Sunday, August 19, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Oz fags - buy them while you can
"Plain packaging" is a misnomer when it comes to the new Australian regs:
Although not (for many years now) a smoker, I am tempted to buy some of these, for they won't be around forever. They will be collector's items in future, and good (benson and) hedges against inflation.
Look after them well, and don't break the cellophane - condition is so important at auction.
Although not (for many years now) a smoker, I am tempted to buy some of these, for they won't be around forever. They will be collector's items in future, and good (benson and) hedges against inflation.
Look after them well, and don't break the cellophane - condition is so important at auction.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Three levels of freedom
There are at least three different levels or arenas of the freedom debates. Much of the heat in a debate springs from the argument shifting midway from one area to another. Please accept this as a first poor attempt at mapping out the ground.
1. Collective freedom
Struggle between groups. Groups of people who have some common identity and feel oppressed or insufficiently involved in the power structures that govern them. E.g. national sovereignty vs the EU, the suffragette movement, the abolition of slavery. Sometimes, as in the last two examples, there is significant support from outsiders in their struggle.
This debate is generally about fairness.
Factual argument will be about how one group suffers more, or benefits less, than another, in terms of personal income and wealth, longevity, health etc.
Moral argument will be based on the sense of unearned privilege or luck of those outside the group.
The counter-argument to this is that the privileged pay for the difference by protecting and succouring others (e.g. treating servants kindly, providing for them in sickness or age, educating their children, giving to charity, leaving bequests in wills, administering justice in peacetime, leading in time of war). Another compensation is to accept additional restrictions on their personal conduct, or voluntarily to risk greater misfortune or suffer extraordinary pain (e.g. Aztec kings dragged ceremonial knotted ropes through holes in their tongues). In some cases, there is an appeal to (false?) identification: the privileged are allowing the less fortunate to live through them in imagination.
The counter-counter-argument is that the difference is never quite paid for in full.
Contradiction: when a group wins, it sets terms for those who disagree. Freedom of speech is limited to protect minorities; Marxists impose equality of wealth by suppressing enterprise, at the same time allowing Party members material privileges to buy their loyalty. There is no freedom for all unless all think the same way.
In commercial terms, the underdog can eventually become the oppressive overdog. Thus a certain outstandingly successful supermarket grew by offering benefits to its customers, but latterly has (allegedly) attempted to buttress its position by exploiting its suppliers to the point of financial ruin, buying land around its stores to prevent competition from springing up, worsening the contracts of its lorry-drivers etc.
2. Individual freedom
The individual's desire for more leeway in their personal conduct (e.g. to smoke in pubs, engage in certain sexual practices, take currently illicit drugs, go everywhere in the nude).
This debate is generally about harmlessness, at least with respect to others.
Factual argument will centre on statistics relating to mortality, morbidity, economics, health and crime on others (neighbours, partners, children, the public at large) and the costs to society of treating or preventing these undesired side-effects, which shade off into claimed wider and longer-term consequences (e.g. health effects of secondary smoking).
Moral and political argument will be about whether society in general should be involved in mitigating harm to third parties (e.g. should social workers intervene in families of alcoholics, wife-beaters etc). Should society save the "victims", punish the "offenders" or leave altogether alone?
There will also be an appeal to social or religious norms; some will say that the individual must accept certain behavioural restrictions so that the uncodified patterns of behaviour and expectation that are felt to hold society together are not weakened. Thus some will argue that it is important to set a good personal example, or not to set a bad one (this has implications for professions such as teaching); similarly, certain behaviours are felt to have the potential to provoke socially disruptive reactions and measures are instituted to limit them (e.g. sumptuary laws, rules on what may be said about others in public - or even in private).
The individualist may dispute the fact as far as possible, and beyond that appeal to the principle that every other individual must take responsibility for their own responses. Norms will be represented as arbitrary and unnecessary for human happiness; it will be claimed that society will hold together without them.
To set oneself against others is to make oneself vulnerable, so the individualist will attempt to form (often uneasy) alliances, and raise the debate or struggle to the level of a collective-freedom issue. Thus with the groups effectively defined by their "oppressor" we will find some groups who are self-defined by some chosen issue.
But the fundamentalist individualist may not bother to ask society's permission at all. In the first place, getting rules changed is an uncertain and long-term project; secondly, to ask permission or to gather collective approval is (in principle) to cede one's personal power to others.
Contradiction: the individual may turn his dislike of others' power over him, into a mission to get power over others. At the extreme end we get Mao, Stalin etc. On a lesser scale, we get what is said to be the statistical over-representation of psychopaths in senior positions in politics and business.
3. Psychological (or spiritual) freedom
This is about conflict within the individual. Our desires are often contradictory; and sometimes there are demons hiding in one's background, waiting to finish business from long ago. Then there are patterns of expectation driving one to unsatisfactory aims, so that (e.g.) abused children often seek to start families of their own, long before they are capable of nurturing a child emotionally.
If you accept the insights of psychologists and prophets, failure to sort out the mess at this level sometimes results in drives and disasters at levels 2 and 3. Think of Citizen Kane and "Rosebud".
In this context it will be interesting to hear what Russell Brand has to say in his BBC Three TV documentary tomorrow. He is often seen as a poster-boy for indulgence, but actually is now an advocate for abstinence and for analysing one's reasons for wishing to indulge.
But this is about more than consumption-desires. Many of us (most? all?) are a mass of scores trying to be settled, patterns trying for completion, the expectations of family, friends or society, or unrealistic aspirations for ideal iconic life-moments that end forever with credits and closing music.
Contradiction: the fractured individual is afraid to be healed. Change is a kind of death. Creative people often fear that they could lose their motive force - e.g. Roald Dahl as reported by his daughter Tessa:
He hated the idea of therapy, analysis or psychiatry, as he said all his friends – Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammett and the rest – ‘could never write after they had had all their nooks and crannies flattened like pancakes’. He was convinced that drugs were the answer (they didn’t flatten you like a pancake?). I believe he did not want to face his inner demons. So he told Anna to medicate me instead.
As the prophet Mohammed said (and he is far from the only one to say something like it), "Holy is the warrior who is at war with himself", i.e. who is this "I" and why does it want this thing?
But if the "I" is enigmatic, self-contradictory, untrustworthy and potentially destructive to self and others, by what shall we regulate our lives?
So we could get to another contradiction: voluntary submission. "To enter in these bonds is to be free," said Donne, enjoying the contradiction. The doctor and sometime Spectator contributor "Theodore Dalrymple" has more than once had prisoners tell him they prefer being "inside", where they don't have to make decisions. Round and round we go, like the worm Ouroboros. But surely here is where we begin.
I must lie down where all the ladders start
In the foul rag and bone shop of the heart.
1. Collective freedom
Struggle between groups. Groups of people who have some common identity and feel oppressed or insufficiently involved in the power structures that govern them. E.g. national sovereignty vs the EU, the suffragette movement, the abolition of slavery. Sometimes, as in the last two examples, there is significant support from outsiders in their struggle.
This debate is generally about fairness.
Factual argument will be about how one group suffers more, or benefits less, than another, in terms of personal income and wealth, longevity, health etc.
Moral argument will be based on the sense of unearned privilege or luck of those outside the group.
The counter-argument to this is that the privileged pay for the difference by protecting and succouring others (e.g. treating servants kindly, providing for them in sickness or age, educating their children, giving to charity, leaving bequests in wills, administering justice in peacetime, leading in time of war). Another compensation is to accept additional restrictions on their personal conduct, or voluntarily to risk greater misfortune or suffer extraordinary pain (e.g. Aztec kings dragged ceremonial knotted ropes through holes in their tongues). In some cases, there is an appeal to (false?) identification: the privileged are allowing the less fortunate to live through them in imagination.
The counter-counter-argument is that the difference is never quite paid for in full.
Contradiction: when a group wins, it sets terms for those who disagree. Freedom of speech is limited to protect minorities; Marxists impose equality of wealth by suppressing enterprise, at the same time allowing Party members material privileges to buy their loyalty. There is no freedom for all unless all think the same way.
In commercial terms, the underdog can eventually become the oppressive overdog. Thus a certain outstandingly successful supermarket grew by offering benefits to its customers, but latterly has (allegedly) attempted to buttress its position by exploiting its suppliers to the point of financial ruin, buying land around its stores to prevent competition from springing up, worsening the contracts of its lorry-drivers etc.
2. Individual freedom
The individual's desire for more leeway in their personal conduct (e.g. to smoke in pubs, engage in certain sexual practices, take currently illicit drugs, go everywhere in the nude).
This debate is generally about harmlessness, at least with respect to others.
Factual argument will centre on statistics relating to mortality, morbidity, economics, health and crime on others (neighbours, partners, children, the public at large) and the costs to society of treating or preventing these undesired side-effects, which shade off into claimed wider and longer-term consequences (e.g. health effects of secondary smoking).
Moral and political argument will be about whether society in general should be involved in mitigating harm to third parties (e.g. should social workers intervene in families of alcoholics, wife-beaters etc). Should society save the "victims", punish the "offenders" or leave altogether alone?
There will also be an appeal to social or religious norms; some will say that the individual must accept certain behavioural restrictions so that the uncodified patterns of behaviour and expectation that are felt to hold society together are not weakened. Thus some will argue that it is important to set a good personal example, or not to set a bad one (this has implications for professions such as teaching); similarly, certain behaviours are felt to have the potential to provoke socially disruptive reactions and measures are instituted to limit them (e.g. sumptuary laws, rules on what may be said about others in public - or even in private).
The individualist may dispute the fact as far as possible, and beyond that appeal to the principle that every other individual must take responsibility for their own responses. Norms will be represented as arbitrary and unnecessary for human happiness; it will be claimed that society will hold together without them.
To set oneself against others is to make oneself vulnerable, so the individualist will attempt to form (often uneasy) alliances, and raise the debate or struggle to the level of a collective-freedom issue. Thus with the groups effectively defined by their "oppressor" we will find some groups who are self-defined by some chosen issue.
But the fundamentalist individualist may not bother to ask society's permission at all. In the first place, getting rules changed is an uncertain and long-term project; secondly, to ask permission or to gather collective approval is (in principle) to cede one's personal power to others.
Contradiction: the individual may turn his dislike of others' power over him, into a mission to get power over others. At the extreme end we get Mao, Stalin etc. On a lesser scale, we get what is said to be the statistical over-representation of psychopaths in senior positions in politics and business.
3. Psychological (or spiritual) freedom
This is about conflict within the individual. Our desires are often contradictory; and sometimes there are demons hiding in one's background, waiting to finish business from long ago. Then there are patterns of expectation driving one to unsatisfactory aims, so that (e.g.) abused children often seek to start families of their own, long before they are capable of nurturing a child emotionally.
If you accept the insights of psychologists and prophets, failure to sort out the mess at this level sometimes results in drives and disasters at levels 2 and 3. Think of Citizen Kane and "Rosebud".
In this context it will be interesting to hear what Russell Brand has to say in his BBC Three TV documentary tomorrow. He is often seen as a poster-boy for indulgence, but actually is now an advocate for abstinence and for analysing one's reasons for wishing to indulge.
But this is about more than consumption-desires. Many of us (most? all?) are a mass of scores trying to be settled, patterns trying for completion, the expectations of family, friends or society, or unrealistic aspirations for ideal iconic life-moments that end forever with credits and closing music.
Contradiction: the fractured individual is afraid to be healed. Change is a kind of death. Creative people often fear that they could lose their motive force - e.g. Roald Dahl as reported by his daughter Tessa:
He hated the idea of therapy, analysis or psychiatry, as he said all his friends – Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammett and the rest – ‘could never write after they had had all their nooks and crannies flattened like pancakes’. He was convinced that drugs were the answer (they didn’t flatten you like a pancake?). I believe he did not want to face his inner demons. So he told Anna to medicate me instead.
As the prophet Mohammed said (and he is far from the only one to say something like it), "Holy is the warrior who is at war with himself", i.e. who is this "I" and why does it want this thing?
But if the "I" is enigmatic, self-contradictory, untrustworthy and potentially destructive to self and others, by what shall we regulate our lives?
So we could get to another contradiction: voluntary submission. "To enter in these bonds is to be free," said Donne, enjoying the contradiction. The doctor and sometime Spectator contributor "Theodore Dalrymple" has more than once had prisoners tell him they prefer being "inside", where they don't have to make decisions. Round and round we go, like the worm Ouroboros. But surely here is where we begin.
I must lie down where all the ladders start
In the foul rag and bone shop of the heart.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
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
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.
"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"?
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.
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.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
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
§Mr. Barnett
Hansard record of House of Lords debate, 4 November 1975:
Lord LEE of NEWTON
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.
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.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. BarnettWe are, indeed, aware of those problems. That is precisely why we introduced the scheme in this limited way.
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 JACQUESDaily Telegraph, 2 August 2012: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.
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.”
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
Hansard record of House of Lords debate, 4 November 1975:
Lord LEE of NEWTON
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. BarnettThe 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.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. BarnettWe are, indeed, aware of those problems. That is precisely why we introduced the scheme in this limited way.
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 JACQUESDaily Telegraph, 2 August 2012: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.
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.”
Saturday, August 11, 2012
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:
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:
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:
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.
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
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?
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?
Sunday, August 05, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, July 30, 2012
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?
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?
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
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."
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:
"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.
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...
Make mine a large one.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
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?
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."
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".
Saturday, July 21, 2012
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?
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?
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
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).
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:
Here they are, in ascending order of noise and destructive power:
- The Fizz
- The Fuzz
- The Fizzy Fuzz
- The Poop
- The Anti-Poop
- The Tear-arse
- The Rattler
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
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?
Sunday, July 15, 2012
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?
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?
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
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.
(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
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)