A friend of the ASI sent us a letter that he had received from a company after purchasing a product. It opened as follows:
You have recently ordered product(s) from XXXX which are subject to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993. Where a product is classified as containing hazardous chemicals under CHIP legislation and the product is to be used in the workplace, XXXX is obliged to provide a safety data sheet on the first occasion a customer orders the product. Please ensure that the enclosed sheet(s) are held in a safe place for future reference by any staff using the product(s).
What follows are five sheets of ‘Product Safety Data Sheets’. Here are some extracts that might give you a clue as to the nature of this ‘dangerous substance:
“Prolonged skin contact may defat and dry skin leading to possible irritation and dermatitis. Eye contact may cause smarting and irritation."
“If contact of any material with the eye occurs, irrigate the area affected thoroughly with cold water."
"Skin contact: wash affected area thoroughly with cold water."
“If confined to the mouth, do not swallow; wash out the mouth with water… If swallowed, drink plenty of water and medical advice."
“Protective equipment is not normally necessary. Gloves should be worn where repeated or prolonged contact can occur. Avoid contact with eyes. Safety glasses should be worn".
At the end of five pages we learn that “this product data sheet was prepared in compliance with Commission Directive 91/155/EEC, 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EV as well as their relevant amendments, on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relative to the classification, packaging and labeling of dangerous substances and preparations".
So what is this dangerous substance that requires the full bureaucratic force of Brussels? Answer, Blu-Tack. Typical!
George Soros has decided to find an institute looking for a new economics. And as two Nobel Laureates (Stiglitz and Ackerloff) suggest this is a very good idea. For example:
Economics has generated a wealth of ideas, many of which argue that markets are not necessarily either efficient or stable, or that the economy, and our society, is not well described by the standard models of competitive equilibrium used by a majority of economists.(...) Similarly, modern information economics shows that even if markets are competitive, they are almost never efficient when information is imperfect or asymmetric (some people know something that others do not, as in the recent financial debacle) – that is, always .
These are, as they stand, true statements: there is however a certain amount of nuance not being described there. For the question isn't really are markets efficient or stable, even when competitive. It's are markets more efficient, more stable, or less so that the other possible arrangements for that sector of the economy and life? There are times when they're clearly not and times when they clearly are.
But that isn't the most important part of what I hope this new institute will do. That is that instead of purely looking for a new economics, to revisit the old economics and see what has been, in the modern world, either forgotten or simply languishes unregarded. Take for example this new book, After Adam Smith. The essence of which is to look at how what Smith actually thought and said about things has been constantly and consistently reinterpreted, often to the point of obscuring the original insight.
For example, as above, there are those who think that the use of markets, the desirability of them, depends upon their efficiency, asymmetry of information or even their stability and Adam Smith is often invoked as as proof of these contentions. But that wasn't his view at all:
On the contrary, when the idea of perfect liberty in commercial relations was introduced by Smith it was because he saw it as being best suited to the development of the division of labour - that is, to increases in the wealth of the nation. It is to its effects on the rate of productivity growth that one should turn to Smith's case for fostering it, not to some putative ability of competition efficiently to allocate a given set of resources. To put it simply, the case for capitalism was that it was best suited to promote innovation and technological progress - a claim that might plausibly find some basis in the historical evidence of the last two hundred years. Freedom of international trade, too, was not advocated because it would lead to a more efficient allocation of global resources, but because Smith claimed that wihout it the division of labour would be limited by the extent of the market.
Looking for a new economics is just fine and dandy: as long as part of that effort is also to rescue what we already know from the often woeful misinterpretations of it. Markets could be inefficient, plagued with asymmetries, hugely unstable and even lead to what some might consider unjust distributions of production: but we should still be using them for they are still what make us rich as a whole, by fostering the innovation and technological advances which produce that very wealth.
A recent column by Matthew Parris deserves even wider coverage than it received. He made the point that the atrophy in a disintegrating government is betrayed by the media's disregard for things it would once solemnly have reported. "We no longer bother to rebut the Prime Minister’s improbable claims," says Parris, "or dispute his wacky ideas. There’s no point."
And Gordon Brown, who always loved reeling out meaningless statistics to bully and cow his audiences into submission, is coming out with some real corkers. Parris cites two from Labour's recent conference:
“Starting now," said Mr Brown to his conference in Brighton three weeks ago, “and right across the next Parliament, every one of the 50,000 most chaotic families will be part of a family intervention project . . ."
It took hardly a nanosecond to realise that this was a ludicrous undertaking on many levels. It certainly wouldn’t be starting “now". What is this new “project"? Where did he get the figure of 50,000 “most chaotic families" from? Absurd.
Yet no-one mocked it or disputed it. They barely noticed it. They no longer either accept this sort of nonsense, or even think it matters. Parris gives a second one:
“From now on," Mr Brown told his Brighton conference, “all 16 and 17-year-old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes." But this is astonishing, isn’t it? Where are these workhouses? Have you seen any young parents carted away yet?
At one time some serious voices in the media might have challenged fantasies like this, but no-one can any longer be bothered. Matthew Parris is the only commentator I saw even mention this, and then only to show that nobody even bothers to take it seriously any more.
The UK might indeed pull out of recession by the turn of the year. Let us hope so. But no-one gives any weight to the fact that the Prime Minister says so. If anything, that would make it seem more improbable. Like a busted bank, his capital of trust is gone, betrayed and squandered over the years.
The British Army is one of the most called upon in the world. It delivers more "bang for buck", than possibly any other regularly utilised force. Equally though, these expectations have become so entrenched, that any additional request put to the Army, is considered already done once it has left the mouth of the Minister of State for Defence (for it is often left to the junior Minister, rather than the Secretary of State for Defence, to make unpopular decisions regarding manpower). The recent decision to halve the number of days payable for training, to the TA, is the most short sighted decision on the part of the MOD in a very long time.
The TA runs on the goodwill of its personnel. We have families, we have increasingly demanding jobs, we are paid a starting salary of approx £30 a day, to put ourselves in harms way. There is no greater civic commitment, than to be a member of Her Majesty's Forces. The TA do this in addition to their full time jobs and lives. The British contribution to the Iraq War, was reliant on roughly 15% of its troops being TA. The war, quite simply, could not have been conducted without them. They also require immense management time to co-ordinate efforts, training, pre-deployment training - and simply 'showing up'. I personally know members of both the TA and the Reserves (recently left members of full time Service personnel), who have missed the birth of a child, whilst away on Operations. This is a regular occurrence for our full time Army colleagues, but it is a big "ask" for someone who has volunteered to be there in his or her spare time...
After numerous strategic defence reviews and initiatives, during which the profile of the TA has been intrinsic to the future operational capacity of the Army, to now have its ability to service that capacity – to effectively be cut off at the knees – is ruinous. The phrase “One Army" was coined several years ago to highlight Government policy that there was to be no separation between the Army and the TA. Both Services are interlinked and dependent on each other, from logistical support to specialist (and expensive) training, shared between the two platforms. The Army has roughly 110,000 personnel, and the TA roughly 35,000: the TA are integral to the Army.
I recommend to simply reverse these short sighted cuts, and have the bravery of their convictions to actually go further along this integrationist route, and afford the TA the recognition that their bravery in the field warrants. To go further with equipment sharing, and after Tour support: still there are too many instances of damaged TA soldiers returning to their civilian lives without the support their full time colleagues receive.
To cut by half the days available to be paid (to 11), effectively means one weekend every two months - either that, or some units are just ceasing Training for several months. This is supposed to fulfil duties that prepare our TA colleagues to go forward to deployment training, and, at the very least, to provide the "Home Guard" function, vital to protect this country's national interest. The net result, in a year's time, could easily be an operational TA of half its present size, its members simply having drifted away...back to their own lives. We anticipate with resignation the new Government's response at that time.
It was rather interesting listening to the likely next leader of the country discussing conservative philosophy with Peter Oborne on radio 4. Two points can be drawn from it. Firstly, he does not know very much about conservative philosophy; and more importantly, the philosophy he claims to hold is contradictory.
Although it is no proof that a Prime Minister needs a deep understanding of ideas in order to rule with success (just look at Gordon Brown), the rather limited answers to Peter Oborne’s questions were certainly surprising. Although he has never claimed to be a great intellectual – and of the fraction who will hear the program most will care little for the ideas – surely he should really know more about the intellectual roots of the political party he is now leading. If I was his advisor, from now on I would copy Blair and stick to daytime TV. Best to leave the political philosophy to those in the Conservative Party who can name more than The Road to Serfdom when asked for the key conservative texts.
More importantly Cameron’s various arguments in this interview are irreconcilable. Despite reeling off Oakeshott’s famous quote about prefering present laughter to utopian bliss, when pushed to decide whether he believed in civic associations or enterprise associations he finally came down on the side of the former. However, he spent the whole interview talking about Disraeli's one nation conservatism, his progressive conservatism and how his will be an “enabling government". But the fact of the matter is, progressive and universal goals cannot be built upon civic associations as meant by Oakeshott. This ties in to the contradications with Cameron’s rhetoric in favour of localism and much else. He is so desirous of change that he may be unable to dispense with the apparatus of centralized state control.
In practice, any number of things might force him to adopt a less interventionist approach to governing; yet this hardly insurance against an extension of the New Labour project. Whatever the truth of Cameron’s beliefs, something is going to have to give. Sadly as his latest announcement on all women shortlists shows, the safe money is on his progressive side trumping his conservatism.
If you subscribe to the idea that politics is a straight line, then for you there is a far right and a far left separated by the great central plains of minor differences. This separation is distinguished by the singular outcome of either the right or left establishing a system of governance that is diametrically opposite. The far left would be characterised by the abolition of private property, primarily, privacy and the complete subservience of the population to the pursuit of a commonly held good, excluding those that didn't hold the 'good will' dear. The far-right would exclude those it feared/hated, primarily, abolish/co-opt private property and privacy and attempt to ensure that the population pursued a centrally directed good. It depends where and what the emphasis of political priority falls upon that allows others to define.
Here is where the idea of politics being a straight line breaks down: the realisation that extremists, be they religious, political or just deranged are merely fanatics intent on the violent overthrow of the state. The outcomes of which are fairly certain, and are almost identical. The end result of political revolution has been seen throughout history, Stalin, The Khemer Rouge, Hitler, Mao et al. It is the outcome that should define what type of label is handed to the politics of a tribe. In the UK the BNP is continually referred to as the far-right, yet their policies drip with socialist nationalization, their descriptive is based upon one policy, not all. Yet they should be referred to as an a extremist political party; with no left or right far or otherwise prefixed. The same goes for the SWP, ANL, UAF who are all extremist groups.
The idea that you can break politics into closely defined neighbourhoods with certain areas juxtaposed is a purposely confusing message. Politics is the pursuit of power by representatives of parts of society. Within that society there are outliers who trend to extremist positions. The outcomes are all the same, a rule of centralized power characterized by extreme violence and a fear of the unknown. It is neither left nor right it is merely an expression of hatred of the individual.
After 12 years of Labour government we are discovering that there was never anything ''new' about them and once again they have destroyed the UK's finances, but this time they have taken society with it. We now live in an era where, as David Cameron suggested, adults are treated like children and children are treated like adults. Correctly he wishes to do something about this and revitalize our lives by handing back much of the responsibility for ourselves that we have lost over the past decade. We hopefully will soon find ourselves at a crossroads where economics and responsibility meet.
There is much debate currently over whether a measly amount should be trimmed from the UK government's budget in the coming years. (Even though Team Cameron have agreed to increase government spending up to 2011). In the likelihood that there are going to be cuts then this means that it is to have a direct impact on public spending and somewhere someone will be found wanting of a public service because of this. To navigate this ridiculous argument over the coming decade, year-on-year the subjugated private sector should be unburdened of regulation and taxation and allowed to grow. At the same time the responsibility that people are being given should come with a carrot attached. For example, choose private healthcare and receive a cut in your overall tax bill; the same could occur when you send your child to a private school.
Rather than cutting public services, incentivize the workers within it to leave. Let them see how much better they could be paid in the private sector, and as the private sector grows then demand will fuel higher wages. As the private sector is freed up then tax revenue will increase as the country once again becomes an attractive place to do business and bring up a family.
A very insightful Times piece by Roger Mavity of Conran holdings observes that a successful business needs two types of person. There is the charismatic CEO, and the number-crunching Finance Officer. They have different roles, and are different personality types. The guy (or gal) with the imagination and drive that can fire people up is what drives creativity and innovation, whereas the more sober accounting type is there to cut the cloth and control costs.
"One of the classic mistakes in business," says Mavity, "is to promote the finance director to chief executive — leadership by charisma is exchanged for leadership by control." This is, he thinks, what has happened to the Labour government. The imaginative inspiring CEO (Tony Bair) has been replaced by the control-obsessed Finance Director (Gordon Brown), and the result is stagnation and lack of leadership.
On a wider scale, Mavity identifies a more general problem for Britain. We have become obsessed with numbers. Teachers waste their time filling in forms about targets, instead of inspiring children with a love of learning. Everywhere from hospitals to business offices we are driven by targets and numbers, the stuff of control. All too lacking, he says, are the imagination and flair which can lead to innovation and achievement.
"But all too often," he says, "our ingenuity and our sense of adventure gets slowed down by the box tickers, the people who can’t have an opinion until a focus group has had it for them, the people who won’t ever take a risk they don’t have to." He cites Charles Saatchi, James Dyson, Terence Conran and iPod designer Jonathan Ive as people who broke the mould and dared to take risks and let their imagination run. There are all too few of them, he says, and as the box-tickers take over, our world is the poorer for it.
"Before I go any further I just have to thank Barrack Obama for nominating me for this award. Without him I wouldn't have put my own name forward. Thank me. I am deeply humbled that the Norwegians have proudly seen fit to award me this prize for peace on the day we attempted to blow up the moon. Alas that proved to be unsuccessful, but we'll use the prize money to fund another shot at it. During the past 8 months, since my nomination, I've actively encouraged peace around the world. My fellow President Ahmadinejad has chosen to test fire rockets and continue with his work on nuclear physics. In the Pacific region my favourite little movie buff Kim Jong-il has been attempting to throw his rockets over Japan, luckily for us he throws like a girl. But he's continued with his pursuit of nuclear weapons. Allowable under my idea for a peaceful world where we are all armed equally, either with broken bottles or nuclear weapons. Or maybe even we can just play rock paper scissors at the future UN meetings, whatever we do we have to do it quietly.
It's not just overseas where my work has been blessed with healing hands. You could say that back in the United States I've gone down like Nobel's most famous invention and blown everyone away with how good I am at organizing this once great community. Peace is definitely the watch word of my administration and we will continue to promote that in America. Over the next few months we will be looking to replace everyone's car with a donkey and ending our dependence on oil as well as road rage. Guns will be exchanged for hot dog buns and free speech outlawed so no one can anything nasty to anyone else ever again.
Leaving those facts aside. It is fair to say that this award would not none have been possible without the good work of George. I owe him everything. I am indebted to him for the rest of my life and I dedicate this prize to him. Dubya! Thanks man."
Gordon Brown's sell-off of public assets is too little too late.
The government is announcing a £16 billion sell-off of public assets. The include things like the Dartford Bridge, the student loan book, and the Tote – the UK state bookmaker.
Just on that point, we argued that the Tote should be sold off years ago. The government wanted to sell it cheap to a group of horseracing interests, a sale that ASI blocked by complaining to the European Commission – this is a business owned by the public, after all, not something in politicians' gift that they can transfer to a few rich, insider chums. After the EU had stopped all that, they could have auctioned the Tote and got a good price for it. Now, they will be lucky. Potential buyers like Ladbrookes are suffering in the recession.
I'm all in favour of privatization, and a recent ASI report by Nigel Hawkins identified £20 billion-worth. But this is the wrong time to sell public assets. Very few businesses, or even members of the public, have much cash to buy new businesses – especially badly-run state businesses which will need heavy investment to sort out. And everyone knows it's a fire sale – the government need the cash. Instead, the government should wait and sell these things when the time is right.
Gordon Brown sold the nation's gold reserves at a quarter of their value – they would have been worth billions at today's $1000-an-ounce price. He seems destined to sell things at the bottom of the market. He will be be lucky to get much of a price for the assets he is now grudgingly flogging off. And what's the point? That's the amount that the government overspends every month. Unless they cut spending, they will soon run out of assets to sell.
A friend of the ASI sent us a letter that he had received from a company after purchasing a product. It opened as follows:
The British Army is one of the most called upon in the world. It delivers more "bang for buck", than possibly any other regularly utilised force. Equally though, these expectations have become so entrenched, that any additional request put to the Army, is considered already done once it has left the mouth of the Minister of State for Defence (for it is often left to the junior Minister, rather than the Secretary of State for Defence, to make unpopular decisions regarding manpower). The recent decision to halve the number of days payable for training, to the TA, is the most short sighted decision on the part of the MOD in a very long time.
It was rather interesting listening to the likely next leader of the country 
If you subscribe to the idea that politics is a straight line, then for you there is a far right and a far left separated by the great central plains of minor differences. This separation is distinguished by the singular outcome of either the right or left establishing a system of governance that is diametrically opposite. The far left would be characterised by the abolition of private property, primarily, privacy and the complete subservience of the population to the pursuit of a commonly held good, excluding those that didn't hold the 'good will' dear. The far-right would exclude those it feared/hated, primarily, abolish/co-opt private property and privacy and attempt to ensure that the population pursued a centrally directed good. It depends where and what the emphasis of political priority falls upon that allows others to define.
A very insightful .jpg)