12 (which my acting-head friend also mentioned).

There is no greater foe to liberty than the large corporate enterprise.

There should be some other term than "private enterprise" for a business over a certain size, so that lovers of liberty are not driven from Big Brother into the arms of Big Manager. The two work together - look at "Chinese" Murdoch.

When England was a nation of small shopkeepers, it was, perhaps not a free nation, but a more nearly free one than today's. And across the water, we are still fighting the intellectual heirs of Napoleon.

Yet in opposing the tyranny of associations of rich men, I am mischaracterized as illiberal. When, for example, I said that Prohibition was ended by big business, its captive unionised workforce and a big government that wanted more funds, and when Isuggested that "liberalisation" of intoxicants was a money-earner for governments and big business and a trap for individuals, I got not only sharp opposition but even - God knoweth how, as More said - calls for my voice to be banned from a liberal website.

My libertarian friends, think more carefully about liberty.

Otherwise, like the Diggers and Levellers of the English Revolution, like Mao's Hundred Flowers, like the oppressed peasants that Luther emboldened to revolt and that he then denounced and betrayed, you will be sold a tin with Liberty on the outside and Slavery within.

The modern chains may be encased in velvet, perfumed with heady mind-altering chemicals and (what subtlety and irony) sold to you with honeyed persuasions rather than wrapped round you by diktat, but you will find they are still very functional as chains, even if (particularly if) they are commercial chains.

Inflation-proof savings: "Social justice, social obligation"

I continue to pursue the issue of safe, inflation-proof deposits with my MP. So far I have had a scarcely credible response from a Treasury Lord, which I may publish sometime.

Meanwhile, note the complete change in the tenor of the debate since 1975.

At that time, when inflation was roaring (24.2% for that year), it was accepted that there was a moral obligation to protect savers. The limiting factor, as Joel Barnett made clear, was not to starve building societies of funds; that is hardly an objection today, when lending is in decline and the real problem is the shrinking value of collateral.

Now, it is pretended that the role of National Savings (& Investments, as it is known these days)  is to help the government with its own funding. That popular management word "target" raises its ugly head. "Social justice" and "certain social obligations" have no place in the modern debate - they think.

Hansard record of House of Commons debate, 10 July 1975:

Mr. Neubert

Does the Minister accept that the opportunity to invest in inflation-proof schemes is an act of belated social justice to millions of people who have seen their savings irreversibly damaged during the recent rapid rise in the rate of inflation? Will he make recompense to many of them by easing up on his vindictive attacks on the principle of savings embodied in the capital transfer tax and the wealth tax?

§Mr. Barnett

The hon. Gentleman has put his supplementary question at the wrong time, because National Savings are rising very well at present. I am sure he will be delighted to hear that. As to what he called "belated social justice", I am sure he will pay due attention to the fact that the scheme was introduced by a Labour Government and not by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Nott

Is the Chief Secretary confident that a further extension of index-linked schemes—which are welcome to savers—will not cause a diversion of funds away from deposits with building societies, leading to a rise in the mortgage interest rate?

§Mr. Barnett

We are, indeed, aware of those problems. That is precisely why we introduced the scheme in this limited way.

Hansard record of House of Lords debate, 4 November 1975:

Lord LEE of NEWTON

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the index-linked schemes are extremely good value for money, it would be a good idea—as inflation has been rather rampant—to increase the maximum amount that can be invested in them?

§Lord JACQUES

My Lords, the Government have two conflicting obligations. One is an obligation to the taxpayer to buy goods and services as economically as possible, and secondly there are certain social obligations. The Government believe that by the action they have taken they have got the right balance.

Daily Telegraph, 2 August 2012:

The Net Financing Target for 2012/13, released today, stands at £0, in a range of -£2bn to £2bn, and as such is too low for the NS&I to reinstate the popular Inflation Linked Savings Certificates.

Gill Stephens from NS&I said: “Over the Spending Review period (April 2011 to March 2015) our objective is to broadly balance inflows and outflows, subject to agreement with HM Treasury on each individual year’s target.”

Given the Target of £0, she admitted that the NS&I does “not anticipate reintroducing Index-linked Savings Certificates during this financial year.”

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Inflation-proof savings: "Social justice, social obligation"

I continue to pursue the issue of safe, inflation-proof deposits with my MP. So far I have had a scarcely credible response from a Treasury Lord, which I may publish sometime.

Meanwhile, note the complete change in the tenor of the debate since 1975.

At that time, when inflation was roaring (24.2% for that year), it was accepted that there was a moral obligation to protect savers. The limiting factor, as Joel Barnett made clear, was not to starve building societies of funds; that is hardly an objection today, when lending is in decline and the real problem is the shrinking value of collateral.

Now, it is pretended that the role of National Savings (& Investments, as it is known these days)  is to help the government with its own funding. That popular management word "target" raises its ugly head. "Social justice" and "certain social obligations" have no place in the modern debate - they think.

Hansard record of House of Commons debate, 10 July 1975:

Mr. Neubert

Does the Minister accept that the opportunity to invest in inflation-proof schemes is an act of belated social justice to millions of people who have seen their savings irreversibly damaged during the recent rapid rise in the rate of inflation? Will he make recompense to many of them by easing up on his vindictive attacks on the principle of savings embodied in the capital transfer tax and the wealth tax?

§Mr. Barnett

The hon. Gentleman has put his supplementary question at the wrong time, because National Savings are rising very well at present. I am sure he will be delighted to hear that. As to what he called "belated social justice", I am sure he will pay due attention to the fact that the scheme was introduced by a Labour Government and not by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Nott

Is the Chief Secretary confident that a further extension of index-linked schemes—which are welcome to savers—will not cause a diversion of funds away from deposits with building societies, leading to a rise in the mortgage interest rate?

§Mr. Barnett

We are, indeed, aware of those problems. That is precisely why we introduced the scheme in this limited way.

Hansard record of House of Lords debate, 4 November 1975:

Lord LEE of NEWTON

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the index-linked schemes are extremely good value for money, it would be a good idea—as inflation has been rather rampant—to increase the maximum amount that can be invested in them?

§Lord JACQUES

My Lords, the Government have two conflicting obligations. One is an obligation to the taxpayer to buy goods and services as economically as possible, and secondly there are certain social obligations. The Government believe that by the action they have taken they have got the right balance.

Daily Telegraph, 2 August 2012:

The Net Financing Target for 2012/13, released today, stands at £0, in a range of -£2bn to £2bn, and as such is too low for the NS&I to reinstate the popular Inflation Linked Savings Certificates.

Gill Stephens from NS&I said: “Over the Spending Review period (April 2011 to March 2015) our objective is to broadly balance inflows and outflows, subject to agreement with HM Treasury on each individual year’s target.”

Given the Target of £0, she admitted that the NS&I does “not anticipate reintroducing Index-linked Savings Certificates during this financial year.”

Is there enough cash to support the markets?

I was struck by comments on King World News from Egon von Greyerz of Matterhorn Asset Management, regarding global asset allocation:

Right now the world’s assets are about $150 trillion. Of that number, $60 trillion is in cash, $40 trillion is in bonds, and $40 trillion is in stocks. But, remarkably, only $2 trillion or just a bit over 1% is in gold.

In chart form, this is what that looks like:

That looks like a lot of cash to me.

In our developed economies, it's said that only some 3% of total "money" is in the form of notes and coins, so as long as there's enough electrons to whizz round the wires the system can operate.

Where does the rest go?

In poorer countries, presumably more money is in tangible form; but worldwide there must be a lot lying fairly idle in bank accounts, daydreaming about whether it's a wave or a particle.

From that, two further questions occur to me:

1. Government deposit protection schemes have fairly low limits (from a rich person's perspective), and many banks are thought to be very shaky. Where do the rich park their cash? Is there a select group of supersafe banks, and if so, details please.

2. Some investors - such as John Burford - are waiting like trapdoor spiders for a major market decline, so they can rush out with the cash in their war chest and grab assets at bargain prices. But if there are hordes of people like him, but with zillions more to play with, then potentially there's so much support that we won't see a crash happen for long enough for ordinary investors to get in. Instead, there'll be a lot of fast trading and large sums will be won or lost on fleeting and marginal differences in a thin market. In other words, something like what is happening already.

There's another aspect that may have altered the character of the markets, which is the growth in wealth inequality.

When a small fraction of the populace owns most of the financial assets, it's running out of middle-class suckers to fleece. As the supply of victims dries up, there is little incentive to participate in the market; and if one has enough wealth, one doesn't need to surrender much of it to pay the bills.

So unless the wealthy are addicted to gambling, I'd expect them to let their portfolios quieten down; in fact, they're probably wondering why their investment managers are charging quite as much as they do, and whether they really have to keep turning over the money and incurring dealing charges and fees each time.

Besides, there's more fun ways to gamble. Oz billionaire Kerry Packer is said to have challenged a Texan millionaire double or quits on the latter's entire $60 million fortune, on the toss of a coin. Whether he'd have offered the challenge on the basis of risking all his own, I can't say.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Is there enough cash to support the markets?

I was struck by comments on King World News from Egon von Greyerz of Matterhorn Asset Management, regarding global asset allocation:

Right now the world’s assets are about $150 trillion. Of that number, $60 trillion is in cash, $40 trillion is in bonds, and $40 trillion is in stocks. But, remarkably, only $2 trillion or just a bit over 1% is in gold.

In chart form, this is what that looks like:

That looks like a lot of cash to me.

In our developed economies, it's said that only some 3% of total "money" is in the form of notes and coins, so as long as there's enough electrons to whizz round the wires the system can operate.

Where does the rest go?

In poorer countries, presumably more money is in tangible form; but worldwide there must be a lot lying fairly idle in bank accounts, daydreaming about whether it's a wave or a particle.

From that, two further questions occur to me:

1. Government deposit protection schemes have fairly low limits (from a rich person's perspective), and many banks are thought to be very shaky. Where do the rich park their cash? Is there a select group of supersafe banks, and if so, details please.

2. Some investors - such as John Burford - are waiting like trapdoor spiders for a major market decline, so they can rush out with the cash in their war chest and grab assets at bargain prices. But if there are hordes of people like him, but with zillions more to play with, then potentially there's so much support that we won't see a crash happen for long enough for ordinary investors to get in. Instead, there'll be a lot of fast trading and large sums will be won or lost on fleeting and marginal differences in a thin market. In other words, something like what is happening already.

There's another aspect that may have altered the character of the markets, which is the growth in wealth inequality.

When a small fraction of the populace owns most of the financial assets, it's running out of middle-class suckers to fleece. As the supply of victims dries up, there is little incentive to participate in the market; and if one has enough wealth, one doesn't need to surrender much of it to pay the bills.

So unless the wealthy are addicted to gambling, I'd expect them to let their portfolios quieten down; in fact, they're probably wondering why their investment managers are charging quite as much as they do, and whether they really have to keep turning over the money and incurring dealing charges and fees each time.

Besides, there's more fun ways to gamble. Oz billionaire Kerry Packer is said to have challenged a Texan millionaire double or quits on the latter's entire $60 million fortune, on the toss of a coin. Whether he'd have offered the challenge on the basis of risking all his own, I can't say.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Is there enough cash to support the markets?

I was struck by comments on King World News from Egon von Greyerz of Matterhorn Asset Management, regarding global asset allocation:

Right now the world’s assets are about $150 trillion. Of that number, $60 trillion is in cash, $40 trillion is in bonds, and $40 trillion is in stocks. But, remarkably, only $2 trillion or just a bit over 1% is in gold.

In chart form, this is what that looks like:

That looks like a lot of cash to me.

In our developed economies, it's said that only some 3% of total "money" is in the form of notes and coins, so as long as there's enough electrons to whizz round the wires the system can operate.

Where does the rest go?

In poorer countries, presumably more money is in tangible form; but worldwide there must be a lot lying fairly idle in bank accounts, daydreaming about whether it's a wave or a particle.

From that, two further questions occur to me:

1. Government deposit protection schemes have fairly low limits (from a rich person's perspective), and many banks are thought to be very shaky. Where do the rich park their cash? Is there a select group of supersafe banks, and if so, details please.

2. Some investors - such as John Burford - are waiting like trapdoor spiders for a major market decline, so they can rush out with the cash in their war chest and grab assets at bargain prices. But if there are hordes of people like him, but with zillions more to play with, then potentially there's so much support that we won't see a crash happen for long enough for ordinary investors to get in. Instead, there'll be a lot of fast trading and large sums will be won or lost on fleeting and marginal differences in a thin market. In other words, something like what is happening already.

There's another aspect that may have altered the character of the markets, which is the growth in wealth inequality.

When a small fraction of the populace owns most of the financial assets, it's running out of middle-class suckers to fleece. As the supply of victims dries up, there is little incentive to participate in the market; and if one has enough wealth, one doesn't need to surrender much of it to pay the bills.

So unless the wealthy are addicted to gambling, I'd expect them to let their portfolios quieten down; in fact, they're probably wondering why their investment managers are charging quite as much as they do, and whether they really have to keep turning over the money and incurring dealing charges and fees each time.

Besides, there's more fun ways to gamble. Oz billionaire Kerry Packer is said to have challenged a Texan millionaire double or quits on the latter's entire $60 million fortune, on the toss of a coin. Whether he'd have offered the challenge on the basis of risking all his own, I can't say.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Demographic imbalance, civil unrest, war and public disorder

A few scatterbrained musings on demography and social stability:

China's "one child" policy (which has exemptions for about two-thirds of their populace) has had the unforeseen consequence of a gender imbalance as unwanted female children are aborted. It seems that by 2020 we may expect 30 million single Chinese men of marriageable age. The link just given also cites statistics that suggest this imbalance is generally associated with more crime, aggressive expansionism etc (BBC News estimates 24 million). Niall Ferguson worried about the implications last year.

I wondered whether homosexuality (which has an ancient history in China) might take off some of the stress; it's been legal again there since 1997. But an official Chinese statistic from 2005 is that only 2.3% of the population are gay (some 30 million people, says a Wiki entry on their LGBT) - about the same proportion as in the UK, unless you believe Stonewall's attempts to inflate the figure.

A linked issue is age imbalance: it's been theorised that a "youth bulge" is a factor in civil unrest. The Chinese attempt to control the birthrate as more of their people survive and age, may have saved us from war triggered by the need for lebensraum. But other countries (especially in the Middle East and North Africa, where a Puritan Islamic revival is in progress) are experiencing this bulge and the young singles are strongly discouraged from seeking a sexual outlet for their energies.

Would it help if they got their end away more? Is it Eros v. Thanatos? But from what I read, young criminals in the UK don't seem to me to be sublimating their sex drives into their professional activities.

Having said that, women in wealthier countries show a tendency to delay having their first child (age 29 in the UK) and in countries ravaged by war (e.g. Angola) the picture is not clear but suggests that when some sort of stability returns women may "catch up" foregone childbirth but may then become reluctant to continue bearing more children (see page 13 of this study on Angola). In the latter case, we may see a sort of temporary "baby boom" which, combined with the loss of older individuals in war, could itself create another "youth bulge".

This entry includes a graph showing a correlation between GDP per capita and number of children born per woman; outliers are Angola (already mentioned), Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USA. I wonder whether these discrepancies are influenced not just by religion but economic inequality within those nations, particularly in Saudi and America? This paper suggests that poorer people invest less in education and more in having larger families, so maybe there should be better public education for all.

I'd like to see more for young people to do in the UK. The youths where I live amuse themselves by throwing stones at light fittings outside the am-dram theatre, and setting fire to plastic litter bins. Since I came here 30 years ago, most of the shops have installed steel shutters, a sure sign that an area is going to the bow-wows. Paid work would sort a lot of this, I think. And it may seem sexist, but I think work is especially important for men - women seem more capable of occupying themselves relatively productively and peacefully. Or have I got that wrong?

News from underground

Both found at Cartoon Brew.

Government is a pusher, not a killjoy

Before we start, a thought: how many of us change our opinions as a result of what we read on the Internet? Are you prepared to have an open mind for the few minutes it will take to read this?

1. We are conditioned to think that Prohibition in the USA was a government-imposed scheme that failed because of popular demand for alcohol, and thank goodness it ended because it meant no more dangerous concoctions and violent crime. Actually, it was a success (in terms of both health problems and crime statistics) and ended because the US government in 1933 was desperate for revenue. By the way, Prohibition was NOT a ban on making or consuming alcohol! If you want to follow up, here's a link to an economist (Don Boudreaux) who is generally of the free trade persuasion: Alcohol, Probition and the Revenuers

2. We also hear of the Gin Epidemic of the early to mid 18th century, but perhaps not so often why it happened. The government's motivation is made clear in the title of Queen Anne's 1703 Act "... for encouraging the Consumption of malted Corn, and for the better preventing the running of French and foreign Brandy." This Act (see p.389 here), and it seems a number of others, deregulated the sale of spirits:

Since the 1960s, the British government has progressively relaxed restrictions on access to alcohol, with predictable results. I cannot say to what extent MPs (and in what way) may have been persuaded by commercial lobbying. In 2003 a Labour government extended drinking hours.

3. Tobacco brings in a great deal of revenue (£12 billion a year). James I may have expressed his displeasure in 1604, and the health effects are now (though still disputed) generally better understood. The government makes various gestures, resented by smokers (and non-smokers: I now go inside the pub for fresh air), but it needs the money.

4. The same people-loving New Labour government that relaxed laws on drink, did the same for gambling, and now (e.g. Harriet Harman in the Mail today) is prepared to admit it was wrong. But last year, it earned £1.6 billion in government revenues.

5. A Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee has been hearing evidence bearing on drugs liberalisation this year, notably from comedian and uber-shagger Russell Brand, and there is some concern that the committee may be biased, or at least receiving biased and misleading information and terms of reference. Even if this effort (if it is an effort) fails, I expect it will be repeated: as the IRA told Margaret Thatcher, they only have to be lucky once.

I suspect that governments have learned how to serve their own wretched interests by couching the arguments for addictive products in terms that appeal to our illusions of liberty and personal self-control. Far from being killjoys, they are enablers battening on human weakness.

UPDATE:

Comments coming in on Orphans of Liberty offer me the chance to clarify and develop the argument:

Q: So, your argument is that nobody would choose to gamble/smoke/drink if the government didn’t push it on them and take their filthy revenue from the activities…?

Even though you say the reason for the ‘Gin Epidemic’ was “preventing the running of French and foreign Brandy.”

My answer:

No. But I refer you to what happened during Prohibition: it was permissible to brew and drink alcohol, but not to manufacture and distribute it on a commercial basis. So that cut out businesses and the government, who got together in 1933 to reverse not an Act, but a full-scale Constitutional Amendment.

Here’s the deal (but of course it will always be a fantasy): let the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and drugs be unregulated and untaxed, but also kept completely private and uncommercial. Grow your own, smoke your own, drink your own, share with friends in your own home or backyard – but not for money or money’s worth.

Libertarians (rightly, in my view) complain about the power and interference of government – but need to include commercial enterprises in their strictures. As I keep saying (but who listens in the world of the Internet?), Big MD/CEO is no better than Big Brother – especially when they combine, as in this case.

Fantastic news for the drug-addled libertarian!

Mexico has caved in. No more fighting against drugs.

The tidal wave moves up the shore. Soon, in the first self-inflicted global pandemic, we will all discover just how strong our will is; Damian Thompson knows already.

And now I must prepare to be verbally flayed by those who just know that they can handle it, and whose philosophy is atomised freedom: the solitary individual, totally disconnected from all others, making his choices in a moral and cultural vacuum and unaffected by his physiology or subconscious compulsions.

I think the fundamental issue of our age may turn out to be the Four Noble Truths.

Hope for America

I've just been reading The Economic Collapse Blog, and I'm awestruck by how the writer (and so many others on the Internet) is able to produce so much and of such quality.

But I think he and others need to distinguish between a crisis and a disaster.

I'm told that the Chinese ideogram for "crisis" is a combination of two others, "threat" and "opportunity". America is in crisis - though not, perhaps, so much as we in the UK - yet I believe that the US has everything in its toolbox and larder to be a great society.

As I submitted to the piece linked above:

The US is still the world’s leader in per capita GDP when you exclude the tax havens and oil producers.

Speaking as someone who encouraged his brother to take American citizenship, I say you have a great future.

The problem you have – the source of many you list here – is excessive inequality, founded on unfair practices. But when America has cleaned out the pigsty of high-level corruption and mutual favouritism, she will find that she has an entrepreneurial population, abundant natural resources (e.g. an excellent population-arable land ratio), and a Constitution that will work just fine when you get back to it.

Animation: "Metro", by Jake Wyatt

Via Cartoon Brew

UK M4 shows continuing decline

Figures released today by the Bank of England show that M4 lending (quarterly, annualised) shrank again in the second quarter of 2012 - slightly up from Q1, but still lower than before. Where will it end?

Playing the chartist game, I connected the last two pairs of highs and lows, expecting to see the lines cross somewhere and give us an indication of the bottom. Instead, the channel not only trends downward but is widening.

Join your own dots, but despite all the QE I don't see a terminus. Will the next inflection - the next "top" - be in negative territory?

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

UK M4 shows continuing decline

Figures released today by the Bank of England show that M4 lending (quarterly, annualised) shrank again in the second quarter of 2012 - slightly up from Q1, but still lower than before. Where will it end?

Playing the chartist game, I connected the last two pairs of highs and lows, expecting to see the lines cross somewhere and give us an indication of the bottom. Instead, the channel not only trends downward but is widening.

Join your own dots, but despite all the QE I don't see a terminus. Will the next inflection - the next "top" - be in negative territory?

Support the Olympics!

IRS and pension fund managers robbing distressed Americans

A miserable twist of the knife: Americans are increasingly defaulting on pension loans, and the taxman and plan manager make money out of it all.

The 401(k) plan is a contribution-based pension for employees. Many such plans allow loans, often with restrictions as to their purpose (e.g. for college fees, medical expenses or housing); but Leo Kolivakis relays reports of an estimated $37 billion in annual defaults, as the great financial crisis continues to claim victims.

The worst of it is, when the borrower defaults, income tax is charged on the loan - plus (often) an extra penalty (presumably to the benefit of the plan manager):

"This can take you from a $6,000 loan to a wipe-out of $10,000 from your 401(k savings) ... and this is happening to people at the very worse times of their personal and financial lives."

What to do with bankers, G4S etc

In Papua New Guinea, they know how to deal with those who expect excessive bonuses:

Police in remote Papua New Guinea have arrested members of an alleged cannibal cult accused of killing at least seven people, eating their brains raw and making soup from their penises...

The 29 people were part of a 1,000-strong group formed to combat errant sorcerers who... had begun charging exorbitant fees...

"We ate their brains raw and took body parts such as livers, hearts, penis and others back to the hausman (traditional men's houses) for our chief trainers to create other powers for the members to use," one of those arrested said.

Make mine a large one.

Is the generosity of Spain's social security system preventing revolution?

The Talking Clock blog is following the anti-austerity protests in Spain live, claiming that the BBC is showing little interest (though the BBC gave this online a couple of days ago).

However, Fin24's report includes an interesting detail: the newly unemployed there are to still get 50% of basic salary (down from 70%).

This raises the question of differences between social security systems across the EU, and in fact the European Commission has been looking at exactly that in a paper issued in May 2012 (pdf).

The authors find that "Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Finland and the Netherlands appear to be relatively generous in terms of unemployment insurance replacement rates and duration compared with the EU average, while in the UK, Malta, Slovakia, Estonia, Poland and Romania benefit conditions are relatively tight", although Spain is not named among the countries (Belgium, Malta, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Finland and Portugal) that have the most generous social security systems overall.

So while obviously financially constrained, the protestors may have enough to keep going and make a fuss, and not so little that they are driven in desperation to serious and sustained acts of rebellion.

Is this the real point of social security: to maintain safe those in power?

Recuerdos del Forest of Dean

A special needs teaching colleague's retirement do last week. Just try to stop teachers talking. One of the older staff tells us she'd once taught in Coleford, where the children in her class shared just three surnames. Aunts, nieces and nephews all behind the desk. Some of the children were still at mother's breast - at 12 and 13.

Another teacher said she'd done supply work (commuting from refined Cheltenham) in another place in the Forest. Two huge mothers stood at the school door like (or as) bouncers. Inside, there were four adults in charge of a class of 18 children, the air nevertheless thick with missiles etc.

My old financial services boss had previously been a headteacher in Dean. His 60th birthday celebration was held in the Speech House in Coleford. He recalled that when he'd first arrived as a class teacher, his head had asked him how he was getting on with the children "I can't hear what they are saying," he replied; the first sign of the partial hearing loss (owing to noisy early-generation computer printers in the ICT suite where he taught) that eventually got him his early retirement with enhancement. Later, supplied with a hearing aid, he told the head, "I can hear them now, but I can't understand what they're saying" (he was from Lancashire). Later still, he told the head, "I can hear them now, and I can understand them now; but I don't like what they're saying."

More vernacular

At a garden centre cafe yesterday: a Yorkshire terrier was keen to make friends with people on other tables. Says her owner, "'Er's as saft as a boiled turnip".

This could kill the big banks

...and a good thing, too.

Matt Taibbi reports on a proposed scheme for local authorities to compulsorily purchase negative-equity homes at current market value - realising big losses for the lenders - and then let the homeowners take out smaller, 100% LTV replacement loans.

Could the good guys win?

Breaking News: New EU Olympic Flag

The Council of Europe has today issued an emergency executive order to all member States concerning the use of national flags in association with the 2012 London Olympics.

Teams, contestants and sponsors must choose one of the three designs below, in lieu of the nationalistic devices displayed at previous Games. (The third option may be adapted according to the two- or three- letter designation of the member State concerned.) The new range of banners serve to remind onlookers of the unity and competitive strength of the European Union.

Spectators may on no account display flags, emblems or symbols of any EU member State, inside the grounds or buildings of official Olympic venues, or within 100 metres of such locations.

The UK is instructed to enforce the order with effect no later than 23:59 on Thursday 26th July 2012.

Financial losses on the recall of outdated items, if strictly necessary to comply with this executive order, may be reimbursed by EU central funds (details to be advised in due course).

Seven types of fart

A bit of social history. My late father-in-law and his brothers used to have a list of flatulence categories and it seems to date from the 1930s/40s if not earlier - I wonder if anyone has heard of these elsewhere, or anything similar?

Here they are, in ascending order of noise and destructive power:

1. The Fizz
2. The Fuzz
3. The Fizzy Fuzz
4. The Poop
5. The Anti-Poop
6. The Tear-arse
7. The Rattler

How The System enslaves you - libertarians take note

How fast we agree to become laboratory rats. And note how the exultation and applause increases as you have to work harder to get the same reward.

In our Age of Abundance, is the liberty issue about self-denial? Are we enslaved as much by appetite as by force?

Extreme blogging, extreme TV

I'm reading an Andy McNab yarn ("Exit Wound") and halfway through his protagonist (Nick Stone) says that Iranian President Ahmedinajad has his own blog (dormant since 2007). I don't know why it should surprise me, but it turns out to be true - and on blogspot, to boot. Here it is.

Any others? Did Bin Laden have one?

Mind you, I'm getting to the point where I watch Russian TV (RT) to get something like the truth about stuff that is scarcely covered on BBC et al. (Max Keiser is gonzo in style but revelatory in content) - and even Al-Jazeera, for goodness' sake. It's a reversal of the days when Germans listened to the BBC during WWII etc.

Speaking of Max Keiser, he interviewed Brit econ commentator Ian Fraser (from minute 12 onwards) a day or two ago, who revealed that following the Blue Arrow debacle in 1992 the message had come down from on high (see 15:15) that no senior banker or institution would ever again be prosecuted; and (see 16:00) that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 included a crippling clause that said the FSA had to consider the international mobility and competitiveness of our financial sector when deciding how to proceed against our red-braced Bolly-swigging crooks.

Where was either of those messages in the papers?

US financial system has now been reset

For the first time in 40-plus years, the ratio of monetary base to credit in America has returned to 5%.
(If you want to check the data, see here and here.)

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

US Financial System has now been reset

For the first time in 40-plus years, the ratio of monetary base to credit in America has returned to 5%.
(If you want to check the data, see here and here.)

Is gold still fairly priced?

The nominal price of gold has soared over the last decade, prompting some to worry that it may be something of a bubble. And ceratinly its price path is erratic, reflecting sentiment more than monetary fundamentals.

But whether you look at the US monetary base, or alternatively at the growth of total credit market debt, gold is slightly below its 42-year average in relation to these benchmarks:

I didn't have the money in 2005 to pile in as I wanted to; but I'm starting to buy small amounts of physical gold now - no longer to make a killing in real terms, but as a hedge against inflation.

Why? A number of reasons:

• the British Government is still not offering index-linked National Savings Certificates (I've written about this to my MP, who has written to the Chancellor, who has not replied so far);
• the high streets around my area are still boasting a number of shops buying gold, not selling it;
• China has (some time ago) announced its determination to build up a stock of 10,000 tonnes;
• other central banks are buying;
• you can still purchase gold in the UK without VAT.

There are so many prophets around, but which one of them will turn out to be correct? My feeling is that we face a deflationary/stagnatory phase, which will become so painful and (in a sort-of democracy) unsustainable that somehow or other, the monetary floodgates will open.

In the medium term, I kind of expect UK housing (ex-London and some other chi-chi areas) to cheapen as unemployment, uncertainty and bank crises continue; by the time we get to sub-Weimar I hope to have moved house (using much of our spare cash) and then with what's left I'll hope to be in fairly defensive stocks (utility companies etc), gold and maybe Marc Faber's beloved emerging markets.

For now it's cash, plus gold plus anything officially guaranteed to hold its value.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Is gold still fairly priced?

The nominal price of gold has soared over the last decade, prompting some to worry that it may be something of a bubble. And ceratinly its price path is erratic, reflecting sentiment more than monetary fundamentals.

But whether you look at the US monetary base, or alternatively at the growth of total credit market debt, gold is slightly below its 42-year average in relation to these benchmarks:

I didn't have the money in 2005 to pile in as I wanted to; but I'm starting to buy small amounts of physical gold now - no longer to make a killing in real terms, but as a hedge against inflation.

Why? A number of reasons:

• the British Government is still not offering index-linked National Savings Certificates (I've written about this to my MP, who has written to the Chancellor, who has not replied so far);
• the high streets around my area are still boasting a number of shops buying gold, not selling it;
• China has (some time ago) announced its determination to build up a stock of 10,000 tonnes;
• other central banks are buying;
• you can still purchase gold in the UK without VAT.

There are so many prophets around, but which one of them will turn out to be correct? My feeling is that we face a deflationary/stagnatory phase, which will become so painful and (in a sort-of democracy) unsustainable that somehow or other, the monetary floodgates will open.

In the medium term, I kind of expect UK housing (ex-London and some other chi-chi areas) to cheapen as unemployment, uncertainty and bank crises continue; by the time we get to sub-Weimar I hope to have moved house (using much of our spare cash) and then with what's left I'll hope to be in fairly defensive stocks (utility companies etc), gold and maybe Marc Faber's beloved emerging markets.

For now it's cash, plus gold plus anything officially guaranteed to hold its value.

UK baby boom since 2000

I'm picking up on an anonymous comment on conspiracy blog The Tap, in which the writer says they've noticed an increase in pram-pushers and it reminds them of an observation by Alan Watts that promiscuity increases before a major war.

I'm less sure about the cause - it may have more to do with a reaction to recession, possibly leading to more women deciding that in the absence of paid work it may be time to start or increase their family. But the ONS statistics do bear out the commenter's perception, and it seems not to be simply a quirk of demographics in his/her geographical area.

However, it's also not simply down to teenage mums - the average age of the mother is increasing (which could be because the births recorded are trending to more second or subsequent births).

The increase is also not merely in raw numbers (which one might expect as the total poulation grows) but also in births per 1,000 head of population.

Here's the data in graph form (ONS November 2011 update), starting with 1940 or 1997:

The end, and a new beginning

The Classic FM radio news said that "David Cameron" (the Prime Minister, apparently - Google him up) "may consider" a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU. (My position is that we're not in it.)

The Sunday paper (Mail, of course - I need to know what the gullible are thinking, they're - we're - the ones who vote) gave this a big front-page splash, though their (print-version) headline "BRITAIN TO GET VOTE ON EUROPE" might just as easily have been "PRIME MINISTER COUGHS." For a few seconds' further reading tells you his new sort-of-potential-policy is a bit of skirt-twitching, hinting that you might get lucky in 2015. It might be part of a General Election manifesto, or a stand-alone referendum (which might be in-out or might also include some alternative about staying in but clawing back some powers). Or it might be just a hand job, or maybe you should give up and buy a packet of chips.

We've had duplicitous bastards before. Think of John Major (who prided himself on being able to talk to "the man in the four-ale bar") and, of course, the lucky, hard-wriggling spermatozoon Blair who pierced the Labour Party and altered its DNA. But they only employed special advisers; Cameron simply was one, is one.

Perhaps everything that's happened since the 1960s has been a kind of reconditioning of our expectations, so that we become habituated to hoping and believing less and less every year. The end point will be when we don't buy newspapers (the proprietors are already starting to give up selling them), disbelieve what we see on telly news, stop voting altogether. Those with get-up-and-go will either run the country (how many modern politicians go straight into the machine from university!), own it (increasingly, from abroad, at least from a taxation standpoint) or leave it. The rest will lapse into a dumb brutishness quite, quite unlike that of the mediaeval peasantry.

I heard years ago (and it's plausible) that Allied soldiers taken prisoner in the Korean War were initially placed in a holding area, and their behaviour observed. Those who displayed signs of initiative were taken to smaller, heavily-controlled camps; the rest were herded into much larger pens with few guards. And when I taught in an inner-city school in Birmingham in the late 70s, I was interested to note that the very dumbest kids were white: anybody of the old population who had anything about them, had left, and the new incomers were entrepreneurial, legally or otherwise.

The British Left, with its self-loathing and penchant for anarchic mischief, and the British Right, with its love of money above all else, have conspired in a cultural subversion that I cannot see anywhere else on Earth. For decades, brains and talent have fled this country like Equitable Life investors scrambling to get out of their with-profits fund, while immigration has been keenly encouraged, by the Left on Gramsci-ite principles and the Right because cheap imported labour has helped in the transfer of wealth from the (increasingly indebted) working and lower middle classes to the rich.

But the last laugh will be on all of them. For as with America, the key is initiative: those who had the gumption to leave their country and try to make a living here will eventually acquire whatever schooling, skills and knowledge they need, but the jizz is hard-wired into their DNA. The Left will wither as a new class of entrepreneurs springs up that sees no need to support anyone who isn't family; the Right will find that the domination game is no longer so easy, and while they spent their time foxhunting and otherwise aping a class from which they did not spring, their businesses were outcompeted. Eventually they will be kept going in genteel captivity, like pandas, while a new class arises that works hard, protects their family and fears God in whatever form they worship Him.

As Alexander Pope, observing the self-indulgent decadence of the filthy rich in the eighteenth century, dared to hope:

Another age shall see the golden ear
Imbrown the slope, and nod on the parterre,
Deep harvests bury all his pride has planned,
And laughing Ceres reassume the land.

The UK is NOT in the European Union

The Prime Minister has, despite his previous clear manifesto commitment, decided for us that there should not be a referendum on our membership of the European Union. He further claims to "completely understand" those who want us to leave it.

He does not understand.

We are not in the EU now.

It is unfortunate, but as the Bible shows, hardly without precedent, that opposition to the current unlawful state of affairs should begin with voices crying out in the desert. One such voice is Albert Burgess, whose website "A Case For Treason" calls for the arraignment of those in our political class who have agreed to make us subject to European law, regulation and institutions. He is calling for citizens (British subjects) to make official complaints to the police, requiring them to bring charges of sedition, treason etc.

Doubtless this will not succeed in the near future and he will be written off as a crank; but his case is founded on fact and logic and as Thoreau reportedly said, "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one." But look how long it took William Wilberforce to carry the anti-slavery vote in Parliament, and hope.

At the core of Burgess' case is his reading of the British Constitution, which is that rule requires the consent not only of the monarch and political representatives but also of the people themselves using their own voices. Like the US Constitution, this is something that cannot be countermanded by any court or statute; it lies outside and above Parliamentary law.

Nor, I (and doubtless Burgess) would argue, can it be simply be buried in a political party's manifesto; an issue of such tremendous importance cannot validly be muddled up in pork-barrel politics. Voting for a political representative in Parliament is completely different from deciding the manner in which we are to be governed, and in any case our current electoral process effectively disenfranchises millions of us.

To join with other nations in a supranational political entity, in defiance of the settlement of 1688/9, would be a monumental constitutional change requiring the express consent of the people. This has never been given, nor, according to Burgess, can it be imposed except after the successful invasion of our land by a foreign power.

Since we have never had the EU membership question put to us, even the slightest transfer of sovereignty to that entity is ultra vires and has no force in law.

We are not now in the European Union, and I ask everyone who reads this, if they agree, to say so to others at every appropriate opportunity.

ADDENDUM

The Talking Clock blog urges us to support Mr Douglas Carswell's Bill to repeal the 1972 Act that claimed to makes us members of the European Union. I comment:

I plan to write to Mr Carswell to ask him to withdraw his proposed Bill, on two (related) grounds: 


1. Parliament had no power to pass the 1972 Act. Without the express consent of the people, this constitutional change could not have taken place and therefore never did. The Act is ultra vires.


2. Therefore, there is no point in repealing an Act that has no force in law. There is no such Act. It falls, and so does everything (all subsequent Acts, regulations, directives etc) that depends on it or in any way arises from it.


Logically, Mr Carswell would do better to submit for consideration a Bill to arrange a referendum for the UK to JOIN the EU, since we are not now members. This would confirm to us all that he shares our view that we are not now in the EU, and also that to join would require the consent of the people in propria persona.

Problem-Solving

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has recently released a report on the impending shortage of people trained in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines. They note that mathematics courses are a bottleneck in this process. In a brilliant example of problem-solving, they have squarely fixed the blame on mathematics teachers, and decided that the cure is to have mathematics courses developed and taught by faculty in ‘mathematics-intensive’ disciplines instead. As I have said on numerous forums, the study of mathematics has been honed, pruned and refined for 2,500 years. I would suggest that we might be doing something right. Perhaps, as some good educational and cognitive psychology studies suggest, ability in mathematics is a fairly rare talent, but nonetheless essential for the training of good scientists?

Speculators will starve the poor

This report highlights an issue for me: how to preserve the value of my savings without hurting other people?

Agricultural funds are, I think, a step too far, though the returns will of course attract other investors.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.