Organic advocates against trial of organic farming

We think there’s a certain dark amusement to this:

Sri Lanka is grappling with the worst economic crisis since its independence in 1948, and foreign currency reserves sit at their lowest level on record due to what many see as gross economic mismanagement by the government. There is barely a citizen of this south Asian island who hasn’t felt the bite of catastrophic inflation and fuel, food and medicine shortages in recent weeks.

For the farmers of Sri Lanka, their problems began in April last year when President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who now stands accused of pushing the country into financial ruin, implemented a sudden ban on chemical fertilisers.

No, that’s not the amusing part. That’s a multiplicity of tragedies as a result of entirely idiot policy making. This though, this does have its amusement:

On the face of it, a push to organic farming would be seen as laudable, given concerns over the use of chemical fertilisers. Yet it was the sudden and obtuse manner in which the ban was introduced – imposed virtually overnight and with no prior warning or training – and the questionable motives behind it, that have left even organic farming advocates furious.

Well, yes, the organic farming advocates would be furious, wouldn’t they? Imagine devoting your energies to an insistence upon a more land hungry, less productive form of agriculture. Then finding out that when it’s actually implemented it turns out to be just that, more land hungry and less productive. In fact, the results have been just what critics have been saying they would be all these decades of struggle.

Bit like MMT in fact, that other fashionable nostrum. As it turns out money printer go brrr as a method of financing government brings with it inflationary problems.

Other than all those who warned of it who could have known?

Capitalism and climate

Dr Rainer Zitelmann had a most interesting piece (£) in Monday’s Telegraph. He explores the connection between capitalism and the environment. He makes a point about Extinction Rebellion.

“One of this group’s central dogmas is that capitalism is to blame for climate change and environmental degradation – and that capitalism will ultimately lead to the extinction of humanity.”

But is it true? Dr Zitelmann examines the record, not from the point of view of theory, but from what has happened in capitalist and non-capitalist countries.

“The Heritage Foundation’s researchers compared the two indices, Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index and their own Index of Economic Freedom. They found that the countries with the highest levels of economic freedom – and thus the most capitalist countries – also had the highest EPI scores, averaging 69.8, while the “mostly free” countries averaged 66.8.”

“There is then a big gap to the “moderately free” countries, which were rated much lower (49.3 points) for their environmental performance. The “mostly unfree” and “repressed” countries, namely those that are least capitalist, registered by far the worst environmental performance (37.5 and 36.6 points in the EPI, respectively).”

What emerges is that the non-capitalist countries have a very much worse record of environmental degradation than do the capitalist ones. It is the reverse of what Extinction Rebellion and some other environmental campaigners tell us.

The Environmental Kuznets Curve is often used to describe the relationship between economic growth and environmental quality. It refers to the hypothesis of an inverted U-shaped relationship between economic output per capita and some measures of environmental quality. Developing countries are bad for the environment in the early stages, but as they become richer they can afford to produce more cleanly, and have the wealth to clean their rivers and the air in their cities. Dr Zitelmann draws the conclusion that emerges from the evidence.

“There is a very strong argument that, even in terms of climate change and environmental degradation, capitalism is not the problem, it’s the solution.”

We think the Labour Party is missing a trick here

No, don’t think rationally for a moment, just think like the public rhetoric for a bit. We’re told that the ghastly profiteers in these times of expensive energy must be hit with a windfall tax. We’re also told that wind and solar power are much cheaper than that horrible fossil fuel derived stuff.

Add in the manner in which prices are determined by the marginal supply and demand and we get the obvious implication that those suppliers of the cheaper to produce power - the renewables - must be coining even more money than those providers of the more expensive to produce - the fossil fuel folks.

Therefore, if a windfall tax must be imposed in order to alleviate consumer pain there’s much, much, more money to be had by imposing that tax upon the renewables sector than there is upon the fossil fuel one.

So, why isn’t such a windfall tax upon the greedy windmill owners being suggested?

One reason could be an outbreak of common sense, for taxing supply to subsidise demand really isn’t the way to deal with a dearth. But this is the Labour Party we’re talking about here so economic rationality is not something we’ve got great hopes for.

It’s also possible that those proposing a windfall tax simply do not understand the point - that could be true of Burgon, even be likely, but we’ve higher hopes of the likes of Sir Keir.

The third, and we assume gripping, answer is that such a suggestion would be regarded as insane. Too much even for the economically illiterate to swallow. But then that’s just proof that taxing supply to subsidise demand isn’t a sensible thing to be doing in a time of dearth, is it?

An answer we can entirely reject is that the windmills aren’t making massive profits at present. For if that were true then they’d not be cheaper and absolutely no one would be gaslighting us all that badly, would they?

Prioritization

Privatization placed inefficient and ailing state industries, businesses and some services out of state hands and into the private sector. It was done to make them efficient, innovative and consumer responsive. It changed nationalized industries into privately-owned ones, subject to the rigours of market competition and consumer demand.

The Citizens’ Charter was implemented to change the thinking of both the Civil Service and the public at large about state services and government departments. The purpose was to have government bodies examine what it was they were trying to perform for the public, and to implement procedures that would click into place where they failed to deliver that. In effect, it turned citizens who were previously simply the recipients of whatever government felt able to deliver, into consumers to be consulted about the quality of services they wanted to be delivered to them, and where something would happen if that quality was not provided.

It is now time to change yet again the thinking of government at all levels and the Civil Service which administers its activities and puts them into effect. This third revolution, following in the wake of privatization and the Citizens’ Charter, must put into place a system under which government will concentrate its resources onto the things that are the most important, the ones that matter most. It is a process of prioritization, and must permeate all departments of government.

To prioritize means “to determine the order for dealing with a series of items or tasks according to their relative importance.” Precisely. Government, like private individuals, does not have unlimited resources. Opportunity cost tells us that we cannot spend the same monies twice. When we choose to spend it on one thing, we cannot also spend it on another. We prioritize, and spend it on what matters most to us. Money spent on a restaurant meal cannot also be spent on a day at the races or a night at the theatre. We choose between them according to our scale of priorities.

We need every part of government to do the same. First must come an examination of each activity that falls within the remit of that department, and the grading of it on a scale to represent its relative importance. We might choose a 1-5 scale in which activities deemed less important score lower on the scale, whereas more important ones score higher. For example, selling food by non-metric measures, where still illegal, might score 1 on such a scale, whereas keeping open containers of petrol close to a primary school playground might score a 5.

Each department must have a unit set up to determine the relative importance of its activities. This has to be done using extensive opinion research to ascertain how the public at large regards their importance. It is a simple matter to present people with a list of 10 items and ask them to pick out the 3 or 4 that they consider most important. When this is done with respect to crimes, for example, it might emerge that public opinion might place hate speech as a 1, as opposed to murder, which would almost certainly merit a 5.

In terms of health provision, people might rate cosmetic surgery less important than life-saving operations. The point is that there are not unlimited resources anywhere in government, so it makes sense to swing them heavily towards the activities that people think matter most.

In some aspects of public service there is an incentive to go in for box-ticking, listing the number of activities that have been carried out, regardless of their relative importance. Police might boast about the number of e-scooters they have seized because they were privately owned rather than hired, but the public might be more interested in hearing about their success against murder, rape, mugging and burglary. A public service programme of identifying the high priority targets would diminish the incentives of low priority box-ticking.

Such a programme would indeed constitute a revolution. Just as privatization and the Citizens’ Charter changed opinion about state industries and services, so would a programme of prioritization change the attitude of government towards its own activities.

The Adam Smith Institute will be developing this theme into a concrete policy proposal, and commissioning opinion research to ascertain what public reaction would be to such a programme, as well as preliminary research to establish what some of the public’s priorities might be.

Has The Guardian really become this stupid? O Tempora, Eheu Fugaces....

That we might not agree with The Guardian often enough is obvious. But an actual descent into stupidity at that august institution does none of us any good. And yet we seem to have evidence that it is happening. Commenting upon the variance of female lifespan in England:

Life expectancy for women in the poorest parts of England is less than the overall life expectancy for women in every OECD country in the world besides Mexico. Let that sink in for a second. Lower than every other country in that club, bar one.

The first level of stupidity is to be taken in by the original research. Comparing the within England variance to the average of other countries doesn’t work as a logical exercise. Perfectly fine to compare national averages with national averages, equally to compare variance within nations with variance within nations.

But, for example - and this is just the result of 2 minutes with our friend, Mr. Google - the variance within Norway looks pretty similar:

There is up to 10-12 years difference between men who live in the municipalities with the highest and lowest life expectancy. For women, there is 8-10 years difference.

The variance within just Alabama looks pretty similar. Variance in lifespans among women of about a decade across local geographies looks pretty normal in fact. Perhaps it shouldn’t be, perhaps it’s a crime calling to the very heavens for vengeance but something where England is unique? Nope, not in the slightest.

But there’s more stupidity here. Gross and abject:

Women who speak out about gender inequality are often dismissed, especially in England. After all, women here are lucky – we are much better off than in other countries. Aren’t we?

The short answer is, only some of us. Devastating new data analysis from the Health Foundation has revealed – on the starkest measure – that for many women in England, that is far from being the case.

Eh? inequality within the gender is now to be taken as inequality against that gender? This is not some mistyping at The Guardian, they repeat it in another piece on the same subject:

Ministers have repeatedly promised to tackle decades of gender inequality and pledged to “reset the dial” on women’s health as part of their levelling-up agenda.

But experts say the findings show the government has a “mountain to climb”, with a “fundamental shift” in policy urgently needed to enable women to enjoy longer, healthier lives.

That’s from the Health Editor who we might expect to have at least a basic grasp of such matters.

Firstly, male life expectancy varies over those local geographies by just as much - so it’s not a gender related issue. Secondly, of course, there is this:

Life expectancy at birth in the UK in 2018 to 2020 was 79.0 years for males and 82.9 years for females

That women live longer than men is being used as evidence of the monstrous effects that gender inequality has upon women?

So what do we do when a national institution descends into gibbering senescence? What can we do?

In fact, should we even bother?

Don't replace Section 106, abolish it

A certain chance is being missed here:

Michael Gove is poised to hit property developers with a £7bn levy that could pave the way for a massive expansion of new council housing.

The Levelling Up Secretary is preparing to axe rules which force companies to build a set number of “affordable” homes on their developments themselves, and will order them to pay into an infrastructure fund instead that can be used by councils for their own projects.

Slipping another £7 billion into council budgets isn’t going to increase the amount of housing built, it’ll increase the number of grievance studies graduates employed.

Leave that obvious truth aside for a moment and think instead.

What’s the sort of profit margin on turnover that capitalists tend to be happy enough with? Can we get a bid of 10% there?

Hmm, OK. So, we could take £7 billion in profit off the capitalists and give it to councils to build houses. Or, we could leave the capitalists with the £7 billion and watch them being willing to do £70 billion of turnover to gain that £7 billion. Which is going to produce more housing, £70 billion or £7 billion?

Given that every house - solitary, sole and single, of whatever type, size or location - built lowers the market value of every other house in the country which will have more effect on making housing more affordable? £70 billion or £7 billion?

It’s as with that idiocy being promoted currently, that the solution to a supply shortage of energy is a windfall tax on energy companies. Taxing supply does not, as it happens, increase supply.

The answer to the deep, deep, silliness of Section 106 is not to replace it but to abolish it. Instead of trying to confiscate the profits of supply leave ‘em be and watch as rather more capitalist competition for them red in tooth and claw makes prices crumble in front of our very eyes.

Another way of putting this is don’t be clever about it, be vicious. Execute, don’t reform.

There is actually a reason for high CEO pay

Macron has decided - in the fits of an election campaign of course - that there should be European Union limitations upon executive pay. We in Britain should, of course, welcome such actions by the remnant-EU if we are to be selfish - economic performance there will decline and at least some companies are likely to move to here as a result.

No, really, think through this for a moment. Assume that it really is true that CEOs gain high pay simply because they hoodwink everyone else. So, they’d move their corporate domicile in order to be able to continue to hoodwink everyone else, wouldn’t they? Now lift that untrue assumption and think about reality for a moment.

Is there a reason for high CEO pay?

Though Japanese firms benefit from a high-quality workforce and invest in R&D as much as their US counterparts, they fall behind US firms in terms of their earning power. This column suggests that corporate structures in the two countries could be an explanation for this phenomenon. The findings indicate that CEOs of US firms aim to maximise profits, whereas CEOs of Japanese firms prioritise long-term corporate survival.

Japanese firms, famously, pay their CEOs less than the Americans do - 90% less by some measures. That very pay difference is what changes those incentives and thus performance.

So, err, perhaps not, eh?

Climate change never was about the climate

For some at least. In a piece about how now that policy already means limiting climate change to 2C - that is, announced policies will reach that - we are told this:

But they are also disruptive and at odds with long-running means of maintaining power and making money. Ultimately, limiting heating to below 2C – or 1.5C – demands that we overcome the ideas, economic systems and organisations that enable this power. Tackling this imperative can feel like an overwhelming challenge.

The aim - for those some at least - is to fight the power, not to power civilisation without boiling it.

This, we fear, is why the actual solution, that carbon tax, is not used. For if we were to use the generally agreed by the experts - Stern, Nordhaus, 93% of polled economists, even the IPCC itself in the right chapters of its reports - and efficient method then there would be no need to fight the power to stop the boiling.

Therefore we end up with markedly less efficient policies which do still leave room to call for that overthrowing of The Man. The effect of this is, as the Stern Review itself points out, that we do less to prevent the boiling. For humans do less of more expensive things, more of cheaper. The use of the efficient method would mean more dealing with climate change is done.

Which does lead to an interesting point. Those arguing against a carbon tax - as many indeed do - are in fact arguing for more climate change.

Prince William is quite right about climate change

Not, we hasten to add, in the details of what he says, but the overall statement is entirely correct:

Prince William says ‘politics gets in the way’ of fight against climate change

The problem being that politics means that we don’t, can’t, solve climate change the way that the science says it should be solved.

Politics brings us things like a ban on fracking - when the IPCC’s own reports say that the worst outcome, RCP 8.5, depends upon us not using unconventional oil and gas. Politics brings us instead things like onshore wind which, being less energy dense, requires even more of our green and pleasant land. Politics means less nuclear and more lignite in Germany - exactly what the IPCC identifies as the way to gain that RCP 8.5 disaster.

Politics has given us biofuels which not only put food into cars, not people, they also have higher emissions than just burning petrol. Politics means burning American forests in Drax is counted as carbon neutral - an absurdity.

As the actual science tells us, Stern, Nordhaus, 93% of polled economists - even if we assume that everything the IPCC, in its most lurid nightmares, tells us is true - the answer is a carbon tax at the social cost of carbon. This, according to politics, cannot be done as it will be regressive. This from the same people who gleefully impose regressive taxes on tabs, booze and sweeties.

Politics is the reason that we’re not dealing with climate change the cheap, effective and efficient way. So, yes, Prince William is right there.

Even if we assume everything we’re told is true the solution is indeed that carbon tax, possibly with a slight trimming of the hems afterwards. We don’t have that so, yes, politics is to blame, isn’t it?

Robert Boyle and the future

Those who think that humanity has already picked “the low-hanging fruit,” and that future technological and innovative advances will be more difficult to achieve, would do well to study the life of Robert Boyle. He lived from 1627 to 1691, and was one of the founders of the Royal Society. He is generally recognized as the father of modern chemistry, and established the relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas, the famous “Boyle’s Law.”

He wrote a wish list (Desiderata) of discoveries and inventions that he wanted to come about to improve the human condition. None existed in his day, but he listed the things he thought would enhance people’s lives and achievements. It is a remarkable list:

The Prolongation of Life.

The Recovery of Youth, or at least some of the Marks of it, as new Teeth, new Hair colour’d as in youth.

The Art of Flying.

The Art of Continuing long under water, and exercising functions freely there.

The Cure of Wounds at a Distance.

The Cure of Diseases at a distance or at least by Transplantation.

The Attaining Gigantick Dimensions.

The Emulating of Fish without Engines by Custome and Education only.

The Acceleration of the Production of things out of Seed.

The Transmutation of Metalls.

The makeing of Glass Malleable.

The Transmutation of Species in Mineralls, Animals, and Vegetables.

The Liquid Alkaest and Other dissolving Menstruums.

The making of Parabolicall and Hyperbolicall Glasses.

The making Armor light and extremely hard.

The practicable and certain way of finding Longitudes.

The use of Pendulums at Sea and in Journeys, and the Application of it to watches.

Potent Druggs to alter or Exalt Imagination, Waking, Memory, and other functions, and appease pain, procure innocent sleep, harmless dreams, etc.

A Ship to saile with All Winds, and A Ship not to be Sunk.

Freedom from Necessity of much Sleeping exemplify’d by the Operations of Tea and what happens in Mad-Men.

Pleasing Dreams and physicall Exercises exemplify’d by the Egyptian Electuary and by the Fungus mentioned by the French Author.

Great Strength and Agility of Body exemplify’d by that of Frantick Epileptick and Hystericall persons.

A perpetuall Light.

Varnishes perfumable by Rubbing.

What is remarkable is that nearly all of his wishes have been fulfilled. From the art of flying, to ships that need no wind, from malleable glass to mind-altering drugs, from constant light to the way of finding longitude, the list is a bold leap into what for him was an unknown and unknowable future.

A similar list made today might look at things that now seem as unattainable to us as that list did to Boyle’s contemporaries. The list radiates optimism about humanity’s ability to achieve the seemingly impossible. He foretold of the limitless creativity and resourcefulness of humankind, the inventiveness that is “The Ultimate Resource.”

In this space we will be compiling a list of some of the things that seem difficult or beyond achievement today, but which would bring great benefits to the life of humanity. These will not be inventions on the point of discovery, but similarly bold wishes for the currently inconceivable, just as Boyle’s were in his day. We are optimistic that they will be achieved, and that the future will be better than the past.