Taking a line for a walk

Timothy McMahon at FinTrend reckons we should be looking to buy into US stocks this summer, using the rate of return graph above.

How far should we heed the chartists? Like cardsharps fleecing marks on a sinking Mississippi paddlewheeler, are they better at short-term plays, but inattentive to catastrophe?


Wreck of the "Sultana" off Memphis, Tennessee, April 27, 1865

Does freedom from self-destruction need a nudge?

I recently wondered whether freedom may not sometimes be an internal issue, as well as external. Isn't addiction a condition of being unfree? Is there some way of helping the unfree, without illiberal coercion?

As it happens, this is the thesis of a new book, "Nudge", by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. It is critically reviewed by David Gordon here on the Mises website.

We are already being heavily nudged by our tax-greedy government and large commercial concerns, to gamble and drink away our wealth and future security. Surely there are ways in which we might diminish the temptation a little, to increase the possibility of rational, self-beneficial choice.

Comparisons are odious

Why has the American stockmarket done so much better than us since 1990?

And which way will these lines turn now?

Plodding On

Lead story in The Grumbler today: "Police are forced to cut frontline jobs to save on fuel cost".

Of course, there's always foot patrols. Peter Hitchens has often pointed out the usefulness of walking the beat in preventing crime. It all went wrong in the Sixties. As J. B. Morton wrote in his fantasy-satirical "Beachcomber" column in the Daily Express at that time:

"A Dictionary For Today

...FLYING SQUAD: A special contingent of police whose business is to arrive at the scene of a crime shortly after the departure of all those connected with it."

So much for the pale blue Ford Anglia and the comical attempt to imitate American cops as portrayed in shows like "The Streets of San Francisco."

I had to trawl around to find what I remembered as the origin of the term "bobby on the beat", but here we are at last:

"A standard piece of police equipment from the 1830's to the 1880's was the rattle for raising the alarm, most operated like the standard football rattle, when twirled round it made a distinctive sound. In the 1880's the police began using a whistle in place of the rattle, early versions used the 'pea' type (still used by football referees) but in about 1910 the more familiar tubular 'air whistle' was invented. The whistle was carried inside the front of the tunic or jacket attached to a silver chain which was fastened to a button on the front of the tunic. When breast pockets appeared the whistle moved to the right hand pocket with a silver chain still attached to the jacket button. In practice the whistle was found to have limited range and a bobby calling for assistance would often beat his truncheon on the pavement to alert nearby colleagues. Police personal radios appeared in the 1970's and some forces had lost their whistles by the 1990's but other forces felt it was a part of the uniform and have retained it."

(Source)

And it worked. So instead of moving forward to the world of "1984" or re-creating the secret police of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, why don't we build on the notion of "Police Community Support Officers" (or "The Ankh-Morpork Watch" as my wife calls them) and revive the Watch as it was up until the early nineteenth century? The roots of our police force are in the citizens' right and duty to maintain order in their own communities. As motorised mobility for the peasantry declines, crime, its detection and punishment may well become localised again.

And a reduction in sophistication would be appropriate. The old police recruitment poster said "Can you Read? Can you write? Can you fight?" - not, "Can you gobble the punter's biscuits and swill his tea while expressing sympathy for his unfortunate experience and sharing his frustration at the powerlessness of the criminal justice system?"

Handy-dandy, which is which?

The two countries here each went to the polls to ascertain the will of the people.

The result in one case was declared unsatisfactory by the ruling party and an order given that the issue be readdressed within three months.

The result in the other case was declared unsatisfactory by the ruling party and an order given that the issue be readdressed within four months.

Robert Mugabe has yet to declare his candidacy for the Presidency of the European Parliament.

Now what?

Grasping the nettle

Read in the Daily Express (no snide comments, please!) appalling article about Stalin's "Poison Dwarf", Nikolai Yezhov, who was responsible for the deaths of some 3 million people, most of them innocent.

I suppose it's a dangerous question to ask, but is assassination always morally wrong? Was the life of Nikolai Yezhov really worth the lives of 3 million of his victims?

This article justifies it in the context of Israeli national self-defence (no spittle-flecked anti-Semitic comments, please, the same arguments can be expressed using other contexts), but what if the enemy is within one's own society? For example, was Stauffenberg correct in his attempt to blow up Hitler, his leader?

I suppose this must lead to the question of whether right and wrong actions receive their due in another world, rather than this one, where villains appear much safer, live much longer, than the innocent. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin...