Adam Smith Institute

Al Gore gave a little speech which you can read and watch here. He's essentially calling for a Manhattan Project, an Apollo, to move the entire US economy away from a dependence upon carbon. Nothing like an out of office politician for seeking the limelight, eh?

He does make some interesting points: solar is indeed getting cheaper as economies of scale start appearing: but then that's a logical argument for waiting a little before you install rather than installing today of course. He's also correct that a ten year time horizon for governmental plans is about right: that's as long as most currently serving politicians are likely to be in office and thus about as long as they're prepared to think. It's private companies that think longer term than that.

There's a slight wobble here:

When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel.

Well, yes, but we've had a tad of inflation since then. In fact, $35 a barrel in 1976 is $134.60 today in purchasing power....but this is where the wheels really come off:

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

I'm sorry, but the only possible response to that is hysterical giggles. For a start, there's no such thing as a truly clean carbon-free technology for power generation. There are low carbon, medium and high carbon, but given that the cement used to stick a windmill in the ground has emissions associated with its manufacture, hydro emits from rotting vegetation, solar from mining and purification....well, you get the picture. Further:

This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative.

It most certainly would be transformative: it would impoverish the US as the technology is currently not affordable. Not just in that renewables are vastly more expensive, but because trying to do it on such a short timescale would mean scrapping all of the current stock of generating capacity. Throwing out a few hundred billions of dollars worth of functioning equipment really isn't thought to increase wealth.

Fortunately, the plan is also not achievable: there is absolutely no way on God's Green Earth that 100% of electricty generation is going to be from renewables in a decade's time. There simply isn't the industrial capacity nor the time (nor money) for a crash programme of building such.

Lucky that, once again simple facts destroy a politician's lovingly constructed theory.

The English language is rife with words that can be used to insult and abuse: one of its myriad of beauties. You only have to read Shakespeare to see how the English language can be shaped so as to hurl insults. A word often heard today is ‘chav’ and its use has drawn the attention of the left wing think tank, The Fabian Society. They believe that we should not be allowed to use the word, mainly because for them it has certain connotations. Their editorial director calls for a ban of the word due to its use by the middle class in a derogatory way. According to Mr Hampson it is, ‘sneering and patronising’ and ‘betrays a deep and revealing level of class hatred’.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term ‘chav’ is defined as:

In the United Kingdom (originally the south of England): a young person of a type characterized by brash and loutish behaviour and the wearing of designer-style clothes (esp. sportswear); usually with connotations of a low social status.

Sadly though, this type of behaviour is now imitated through all levels of wealth, indeed sometimes even worn as a badge of honour. To tar all of those in the lower economic strata with the same behavioural brush, as the Fabians have done, is deeply offensive, whilst also smacking of simplistic 19th century policy analysis more usually associated with Marx. As Tony Thorne, a language consultant for Kings College London, says, "Chav is like 'skinhead' - it describes a type of behaviour and appearance that's very identifiable."

Perhaps newspeak is the beacon the Fabian Society is using to guide them: the fictional language that George Orwell invented for his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. A language cleansed of depth and beauty and politicised by a dictatorship. If the Fabians wish to try to attach economic implications to word usage they are free to do so. Much the same as the rest of us should be allowed to freely use the word how and when we so desire.
 


 
 

Don’t despair good Britons, your civil liberties may be impinged upon more and more every year, but it could be worse. Rome’s Mayor, Gianni Alemanno, elected in April is cracking down on common, everyday activities in the city centre.  A new law was passed that prohibits littering, graffiti, sticking up posters, sleeping, shouting, eating and drinking on the street, singing and selling merchandise without a licence.

Most of these make sense; littering and vandalism should be fined, and it’s probably not the safest thing to fall asleep in heavily trafficked areas. But not being able to sing or shout (how do you classify a shout anyway; does it only include angry shouts or are shouts of joy prohibited too?) in the streets or even eat a picnic lunch next to the Trevi Fountain seem a little tight around the collar. Not to mention the damage done to the merchants who go around selling flowers or serenading diners on violins. This new law basically criminalizes the tourist industry in Rome and ruins part of the pleasure of visiting the city.
 

Bad news for biofuel subsidies. Their costs are somewhere between 11 and 230 times the value of the savings they generate from emissions reduction. It would be vastly cheaper simply to do nothing at all than to continue such subsidies.

Global warming really is a matter of economics. A pity that so few are listening to the economists, isn't it?

For of course the environment is too important to be left to environmentalists.

Thhis announcement on being allowed to die at home: it might not be quite what it seems you know.

On dealing with threats of terrorism. Of course this is far too sensible to ever actually be implemented.

It would appear that one set of promises being made by one set of politicians might be in conflict with another set of promises made by that same set of politicians. Ho hum.

And finally, a way around the smoking ban.

Recently, quite a few people who occasionally use Wikipedia have told me that they have noticed that this useful online encyclopaedia is left leaning in some of its entries. I always assumed this might just reflect the same bias in the media as a whole. But I was wrong. The bias does not emerge by default but is vigorously enforced, as this story on Wikipedia global-warming propaganda shows.

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers, sums up the situation well:

In theory, Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by the people who read it; so on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.  But on global warming, Wikipedia offers consensus, Gore-style -- a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

Solomon undertook several attempts to edit the Wikipedia page on global warming and to delete mistakes for instance about British scientist Bennie Peiser, only to find his entries eradicated time and again. Obviously in the people's encyclopaedia there are two classes of editors: one with genuine imprimatur and another that may be censored. Solomon discovered that network administrator William Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, uses his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers see only what he wants them to see.  Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding.

There are other examples of course. Just look at the pages Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design and make up your own mind.

A recent bill in Spain proposes to give apes rights along the lines of humans. It has prompted much discussion on whether DNA similarities and connections guarantee animals equal rights. If the bill passes it would make torture, medical experiments on and the killing of apes illegal.

This makes some sense, since there is an argument that animals should not be submitted to torture or harmful medical experiments. The problem with passing bills such as this is where does it stop? Will protection have to be granted to other animals? One of the arguments to pass this bill is that apes have feelings and show emotion. However, cows can experience pleasure and fear as well, so does that mean we owe them Cow Rights? Clearly there is a difference between the two species and the situations, but an argument can be made for basically any creature that they deserve rights protection.

I don’t think a topic such as this needs to be legislated upon by a central government beyond a general guidance for all animals: prohibition of torture, cruel experiments and senseless killing. This provides a clear baseline that calls for the respect of living creatures and outlaws harm of them beyond self-defence and consumptive purposes.
 

California is at it again. This time it is trying to ban trans fat from all restaurants in the state. Forget that these restaurants are privately owned. Forget that costumers buy and eat food of their own free will and volition. Forget that doing so carries no externalities that would endanger the health of those who do not eat trans fats. The nanny is saying no.

As Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said, "For gosh sakes, this is taking government power to an absurd extreme."

For gosh sakes, is true. Many restaurants now voluntarily use trans fat free substitutes because consumers are increasingly aware of products that cause obesity and heart disease. But some restaurants cannot use substitutes without compromising the quality of their food. According to the California Restaurant Association:

Ethnic-food restaurants could be hit particularly hard by a ban on trans fats, because some of their entrees are difficult to prepare with substitutes... The particular oil used in a food affects product taste, appearance, texture, performance and stability.

Let restaurants and consumers decide. Children have mothers, and adults generally have enough brain capacity to decide what kind of food to eat.

The legislature approved the bill, which is now awaiting the Governator's approval or veto. For freedom's sake, let us hope Arnold Schwarzenegger terminates it.
 

Another great video from those funny people at Jib Jab: Time for Some Campaignin'

It never fails. A few weeks back Will Hutton wrote that what the UK needed was an equivalent of the GSEs (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) in order to prevent a meltdown in the mortgage market. Netsmith knew something would come of this and as sure as eggs is eggs, we've not got respected economists stating that it was the GSEs that drove the bubble and thus caused the subsequent crash. Why is outlined here. Also here by Larry Summers. If we didn't already have Will we'd have to invent him so that we'd know what not to do.

Worth remembering the larger picture too: the last few decades have seen the largest reduction of poverty ever in the history of our species.

One that will really tie various Greens up in knots. It looks like GM crops could have a large role to play in reducing the emissions said to lead to climate change. What will they do?

A strange thought: perhaps the majority of people are actually saving too much for their retirement, not too little.

If people shout at you and call you names, does that mean your argument is wrong? Or that it's right but people don't want to admit it?

Of course convicted paedophiles shouldn't be allowed to live next to schools and playgrounds. Well, maybe of course, for they've got to live somewhere after release from jail: why not under a motorway bridge?

And finally, vital scientific research which clearly deserves more funding:

(The) important question of whether the average age of Playboy centerfolds has risen, fallen, or stayed constant. As you can see from the graph below, the average age has, indeed risen from about 21 to about 23 over the past 50 years, about the same change in age of Hugh Hefner's girlfriends over that same period.

In the policy world you keep your ear to the ground and still things gallop up unannounced. One such is David Cameron’s ‘Chapter 11’ proposal. It certainly didn’t arrive through long rounds of brainstorming. More likely it came off a long list of squibs that CCHQ keep in order to keep DC in the news every week.

Still, it’s not a wholly bad idea, and the timing is excellent, since the UK economy is shot to pieces and lots more people will be going bust pretty soon.

The idea of Chapter 11 is that individuals and firms who are facing bankruptcy are allowed to keep control of their assets provided they have a recovery plan. Does it work? Well, most of the high-profile cases have been airlines. Sure, it has staved off the instant shock of an airline collapsing, but it’s not obvious that it has really changed what would have happened anyway. Some Chapter 11 filers (Northwest and Delta) have merged, some (ATA) still failed, some (United) limp along, hobbled with debt. In the UK, by contrast, we have competition red in tooth and claw, and the threat of failure is all too real. And yes, weak airlines go bust. But it makes the competition so strong that cost-conscious airlines like Ryanair and Easyjet are becoming dominant. America’s airlines still look fat and bloated.

The UK bankruptcy problem, though, is local councils and HM Revenue & Customs. The former try to bankrupt people for unpaid Council Tax of just £1200. The latter are far too willing to force a firm into bankruptcy – no doubt pocketing a fat bonus for the tax they collect – rather than help them through the hard times that years of reckless economic policy have caused. It's all a matter of incentives, Dave.

When I was 11, I spent most of my free time in a fantasy world, pretending to be shipwrecked and building a fort in the woods behind my house.  When Steve Sayer was 11, he was starting a business that has given the now 14-year-old over £4,500 in the last 3 years.  The schoolboy sweeps up and sells manure from his father’s horse farm.

Now, you might think that a local government would want to support this kind of behaviour, or at least would not actively stand in its way…  but you would be wrong.  In 2006, Steve discovered what so many entrepreneurs do; that advertising would help his business.  He bought a small £100 sign and leaned it between two wheels on his father’s property.   A year later, the local council decided this sign was “illegally placed,” and the boy had to remove it.  He spent the next 10 months collecting signatures, applying for approval, and appealing the rejection of his application before finally being allowed to put the sign back up.

If it’s this hard for a 14-year-old kid to sell manure, how much harder must it be for adults to start or advertise for a small business? I understand not wanting giant billboards to appear in the middle of a farmland, but really, should placing a knee-high sign leaning against some wheels on private property require a year of time, effort, and lost revenue?  I’m sure the local commission had the best of intentions.  But when we make it difficult for people to use their own ingenuity and stifle this kind of enterprise, we help no one.
 

Nicola Brewer, the head of the Equalities And Human Rights Commission, is proposing new legislation that will give men up to twelve weeks paternity leave at 90% of pay. She hopes the measure will give men the "same parental rights and responsibilities women have."

In reality, the proposal is meant to correct the problems caused by maternity rights legislation. According to the Telegraph:

Many employers are happier to simply bin job applications from women of child-bearing age. They can afford neither the maternity benefit - soon to be extended by the EU from nine to 12 months - nor the potential law suits.

Giving men maternity leave would supposedly allow women to work, allowing men to stay home. Brewer and her populist colleagues, however, fail to grasp the most basic principles of economics. Economic growth is a factor of production, and production a factor of incentive.

If both a husband and wife can get time off to mind their children and still get paid, why wouldn't they? Meanwhile, companies will be stuck with the deadweight of temporarily unproductive employees. This is not to say--for the record--that there should be no maternity leave whatsoever for women.

Biologically, women need some time off to recover from childbirth and to care for the child (men don't lactate yet--although we could see legislation soon requiring it so men and women are equal). The current nine month leave, soon to be extended to one year, is simply too much and ultimately hurts women who want to work. If men want an extended break, they should quit or negotiate a deal with their employer.
 

Obama is very popular in the Japanese town of the same name. Not sure the people of Brown City, Michigan will be wearing Gordon Brown T-shirts anytime soon.

It really isn't all that wise to do this in an election, not now we've all got the internet.

Time to put those Chilean accusations about Milton Friedman to rest, don't you think?

Tangentially related to Friedman: his Ph.D. thesis was on this very subject, the way that the AMA, by controlling access to the profession, keeps incomes high.

So the SEC bans naked short selling. Slightly odd when even lefty economists want to point to the value of speculation and speculators.

Which comes first? Wealth or the abolition of backward attitudes?

This is a little strong: demanding a dose of reality from the glossy magazines.

And finally, yes, this is indeed good PR.