Public subsidies to the rail network, and rising ticket prices, whilst shareholders are paid hundreds of millions of pounds in dividends.
A tower block burns down whilst Conservative MPs vote against tighter regulations of building safety standards.
Private companies are paid to cut benefits being paid to poor people. Their shortfall of money is met by charitable donations and volunteers manning food banks.
Shortfalls in school funding are being met by donations from parents.
The cost of nurse training to be met by the nurses themselves, rather than society as a whole.
Uncapped rises in rent met (or not) by housing and other benefits, which effectively transfer wealth from the taxpayer to the wealthy. Incidentally, my definition of "the wealthy" here is people who have homes that they can afford not to live in. That's a bit of a simplification, but it's not a bad starting point.
Every policy, every policy, designed to transfer money from "normal" people to "the rich", or limit the amount of money "the rich" have to pay to participate in society.
The opposition party argues over how left wing it should be whilst the party in power presses ahead unchallenged.
The media, largely owned by the plutocracy, draws attention to the weakness of the opposition rather than exposing the money grab of the people in power.
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Friday, June 09, 2017
The "trickle-up" effect
The Conservatives promote the idea of the "trickle-down" effect - the idea that if people at "the top" get richer, the money trickles down through the economy and spreads to "the bottom" - the poorest. However, in my mind, this system has broken down. It would be better to describe it these days as a "trickle-up" effect - through high rent, housing benefit, dividends to shareholders, high charges for credit, and so on, as much of the spare money of the poor as possible is soaked up and passed up the chain to the wealthy. It doesn't trickle down any more - the net wealth of the richest 1000 people increased by 14% last year. That £83 billion pounds that just 1000 people increased in wealth by could have had a major impact on the economy were it "trickling down". Understand that I am not being anti-rich here. I consider myself one of the lucky ones, in wealth terms. But the whole foundation for how Conservative economics is sold to the population is on this basis. And if in actual fact, the money is simply being tied up in billionaires' assets, then this is not working. Note that even if the same amount was being transferred back to the economy at the same time as their wealth was increasing (though how quickly can a billionaire spend money?!) this would still represent a ridiculously inefficient process of getting money into the economy.
The point about this money is that it has to come from somewhere. And if the money is available to increase the net wealth of individuals, it could be available to reduce the deficit, or pay for hospitals, or .... whatever. The government is enthusiastically chasing something like £1 billion fraudulently obtained benefits - and rightly so. But that billion pounds is spread across far more people than 1000, and they are far more likely to be spending it in the local economy ("trickle-out?") - and the casualties of this are the people who are seeing their benefits cut when they are actually dependent upon them. This is why foodbank use is at record highs.
Similarly, quantitative easement could have passed money into the economy for the benefit of the population - but those billions of pounds were never seen by "normal" people, whilst high earners in the banking sector continued to see huge bonuses.
The world has changed, in this area as well as others (see my post on privatisation below). The Conservatives continue to pretend that things are the same as they were thirty years ago, in regard to these things, which is why people uncritically continue to vote for them, and believe that they represent a better way than the dangerous lefties with their strikes and their unions and their closed shops ("Corbyn will take us back to the 70s"). But these people owe it to the rest of society to understand how the tories are taking them and everybody else for a ride.
The point about this money is that it has to come from somewhere. And if the money is available to increase the net wealth of individuals, it could be available to reduce the deficit, or pay for hospitals, or .... whatever. The government is enthusiastically chasing something like £1 billion fraudulently obtained benefits - and rightly so. But that billion pounds is spread across far more people than 1000, and they are far more likely to be spending it in the local economy ("trickle-out?") - and the casualties of this are the people who are seeing their benefits cut when they are actually dependent upon them. This is why foodbank use is at record highs.
Similarly, quantitative easement could have passed money into the economy for the benefit of the population - but those billions of pounds were never seen by "normal" people, whilst high earners in the banking sector continued to see huge bonuses.
The world has changed, in this area as well as others (see my post on privatisation below). The Conservatives continue to pretend that things are the same as they were thirty years ago, in regard to these things, which is why people uncritically continue to vote for them, and believe that they represent a better way than the dangerous lefties with their strikes and their unions and their closed shops ("Corbyn will take us back to the 70s"). But these people owe it to the rest of society to understand how the tories are taking them and everybody else for a ride.
Friday, May 26, 2017
The Conservative equivalent of nationalisation
The bogeyman of nationalisation stalks threateningly around the Labour party. Memories of strikes, poor service and inefficiency are deeply imbedded in our national consciousness, and both the (right wing) media and right wing politicians are more than happy to remind us.
It has struck me recently that what is particularly disingenuous about this is that the Conservative party are more than happy to substitute their own analogue of nationalisation - ultimately, no better for the consumer.
The public logic is as follows: a nationalised industry is uncompetitive and inefficient, likely offering poor service. If it is privatised and opened up to competition, this will drive prices down and result in an improved service. That was the historical logic - the Conservatives of the 1980s had many faults, but this was their agenda, and there's little doubt that the big privatisations of that era - BT, British Airways, British Gas, BAA - have ended up doing the job better as private companies than the were doing as effectively parts of the government.
However, the more recent privatisations seem to have been less about the ideology of the most effective way to run a public service and more to do with transfer of wealth to a de facto plutocracy. Privatisation of electricity, water boards and the railway have not apparently resulted in genuinely open and competitive markets. Employees have suffered, and customers have seen little benefit. The biggest beneficiaries have been a comparatively small wealthy class. In the case of the railways, for example, this report points out that whilst the railways still require a public subsidy of billions of pounds (that is, taxpayer money), and ticket prices have consistently increased faster than inflation, they are paying hundreds of millions of pounds to shareholders. It is hard to believe that the taxpayer is gaining value for money from this arrangement - but since it is the government ideology, securing value for money for the taxpayer is secondary to detaching these entities from the government. If it benefits the plutocracy, so much the better.
Can you see how this is similar to nationalisation? The policy is ideological - it has little concern with the customer or the taxpayer - it is what the government is going to do anyway. Unlike with nationalisation, the folk memory of privatisation is generally good, still - "Tell Sid", the spread of share ownership and dividends, improving customer service. But that's not what is going on now. Instead, we see markets with no competition, and money being transferred from taxpayers not to a bloated public service but to shareholders. But the effect is the same.
This is the model the Conservatives wish to pursue if they continue in power. Public money goes to pay for school places in academies, which whilst state schools are struggling and having to cut budgets, still anticipate being able to make a profit. The same for the health service - public money again being used to pay for medical work, but rather than state-owned enterprises collecting the money (at cost), private companies (making a profit for the benefit of shareholders) will collect it instead. And this is what is planned for old-age social care. Companies will be invited to provide financial products and the net effect will be a large proportion of the capital from a significant fraction of the housing stock of the country being transferred for profit to them.
This is blatantly serving the interests of people within the government. I read a report that the prime minister's husband works for the company with one area of expertise being the sort of equity release product that will form the staple of the Conservative proposal about social housing. Extensive connections between private healthcare companies and government ministers have been reported (it should be noted, though, that some of these are donations, and politicians have little control over who gives them money).
What's the alternative? Is it possible to have a middle ground between nationalised entities, with their risk of inefficiency, and private companies, transferring money from the public purse to shareholders and overpaid executives?
It has struck me recently that what is particularly disingenuous about this is that the Conservative party are more than happy to substitute their own analogue of nationalisation - ultimately, no better for the consumer.
The public logic is as follows: a nationalised industry is uncompetitive and inefficient, likely offering poor service. If it is privatised and opened up to competition, this will drive prices down and result in an improved service. That was the historical logic - the Conservatives of the 1980s had many faults, but this was their agenda, and there's little doubt that the big privatisations of that era - BT, British Airways, British Gas, BAA - have ended up doing the job better as private companies than the were doing as effectively parts of the government.
However, the more recent privatisations seem to have been less about the ideology of the most effective way to run a public service and more to do with transfer of wealth to a de facto plutocracy. Privatisation of electricity, water boards and the railway have not apparently resulted in genuinely open and competitive markets. Employees have suffered, and customers have seen little benefit. The biggest beneficiaries have been a comparatively small wealthy class. In the case of the railways, for example, this report points out that whilst the railways still require a public subsidy of billions of pounds (that is, taxpayer money), and ticket prices have consistently increased faster than inflation, they are paying hundreds of millions of pounds to shareholders. It is hard to believe that the taxpayer is gaining value for money from this arrangement - but since it is the government ideology, securing value for money for the taxpayer is secondary to detaching these entities from the government. If it benefits the plutocracy, so much the better.
Can you see how this is similar to nationalisation? The policy is ideological - it has little concern with the customer or the taxpayer - it is what the government is going to do anyway. Unlike with nationalisation, the folk memory of privatisation is generally good, still - "Tell Sid", the spread of share ownership and dividends, improving customer service. But that's not what is going on now. Instead, we see markets with no competition, and money being transferred from taxpayers not to a bloated public service but to shareholders. But the effect is the same.
This is the model the Conservatives wish to pursue if they continue in power. Public money goes to pay for school places in academies, which whilst state schools are struggling and having to cut budgets, still anticipate being able to make a profit. The same for the health service - public money again being used to pay for medical work, but rather than state-owned enterprises collecting the money (at cost), private companies (making a profit for the benefit of shareholders) will collect it instead. And this is what is planned for old-age social care. Companies will be invited to provide financial products and the net effect will be a large proportion of the capital from a significant fraction of the housing stock of the country being transferred for profit to them.
This is blatantly serving the interests of people within the government. I read a report that the prime minister's husband works for the company with one area of expertise being the sort of equity release product that will form the staple of the Conservative proposal about social housing. Extensive connections between private healthcare companies and government ministers have been reported (it should be noted, though, that some of these are donations, and politicians have little control over who gives them money).
What's the alternative? Is it possible to have a middle ground between nationalised entities, with their risk of inefficiency, and private companies, transferring money from the public purse to shareholders and overpaid executives?
Monday, November 21, 2016
Buckingham Palace refurbishment
Various people accepted the indignant line being presented in some quarters about the renovations to Buckingham Palace. The Metro slants the story here, for example. This article gives a perspective that they may not have been aware of.
My feeling, for what it's worth ... I prefer the monarchy to most of the rest of the political establishment, as I think they have a long view, even if their powers are limited (I wish the whole UK government had a long view and limited powers....!). I think that Buckingham Palace represents a national asset, which a "lucky" family gets to live in, in return for surrendering pretty much their whole life to the country. There aren't many 90 and 95 year olds who aren't really given the option of just retiring. Buckingham Palace is part of the heritage of the country which brings in a lot of foreign money. The lack of renovation for 60 years (! Do you have a 60 year old boiler in your house? 60 year old wiring?) is poor form, and I think that to see the palace go up in flames for lack of proper maintenance would ... well, be oddly fitting in a country which is burning most of the rest of its things of value, but would nonetheless be a disgrace.
Furthermore, I think that even were it the government funding this, there is no way that the money would be directed instead in directions that we think it ought to go - that's not the alternative.
A relevant comparison - the refurbishment of the Houses of Parliament is estimated to cost around ten times this amount (estimates of cost vary between £2 billion and £7 billion pounds), and this will be funded by the taxpayer. And government departments don't have a good track record of securing value for UK taxpayers' money.
The angle on "doubling the funding for the Royal Family" is an interesting one. The crown currently pays tax of 85% on its income, which leaves a balance of about £40 million from which the Royal Family and their estates are funded. So if the Royal Family weren't there, the UK would have £230 million less income. For the next ten years, the amount of money taken from the crown's income will be decreased to 75%, to fund this refurbishment. It is true that the UK will have £370 million pounds less money over 10 years. But the sotto voce implication is that without the crown, we could use that money ourselves. In fact, over the course of that ten years, even with this refurbishment being paid for, the UK will expect to receive an income of £2 billion pounds from the crown.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Millennials and whining
I'm tired of it. Not the whining of the Millennials - people in their late teens and early 20s. But the whining about them, by older people. "They are so entitled, they think the world owes them a living." I think those people who are saying this ought to take a good look at what they had in comparison to the people they are grumbling about.
Oh, sure, a small number of the "older generation" can remember the impact of the Second World War, the effects of rationing and so on. But the ones who are whining are the people who grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Before you grumble about how entitled the younger generation are, please consider the following ...
6 Harsh Realities Of Millenial Life Non-Millenials Need To Understand
Oh, sure, a small number of the "older generation" can remember the impact of the Second World War, the effects of rationing and so on. But the ones who are whining are the people who grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Before you grumble about how entitled the younger generation are, please consider the following ...
6 Harsh Realities Of Millenial Life Non-Millenials Need To Understand
- The final salary pension you took for granted will probably not be theirs. All the private ones are pretty much closed down. The state ones are much less generous (read "more realistic in their funding expectations") than they were when you started your career. A money purchase pension is as far removed from a final salary pension as a STEM degree is from an arts degree.
- They can't afford a mortgage. As in, they can't afford one. They don't have the necessary £50000 in equity (a year's income) and a joint income of £150,000. The problem here is partly that the rising property prices which secured your future as you climbed the property ladder made it harder and harder to get on the ladder - because ...
- "As a rule of thumb, you should not pay more than 30% of your salary in rent" but "Tenants in England spend half their pay on rent." Yep, the rent you are charging on your buy-to-let investment to boost your pension is preventing the entitled Millennials from getting on the property ladder at all.
- Some of you took early retirement on full pension (see 1) in your 50s - so your employer could employ cheaper people. In return, Millennials can expect to work into our 70s. I am not a Millennial. I was asked by someone who had retired by 50 when I might expect to retire. He was shocked when I told him that my retirement age was 65. I'm luckier than my children.
- When your generation graduated, you had the milk round and graduate salaries. When Millennials graduate, employers have found all sorts of dodges to avoid paying them anything at all. Millennials are expected to live at home and have unpaid internships. Forget the minimum wage: some Millennial graduates are paying to get the "experience" they need to be employable. It goes without saying that the company would have to pay someone to do the work that their interns are doing for free.
- You got your degree for free. Millennials will have deductions from their salaries for up to 30 years to pay for theirs.
Friday, November 07, 2014
Aspartame - searching for the truth
There's this article.
It sets out to make the case that arguments against aspartame as a sweetener are garbage science. That's fine, I can handle that - you'd then expect that a good scientific argument would be presented to show that aspartame was safe.
Strangely, that's not the way the article goes. It refers to an "Iowa group" (though there is no actual traceable reference - bad science) and then says:
But the author hasn't made this case. It may be that the case is there, that the paper being discussed doesn't support the conclusion. But by short-cutting to the author's own conclusions and missing out the important science-y bit, the author is just as guilty of bad science. We don't know what expected levels of heart disease are (whether the "user" group is unexpectedly high, and the "non-user" group is unexpectedly low) ... or whether the reason the rate of heart disease in the "user" group was higher because of previous consumption (in other words, it had already caused the heart disease, the "smoking gun"), rather than trying to mitigate the effects of heart disease ... or whether the "user" group and "non-user" group were otherwise identical .... The web article, having failed to properly reference an article, then simply disagrees with the interpretation of the results, and accompanies this disagreement with name-calling and various other approaches designed to close down the debate, which pretty much amount to "only dumbasses would believe this".
I am pretty good at science, and I don't know the truth about aspartame. I am genuinely interested to know if, in addition to making drinks taste disgusting, there are health issues that I ought to be concerned about, especially because it's becoming less and less possible to find naturally sweetened alternatives in supermarkets. So I'd appreciate it if both sides could cut out the arguments that don't stand up to critical analysis, and do a proper job.
One more thing. Levels of childhood obesity were significantly lower in the 70s and 80s, and at the time, drinks containing artificial sweeteners were far less common. There's a causation/correlation thing here, of course - lower levels of obesity were doubtless due to more active lifestyles and so on rather than the sugar we consumed. However, what would be most interesting would be evidence that demonstrated that use of artificial sweeteners actually improved health - preferably produced by an organisation that wasn't financially benefiting from their sale. If that evidence isn't there, then why can't we just stick with natural products? I'd rather consume what has been produced by a farmer than what has been synthesised in a laboratory, given the choice.
It sets out to make the case that arguments against aspartame as a sweetener are garbage science. That's fine, I can handle that - you'd then expect that a good scientific argument would be presented to show that aspartame was safe.
Strangely, that's not the way the article goes. It refers to an "Iowa group" (though there is no actual traceable reference - bad science) and then says:
Of women who drank two or more diet drinks per day, 8.5 percent had some sort of heart disease. But, for women who either drank fewer or no diet drinks that number was only 7 percent.And then it argues:
What is really going on here is a classic case of mixing up cause and effect. No, diet soda doesn’t give you heart disease. You already have more heart disease and drink diet soda to try to cut calorie consumption.Let's assume that the sample of 60,000 people is divided into two, each numbering 30,000. 8.5% of the "user" group numbers 2550; 7% of the "non-user" group numbers 2100. So the article smoothly concludes - there are more people with heart disease in the "user" group, therefore there is no evidence that sweeteners are causing heart disease.
But the author hasn't made this case. It may be that the case is there, that the paper being discussed doesn't support the conclusion. But by short-cutting to the author's own conclusions and missing out the important science-y bit, the author is just as guilty of bad science. We don't know what expected levels of heart disease are (whether the "user" group is unexpectedly high, and the "non-user" group is unexpectedly low) ... or whether the reason the rate of heart disease in the "user" group was higher because of previous consumption (in other words, it had already caused the heart disease, the "smoking gun"), rather than trying to mitigate the effects of heart disease ... or whether the "user" group and "non-user" group were otherwise identical .... The web article, having failed to properly reference an article, then simply disagrees with the interpretation of the results, and accompanies this disagreement with name-calling and various other approaches designed to close down the debate, which pretty much amount to "only dumbasses would believe this".
I am pretty good at science, and I don't know the truth about aspartame. I am genuinely interested to know if, in addition to making drinks taste disgusting, there are health issues that I ought to be concerned about, especially because it's becoming less and less possible to find naturally sweetened alternatives in supermarkets. So I'd appreciate it if both sides could cut out the arguments that don't stand up to critical analysis, and do a proper job.
One more thing. Levels of childhood obesity were significantly lower in the 70s and 80s, and at the time, drinks containing artificial sweeteners were far less common. There's a causation/correlation thing here, of course - lower levels of obesity were doubtless due to more active lifestyles and so on rather than the sugar we consumed. However, what would be most interesting would be evidence that demonstrated that use of artificial sweeteners actually improved health - preferably produced by an organisation that wasn't financially benefiting from their sale. If that evidence isn't there, then why can't we just stick with natural products? I'd rather consume what has been produced by a farmer than what has been synthesised in a laboratory, given the choice.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Job losses in the oil industry?
Oil companies claim that tens of thousands of jobs will be lost as a result of a £2 billion levy on the oil industry in the UK to pay for general tax cuts. I'm not convinced.
Nobody wants to pay more in tax than they have to, of course. However, the price of oil isn't based on what it costs to produce. It is a commodity, and whilst the price has been driven up as a result of speculation and some restriction in demand following the turmoil in the Middle East, the cost of its production hasn't substantially changed. Supply is largely regulated - both on a macro level (OPEC setting production quotas) and on a micro level (oil tankers reportedly delaying unloading to wait for the oil price to rise further).
The effect of the rise in oil price has been a huge rise in profits for oil companies - Shell alone made a profit of over £10 billion in 2010. Certainly whilst they are making this money, they are likely to continue to plough it back into R+D (creating more jobs), and higher dividends. Certainly the companies who have this money available to them are likely to use them as engines for growth of the company. But to say that jobs which might be created in the future are dependent upon such windfall profits is misleading. And I'm not convinced that it is better overall for the oil companies to keep all of that money than for the government to redistribute a proportion of it.
The real problem perhaps lies with the capitalist system that seeks above the welfare of individuals to return a profit. But since the underlying motivation of the capitalist system is to look after the money of those individuals, I suspect disentangling this lies far beyond the competence of any government - and most of the alternatives have proved themselves to be no better.
Nobody wants to pay more in tax than they have to, of course. However, the price of oil isn't based on what it costs to produce. It is a commodity, and whilst the price has been driven up as a result of speculation and some restriction in demand following the turmoil in the Middle East, the cost of its production hasn't substantially changed. Supply is largely regulated - both on a macro level (OPEC setting production quotas) and on a micro level (oil tankers reportedly delaying unloading to wait for the oil price to rise further).
The effect of the rise in oil price has been a huge rise in profits for oil companies - Shell alone made a profit of over £10 billion in 2010. Certainly whilst they are making this money, they are likely to continue to plough it back into R+D (creating more jobs), and higher dividends. Certainly the companies who have this money available to them are likely to use them as engines for growth of the company. But to say that jobs which might be created in the future are dependent upon such windfall profits is misleading. And I'm not convinced that it is better overall for the oil companies to keep all of that money than for the government to redistribute a proportion of it.
The real problem perhaps lies with the capitalist system that seeks above the welfare of individuals to return a profit. But since the underlying motivation of the capitalist system is to look after the money of those individuals, I suspect disentangling this lies far beyond the competence of any government - and most of the alternatives have proved themselves to be no better.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Thoughts on "How Fair is Britain?"
This report was written by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, under the chairmanship of Trevor Phillips. It uncovered some interesting facts (at least, as they were reported by the Telegraph).
One of the things that struck me, following some discussion about what constitutes "extreme" wealth, was how this group analysed wealth. The Telegraph report said:
Or put it another way. A house worth £850,000 per year would probably be let out for £2500 or more per month. That's an annual income of £30,000.
To live in a house worth that amount not paying rent or mortgage is equivalent to an annual income of somewhere between £30,000 and £70,000. A person may technically have no income at all, and yet the benefit of their capital would mean that they were still better off than somebody earning close to the higher tax threshold.
This is consonant with my intuitive feeling that wealth has a lot more to do with ownership of capital, rather than income. It also helps to explain why even though I am comfortably inside the 10% of top earners, I have never felt as though we were well off, compared to the sort of people at whom newspaper supplements are pitched - if we owned our house, rather than having a large mortgage, we would still not be close to being amongst the 10% most wealthy, according to this measure. And yet the removal of child benefit, the suggested increases in university fees, and tax rises are all based on income, not ownership of capital - they are not targeted at the most wealthy at all.
The headline in the Telegraph talked about how the "coping" classes were struggling - "coping" in the sense of coping with an aging generation of parents and an increasingly expensive generation of children - and suggested that one of the emphases of the EHRC was that continuing to place increasing burdens on this group of people would lead to a backlash or breakdown.
One of the things that struck me, following some discussion about what constitutes "extreme" wealth, was how this group analysed wealth. The Telegraph report said:
The total net household wealth of the top 10 per cent of the population is £853,000, almost 100 times more than the net wealth of the poorest 10 per cent, which is at most £8,800.No reference to income is made at all in the context of what constitutes a wealthy family here, and a little analysis of this shows why. If I had a mortgage for £850,000 (supposing such a thing were possible), the interest alone (at around 5%) would cost me in excess of £40,000 per year. To pay £40,000 per year, I'd need additional gross income of £67,000 per year.
Or put it another way. A house worth £850,000 per year would probably be let out for £2500 or more per month. That's an annual income of £30,000.
To live in a house worth that amount not paying rent or mortgage is equivalent to an annual income of somewhere between £30,000 and £70,000. A person may technically have no income at all, and yet the benefit of their capital would mean that they were still better off than somebody earning close to the higher tax threshold.
This is consonant with my intuitive feeling that wealth has a lot more to do with ownership of capital, rather than income. It also helps to explain why even though I am comfortably inside the 10% of top earners, I have never felt as though we were well off, compared to the sort of people at whom newspaper supplements are pitched - if we owned our house, rather than having a large mortgage, we would still not be close to being amongst the 10% most wealthy, according to this measure. And yet the removal of child benefit, the suggested increases in university fees, and tax rises are all based on income, not ownership of capital - they are not targeted at the most wealthy at all.
The headline in the Telegraph talked about how the "coping" classes were struggling - "coping" in the sense of coping with an aging generation of parents and an increasingly expensive generation of children - and suggested that one of the emphases of the EHRC was that continuing to place increasing burdens on this group of people would lead to a backlash or breakdown.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Requiem for a dream
From a rather apocalyptic article in "The Telegraph" magazine.
The world burns 85 million barrels of oil a day, and the US alone consumes a quarter of that amount - of which more than a half goes to road transport: the US has the least fuel-efficient cars on the roads, the lowest energy taxes, and the longest daily commutes of any industrialised nation.
It is an arrangement that James Howard Kunstler ... describes as "the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. America took all of its post-war wealth and invested it in a living arrangement that has no future." ...
He believes that on the current projections of oil supply America will see the beginnings of a "major collapse" of suburbia within the next 10 years, which no amount of "wishful thinking" about alternative energy supplies will be able to arrest:
"We are not going to run Wal-Mart, the Interstate Highway system and Walt Disney World on any combination of solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels, ethanol or used french-fry potato oil. The bottom line is that we will use all these things but we will be very disappointed in what they will actually do for us. The problem is too big. The design of our living arrangement is simply inconsistent with the energy realities of the future. But Americans are just not able to process this. If you look hard enough at America, what you discover is a shockingly infantile belief system, with two fundamental ideas that are deleterious to our future. There's a widespread belief in America that it's possible to get something for nothing, and that mentality has been very destructive to our society. The other idea that has become normative is that when you wish upon a star your dream comes true. These two things have become the basis of the new American ideology."
From "Requiem for a Dream", Mick Brown/Alec Soth, Telegraph Magazine 5 July 2008
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Another small irony in Middle-Eastern politics
The US invaded Iraq (so many people have thought) to ensure that its oil reserves were in friendly hands, and reduce its economic vulnerability. But now, it is the "friendly hands" of Saudi Arabia who are bringing Western economies to a standstill.
The price of oil is heading towards $120 a barrel, and some people suggest it could continue rising towards $200. According to a report yesterday in The Independent, on at least two occasions in the last few months, the price of oil has looked as though it was about to soften. The Saudi government - which controls 10% of the world reserves, and which is the only oil supplier who isn't pretty much running at capacity - has immediately cut production, to keep the price of oil high.
This isn't simply a supply issue - in fact, it isn't one at all. At least for now, there is sufficient oil for everybody. The price is actually being driven up by the market, which (as I've pointed out before) is far from being a tame animal. People are selling (weak) dollars, and buying oil, because they think it will get them a better return. The economics of oil production have hardly changed in the last three years. But the price of oil has more than doubled. However, the combination of market speculation and the vested interest of the suppliers (knowing that they can get a buyer for their oil at almost whatever price) is what is causing so much pain to Western countries. Official inflation figures may look good - but the price of energy and food (which, when push comes to shove, are actually the essentials) seem to be going up pretty steeply. Airlines are going out of business each week, and even the most profitable have been issuing warnings about how the price of fuel is going to affect their bottom line. Houses around us haven't been selling well for over a year, and where people need more room, they are generally extending rather than moving (the fact that thanks to stamp duty and so on, it will cost a family around here £20,000 or thereabouts just to move, before they can think of getting more space, also has a bearing).
I say "Western economies". Over the last couple of decades, the Chinese government has built up massive foreign currency reserves, due to its huge trade surplus with the rest of the world. So they can keep their economy going - at least for the medium term, they are better able to deal with high oil prices.
At least for now, China needs the West as a market - if there aren't people to buy Chinese manufactured goods, their economy will stall as well. So I can't see Western economies disintegrating whilst China thrives - at least for now. But with as many potential consumers in China as there are in the whole of North America and Europe, this isn't guaranteed indefinitely into the future.
The price of oil is heading towards $120 a barrel, and some people suggest it could continue rising towards $200. According to a report yesterday in The Independent, on at least two occasions in the last few months, the price of oil has looked as though it was about to soften. The Saudi government - which controls 10% of the world reserves, and which is the only oil supplier who isn't pretty much running at capacity - has immediately cut production, to keep the price of oil high.
This isn't simply a supply issue - in fact, it isn't one at all. At least for now, there is sufficient oil for everybody. The price is actually being driven up by the market, which (as I've pointed out before) is far from being a tame animal. People are selling (weak) dollars, and buying oil, because they think it will get them a better return. The economics of oil production have hardly changed in the last three years. But the price of oil has more than doubled. However, the combination of market speculation and the vested interest of the suppliers (knowing that they can get a buyer for their oil at almost whatever price) is what is causing so much pain to Western countries. Official inflation figures may look good - but the price of energy and food (which, when push comes to shove, are actually the essentials) seem to be going up pretty steeply. Airlines are going out of business each week, and even the most profitable have been issuing warnings about how the price of fuel is going to affect their bottom line. Houses around us haven't been selling well for over a year, and where people need more room, they are generally extending rather than moving (the fact that thanks to stamp duty and so on, it will cost a family around here £20,000 or thereabouts just to move, before they can think of getting more space, also has a bearing).
I say "Western economies". Over the last couple of decades, the Chinese government has built up massive foreign currency reserves, due to its huge trade surplus with the rest of the world. So they can keep their economy going - at least for the medium term, they are better able to deal with high oil prices.
At least for now, China needs the West as a market - if there aren't people to buy Chinese manufactured goods, their economy will stall as well. So I can't see Western economies disintegrating whilst China thrives - at least for now. But with as many potential consumers in China as there are in the whole of North America and Europe, this isn't guaranteed indefinitely into the future.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Daddy's gonna pay for your crashed car
People interested in U2's prophetic engagement with the world might enjoy this post about the US government giving away over a hundred billion dollars to the population.
(H/T U2 Sermons)
(H/T U2 Sermons)
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Faith schools: a law unto themselves?
Here's a link to an article in the Independent, concerning breaches of the code relating to admission of pupils.
Now firstly, let me say that there is no justification for breaking the code on admissions. Looked-after children should have highest priority; there should be no subtle exclusions on the basis of wealth ("Do you have a place for independent study in your house?" is not a permissible question); there should be no unreasonable refusal to accept special needs children (although I believe ALL schools still can refuse to accept a child if accepting him or her would mean that they were required to make large scale changes to the premises); there should be no hint that parents have to make a donation to be offered a place.
However, this report - or at least, the Independent version of it - to me looks like a witch hunt or mischief-making. Firstly, for most VA schools, the amount of money sought in voluntary donations isn't large, and it is needed for the running of the school. One thing missing from the article is what VA schools are doing with these donations. The answer is that VA schools have to find 10% of the cost of capital works - unlike LEA schools. This money has to be found basically from voluntary donations. In addition, much of the cost of maintaining the school also has to be found by the governors - unlike LEA schools. Again, this money has to be found from voluntary donations. That is how they work. The advantage for parents and children is they get a foundation school. The advantage for the state is that they don't have to pay as much for the school's upkeep. But the upkeep still has to be paid, and effectively by the parents. If the roof falls in at an LEA school, the LEA has to find the money to keep the children in school. Not so at a VA school - it's down to the governors and the foundation body. So for all of the insistence that the donation is voluntary (and we do insist this, in our school), the fact is that if the money doesn't come in, the school can't operate.
I am a governor of a VA school, and we continue to struggle with this issue. The contribution from the parents to the governors' fund is voluntary. However, the governors have to pay the diocese per child for maintenance costs, and if capital works are to be carried out, they have to find 10% of the cost of those works. In the past, the parish church has made up a shortfall - it has been able to carry the financial burden for the most needy children. But parish churches are themselves short of money. We have to think very hard about how we comply with the law concerning the voluntary nature of this donation - but the fact is that if people don't make those donations, the school can't survive. And whilst the school may have been great in terms of facilities in the past, it is now considered barely fit for purpose. The playground and classrooms are too small, and since we have combined an infant and junior school on the same site, we really ought to have one central staff room and admin section, whereas we have two in separate buildings. This is going to require major capital works at some stage - of which we have to find 10% - and the only way we can find it is from those voluntary donations.
In addition to which, don't tell me that the state sector isn't immune from manipulation - and by all sorts of agencies. We managed to get our oldest daughter into our preferred school. Had we applied the following year, we would not have managed to get her into any of the three nearest schools. (We go to the wrong sort of church for her to get into the local VA secondary school!) The LEA offered parents in our road places in a school with a bad reputation 11 miles away. No, we don't live in the middle of the countryside - the three nearest schools are 3, 4 and 5 miles away respectively. The same thing happened this year, in a neighbouring village. The reason? The LEA knows that if it gets concerned parents involved in a school, they will make sure their own children do well, and will hold the staff to account for its failures - resulting in improvements in the apparent standard of the school.
Now, is this parental choice? Is this a fair admissions policy at work? Of course not. It's political manipulation on the part of the LEA. And yet I haven't seen a front page article in the Independent about this.
And then you've got the fact that good schools push up house prices in the vicinity. Which means that only rich parents can live nearby. Which means that the school only ends up having to accept privileged children, because the poor parents don't end up living in the catchment area. Whilst a fair admissions policy may apparently be at work here, the fact is that people have already been excluded, by virtue of economics.
And - back to VA schools - there are the people who manipulate the system. There are the people who rent a house close to their "target" school for six months, or say that they are living at their parents address. There are the people who are "dedicated" enough to go to church every month (!) for two years, or who can talk the vicar into writing a nice letter for them. I think it's fascinating that, although I am a lay preacher, and we get to church 1.5 times a week as a family, and so on, I can't get a foundation place at various local VA schools, when people who are blatantly manipulating the system can.
There may be injustices perpetrated by VA schools, and these need to be rectified. But the fact is that the entire admissions system is a mess, and it is being manipulated by all sorts of individuals and organisations. The Independent is kidding itself if it thinks that VA schools are more guilty than anybody else.
Now firstly, let me say that there is no justification for breaking the code on admissions. Looked-after children should have highest priority; there should be no subtle exclusions on the basis of wealth ("Do you have a place for independent study in your house?" is not a permissible question); there should be no unreasonable refusal to accept special needs children (although I believe ALL schools still can refuse to accept a child if accepting him or her would mean that they were required to make large scale changes to the premises); there should be no hint that parents have to make a donation to be offered a place.
However, this report - or at least, the Independent version of it - to me looks like a witch hunt or mischief-making. Firstly, for most VA schools, the amount of money sought in voluntary donations isn't large, and it is needed for the running of the school. One thing missing from the article is what VA schools are doing with these donations. The answer is that VA schools have to find 10% of the cost of capital works - unlike LEA schools. This money has to be found basically from voluntary donations. In addition, much of the cost of maintaining the school also has to be found by the governors - unlike LEA schools. Again, this money has to be found from voluntary donations. That is how they work. The advantage for parents and children is they get a foundation school. The advantage for the state is that they don't have to pay as much for the school's upkeep. But the upkeep still has to be paid, and effectively by the parents. If the roof falls in at an LEA school, the LEA has to find the money to keep the children in school. Not so at a VA school - it's down to the governors and the foundation body. So for all of the insistence that the donation is voluntary (and we do insist this, in our school), the fact is that if the money doesn't come in, the school can't operate.
I am a governor of a VA school, and we continue to struggle with this issue. The contribution from the parents to the governors' fund is voluntary. However, the governors have to pay the diocese per child for maintenance costs, and if capital works are to be carried out, they have to find 10% of the cost of those works. In the past, the parish church has made up a shortfall - it has been able to carry the financial burden for the most needy children. But parish churches are themselves short of money. We have to think very hard about how we comply with the law concerning the voluntary nature of this donation - but the fact is that if people don't make those donations, the school can't survive. And whilst the school may have been great in terms of facilities in the past, it is now considered barely fit for purpose. The playground and classrooms are too small, and since we have combined an infant and junior school on the same site, we really ought to have one central staff room and admin section, whereas we have two in separate buildings. This is going to require major capital works at some stage - of which we have to find 10% - and the only way we can find it is from those voluntary donations.
In addition to which, don't tell me that the state sector isn't immune from manipulation - and by all sorts of agencies. We managed to get our oldest daughter into our preferred school. Had we applied the following year, we would not have managed to get her into any of the three nearest schools. (We go to the wrong sort of church for her to get into the local VA secondary school!) The LEA offered parents in our road places in a school with a bad reputation 11 miles away. No, we don't live in the middle of the countryside - the three nearest schools are 3, 4 and 5 miles away respectively. The same thing happened this year, in a neighbouring village. The reason? The LEA knows that if it gets concerned parents involved in a school, they will make sure their own children do well, and will hold the staff to account for its failures - resulting in improvements in the apparent standard of the school.
Now, is this parental choice? Is this a fair admissions policy at work? Of course not. It's political manipulation on the part of the LEA. And yet I haven't seen a front page article in the Independent about this.
And then you've got the fact that good schools push up house prices in the vicinity. Which means that only rich parents can live nearby. Which means that the school only ends up having to accept privileged children, because the poor parents don't end up living in the catchment area. Whilst a fair admissions policy may apparently be at work here, the fact is that people have already been excluded, by virtue of economics.
And - back to VA schools - there are the people who manipulate the system. There are the people who rent a house close to their "target" school for six months, or say that they are living at their parents address. There are the people who are "dedicated" enough to go to church every month (!) for two years, or who can talk the vicar into writing a nice letter for them. I think it's fascinating that, although I am a lay preacher, and we get to church 1.5 times a week as a family, and so on, I can't get a foundation place at various local VA schools, when people who are blatantly manipulating the system can.
There may be injustices perpetrated by VA schools, and these need to be rectified. But the fact is that the entire admissions system is a mess, and it is being manipulated by all sorts of individuals and organisations. The Independent is kidding itself if it thinks that VA schools are more guilty than anybody else.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Hello Facebook users everywhere
I use Facebook. You can use it, or not, as you please. A Guardian columnist recommends you don't. Some reactions.
- Whilst I would naturally caution against people putting details of their sex lives, family, date of birth etc. on any web page, there are fewer potentially revealing personal details about me on Facebook than there are on Inland Revenue CDs. Or the Amazon website. Or Google, for that matter - do you know how much of your web history they are tracking?!
- Whilst I would naturally prefer the people who come up with useful internet stuff to be concerned about saving the planet rather than making zillions of dollars, the fact is that the people who are concerned about saving the planet are generally saving the planet rather than making zillions of dollars. On the other hand, there is a significant tendency for people to make their zillions and then throw a few billions back in to save the planet in a few years' time, once they realise that they can only sail one luxury yacht or fly one corporate jet at once.
- "1. We will advertise at you." The adverts in Facebook are far less intrusive, at least at the moment, than those on Myspace (which is a Microsoft production, isn't it?). It is an unfortunate fact of life that adverts are part of the scenery now. But I haven't stopped watching commercial television because there are adverts. At least, not on principle - only because it is rubbish. I haven't stopped going to see films because of the ads or the product placement. I haven't stopped reading newspapers like The Guardian. And at least the new media offer some hope that the adverts I am bombarded with may be relevant to me.
- "3. Anyone can glance at your intimate confessions." So don't confess them. Doh!
- "5. Opting out doesn't mean opting out." - Facebook can send you notices about your account even if you opt out of all email notification. Oh, dear! Well, if the worst came to the worst, tag the sender as "Spam".
- "6. The CIA may look at the site when they feel like it." Dude, do you know how much information the CIA can get about you without referring to Facebook? Do you know what's in your biometric passport? Do you know what powers the Patriot Act gave the US government? Do you know what the US government has to know about you before you can even get into the country?
The socialist nirvana didn't work. You may not like that, but you have to come to terms with living in a capitalist world. At least dissent from capitalism is permitted.
And another thing. The Guardian Unlimited page that I was reading seemed to be taking an unseemly amount of processing power whilst it was being displayed. I wonder why that was? Let's have a look....
Oh. It's adverts for Intel.
- Whilst I would naturally caution against people putting details of their sex lives, family, date of birth etc. on any web page, there are fewer potentially revealing personal details about me on Facebook than there are on Inland Revenue CDs. Or the Amazon website. Or Google, for that matter - do you know how much of your web history they are tracking?!
- Whilst I would naturally prefer the people who come up with useful internet stuff to be concerned about saving the planet rather than making zillions of dollars, the fact is that the people who are concerned about saving the planet are generally saving the planet rather than making zillions of dollars. On the other hand, there is a significant tendency for people to make their zillions and then throw a few billions back in to save the planet in a few years' time, once they realise that they can only sail one luxury yacht or fly one corporate jet at once.
- "1. We will advertise at you." The adverts in Facebook are far less intrusive, at least at the moment, than those on Myspace (which is a Microsoft production, isn't it?). It is an unfortunate fact of life that adverts are part of the scenery now. But I haven't stopped watching commercial television because there are adverts. At least, not on principle - only because it is rubbish. I haven't stopped going to see films because of the ads or the product placement. I haven't stopped reading newspapers like The Guardian. And at least the new media offer some hope that the adverts I am bombarded with may be relevant to me.
- "3. Anyone can glance at your intimate confessions." So don't confess them. Doh!
- "5. Opting out doesn't mean opting out." - Facebook can send you notices about your account even if you opt out of all email notification. Oh, dear! Well, if the worst came to the worst, tag the sender as "Spam".
- "6. The CIA may look at the site when they feel like it." Dude, do you know how much information the CIA can get about you without referring to Facebook? Do you know what's in your biometric passport? Do you know what powers the Patriot Act gave the US government? Do you know what the US government has to know about you before you can even get into the country?
The socialist nirvana didn't work. You may not like that, but you have to come to terms with living in a capitalist world. At least dissent from capitalism is permitted.
And another thing. The Guardian Unlimited page that I was reading seemed to be taking an unseemly amount of processing power whilst it was being displayed. I wonder why that was? Let's have a look....
Oh. It's adverts for Intel.
Friday, December 28, 2007
"You can't buck the market."
So said Margaret Thatcher a lifetime ago. I can't recall enough of the context to remember the sense in which she meant “can't” - whether she was saying that it is an impossibility not to do what the market wills, or whether she was simply suggesting that to do such a thing would be rude, or inappropriate.
“Meltdown”, by Martin Baker, is a competent, intelligent thriller, and it suggests that the answer is the first of those options. Assuming you are into this sort of book (and I guess you are unlikely to read it if you aren't), perhaps this message will last longer than the actual content of the plot – which involves the customary violence, deviant sex, glamorous locations, paranoia, psychotic henchmen and narrow brushes with death.
The startling point that Baker makes is that in a global economy, there are no organisations which are large enough to directly influence the markets – and conversely, the markets themselves have the power to wreck organisations of all sizes up to nations. This is a fact to which we generally turn a blind eye – too much of the time, we behave instead as though the markets are another servant of the economic system. The way in which the UK was bounced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in September 1992 should have been a warning to us. The way in which the price of oil has been driven up by speculation – it isn't fundamentally more expensive to extract a barrel of oil from the ground now than it was three years ago, when the price was a third of today's price – should have made it absolutely clear. But it's difficult to knock them. Everything they do is driven by you – the fact that you want a pension when you retire; the fact that you want to get a return on your savings; the fact that there are certain things we need to live that we can't produce ourselves. They are just another part of the world economy, producing something that we all need – money.
In any case, the markets are by now too integral to the structure of the world economy to be done away with, even assuming that this was considered to be an appropriate response – and for the most part, their effect is reasonably benign. However, the reason for this isn't because “the markets” have any particular concern for individuals, or companies, or nations, or the poor. It is simply because stability and happiness generally lead to long term profit – and profit is the summum bonum of the markets – in fact, the solus bonus, if my amateur Latin translation is up to it. (Profit isn't everything, it's the only thing.) If the markets thought that better gains were to be had from betting against happiness, stability, or any individual, company or nation, then that would be what they would do. They have to.
But whilst the market can't be “bucked”, it can be influenced. Left-leaning thinkers have cottoned onto this more quickly than conservatives. With the possible exception of radicals like Thatcher, perhaps it's the case that many conservatives continue to assume that the market is simply a bigger version of a country market, rather than a global leviathan, not beholden to anybody. At the level of nations, the Chinese (for example) have shown themselves to have a highly adept understanding of the nature of the global economy. At the level of individuals, some people have discovered that it is possible to affect the markets through another global entity which is not accountable to any government and which probably can't, ultimately, be bucked – that is, the media. Thinking back to the international campaign calling for sanctions against South Africa under apartheid (and thence a negative impact from the markets against companies that were prepared to deal there), it is possible to see the first clash between the media and the market. Few clashes since then have had a similar impact. The Jubilee 2000 campaign to encourage scrapping of international debt was one – and on a smaller scale, the growth of the Fair Trade and ethical market is another one.
Individual voices can be heard today, but it is probably harder to gain any real influence, because there are so many voices. But if we want to see a world that is concerned for more than simply the bottom line, it is important for all thoughtful people to be sensitive to what they see around them, and wise enough to realise that the global institutions themselves simply don't have the moral compass to take us where we might want to go.
“Meltdown”, by Martin Baker, is a competent, intelligent thriller, and it suggests that the answer is the first of those options. Assuming you are into this sort of book (and I guess you are unlikely to read it if you aren't), perhaps this message will last longer than the actual content of the plot – which involves the customary violence, deviant sex, glamorous locations, paranoia, psychotic henchmen and narrow brushes with death.
The startling point that Baker makes is that in a global economy, there are no organisations which are large enough to directly influence the markets – and conversely, the markets themselves have the power to wreck organisations of all sizes up to nations. This is a fact to which we generally turn a blind eye – too much of the time, we behave instead as though the markets are another servant of the economic system. The way in which the UK was bounced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in September 1992 should have been a warning to us. The way in which the price of oil has been driven up by speculation – it isn't fundamentally more expensive to extract a barrel of oil from the ground now than it was three years ago, when the price was a third of today's price – should have made it absolutely clear. But it's difficult to knock them. Everything they do is driven by you – the fact that you want a pension when you retire; the fact that you want to get a return on your savings; the fact that there are certain things we need to live that we can't produce ourselves. They are just another part of the world economy, producing something that we all need – money.
In any case, the markets are by now too integral to the structure of the world economy to be done away with, even assuming that this was considered to be an appropriate response – and for the most part, their effect is reasonably benign. However, the reason for this isn't because “the markets” have any particular concern for individuals, or companies, or nations, or the poor. It is simply because stability and happiness generally lead to long term profit – and profit is the summum bonum of the markets – in fact, the solus bonus, if my amateur Latin translation is up to it. (Profit isn't everything, it's the only thing.) If the markets thought that better gains were to be had from betting against happiness, stability, or any individual, company or nation, then that would be what they would do. They have to.
But whilst the market can't be “bucked”, it can be influenced. Left-leaning thinkers have cottoned onto this more quickly than conservatives. With the possible exception of radicals like Thatcher, perhaps it's the case that many conservatives continue to assume that the market is simply a bigger version of a country market, rather than a global leviathan, not beholden to anybody. At the level of nations, the Chinese (for example) have shown themselves to have a highly adept understanding of the nature of the global economy. At the level of individuals, some people have discovered that it is possible to affect the markets through another global entity which is not accountable to any government and which probably can't, ultimately, be bucked – that is, the media. Thinking back to the international campaign calling for sanctions against South Africa under apartheid (and thence a negative impact from the markets against companies that were prepared to deal there), it is possible to see the first clash between the media and the market. Few clashes since then have had a similar impact. The Jubilee 2000 campaign to encourage scrapping of international debt was one – and on a smaller scale, the growth of the Fair Trade and ethical market is another one.
Individual voices can be heard today, but it is probably harder to gain any real influence, because there are so many voices. But if we want to see a world that is concerned for more than simply the bottom line, it is important for all thoughtful people to be sensitive to what they see around them, and wise enough to realise that the global institutions themselves simply don't have the moral compass to take us where we might want to go.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Global warming: "Everything you know is wrong"
I haven't watched The Great Global Warming Swindle yet, though it's only a matter of time, I guess. But even without watching it, I am aware of certain presumptions that are made in the debate that seem rather shaky.
I spoke below about the fact that low-energy lightbulbs aren't as unequivocally good as people suggest (particularly those who are making them) - because at some times of year, the heat generated by lightbulbs means that the heating system doesn't need to be on so much.
The March 10 New Scientist had an article (abstract only - payment needed for the full article) pointing out that carbon offsetting is not being properly regulated, opening the door to "Enron-style accounting" (as Amsterdam-based lobby group Transnational Institute put it - though if ever there was a tag for a libertarian, globalising, free-market lobby group, that would be it). Also, in the case of forestation, offsetting merely delays the arrival of CO2 in the atmosphere - the assumption being that in a hundred years or so when these trees come down again, we will have managed to sort the problem out. Given that India and China seem to show little inclination to do anything that would hamper their economic growth, and the focus in some parts of the developed world seems to be on buying our right to continue generating CO2 from other countries, it seems likely that we are simply handing the problem to our grandchildren after all.
Incidentally, for those Westerners who think that this is all the fault of India and China, the New Scientist article has a reality check, in the form of a table of emissions per capita. CO2 emissions per capita per year in India are about 1 tonne. In China, about 2.4 tonnes. In the UK, 11.2 tonnes. In the US, 20 tonnes. I've had Americans commenting on here getting huffy about the air quality in Beijing. But can they really insist on the right to generate as much CO2 as eight people from China?!
On a slightly more positive note, could somebody tell me what exactly would be the problem with doing what is supposedly unthinkable - burying thousands of tonnes of plastic underground? It doesn't decompose for ages, we are told, and yet by weight it is predominantly carbon. Surely this must be one of the securest ways of getting significant amounts of carbon out of circulation?
From my point of view, as I believe I have written before, I think that as a steward of God's creation, it is right for me to do what I can to use it in a sustainable and careful way. So I will continue to do what I can to try and reduce my environmental impact. One side effect of my recent change in job is that I should be driving several thousand miles less this year, though my career is hardly renowned for its overall environmental benefit ....
I spoke below about the fact that low-energy lightbulbs aren't as unequivocally good as people suggest (particularly those who are making them) - because at some times of year, the heat generated by lightbulbs means that the heating system doesn't need to be on so much.
The March 10 New Scientist had an article (abstract only - payment needed for the full article) pointing out that carbon offsetting is not being properly regulated, opening the door to "Enron-style accounting" (as Amsterdam-based lobby group Transnational Institute put it - though if ever there was a tag for a libertarian, globalising, free-market lobby group, that would be it). Also, in the case of forestation, offsetting merely delays the arrival of CO2 in the atmosphere - the assumption being that in a hundred years or so when these trees come down again, we will have managed to sort the problem out. Given that India and China seem to show little inclination to do anything that would hamper their economic growth, and the focus in some parts of the developed world seems to be on buying our right to continue generating CO2 from other countries, it seems likely that we are simply handing the problem to our grandchildren after all.
Incidentally, for those Westerners who think that this is all the fault of India and China, the New Scientist article has a reality check, in the form of a table of emissions per capita. CO2 emissions per capita per year in India are about 1 tonne. In China, about 2.4 tonnes. In the UK, 11.2 tonnes. In the US, 20 tonnes. I've had Americans commenting on here getting huffy about the air quality in Beijing. But can they really insist on the right to generate as much CO2 as eight people from China?!
On a slightly more positive note, could somebody tell me what exactly would be the problem with doing what is supposedly unthinkable - burying thousands of tonnes of plastic underground? It doesn't decompose for ages, we are told, and yet by weight it is predominantly carbon. Surely this must be one of the securest ways of getting significant amounts of carbon out of circulation?
From my point of view, as I believe I have written before, I think that as a steward of God's creation, it is right for me to do what I can to use it in a sustainable and careful way. So I will continue to do what I can to try and reduce my environmental impact. One side effect of my recent change in job is that I should be driving several thousand miles less this year, though my career is hardly renowned for its overall environmental benefit ....
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
"You can't buck the market!"
Buying property in the UK is an expensive business.
As far as I can tell, house prices rise as high as the market can bear. In February, according to the BBC, the average house price in the UK was about £185,000. That is something like seven times average household income (estimating from the National Statistics Online figures for 2004/5).
When I first started being aware of such values, I think the ratio was probably nearer three times - but at that stage, household income was much more likely to be based upon one person's salary than today. Today, two people need to work in most houses for them to afford property - with the consequent impact that this has on family life.
Again, for as long as I can remember, house prices have been rising seemingly inexorably, with just two 1-2 year periods of "correction". People have been saying for most of this time that this isn't sustainable, and there has to be a crash in prices at some stage - but it doesn't happen. Mortgages keep increasing in size - not only do we have 95-100% mortgages, but we have "interest only" mortgages now, where the precise arrangements for repayment are simply kicked into touch for a future date, and we are heading in the direction of possibly having lifetime interest only mortgages, where the term of the mortgage is not defined. All this is because the prices of the houses themselves have got steadily further out of reach.
Various things have been done by the government in an attempt to halt the rise of house prices. One of these was increasing stamp duty. When you buy a house, you pay the government 3% if the price of the house is over a certain threshold. Let's say you are in a house worth £300,000, moving to another with the same value (perhaps you are moving job, or something like that). The cost of moving would be:
- £9000 in stamp duty
- typically £4500 in estate agent fees
- typically £1000 in legal fees
- typically £600 for a Home Information Pack
- typically £1500 in other costs
That's over £16000. If you want to gain a bedroom (say around where we live), you are talking about adding around £80000 to the house price. So to move to a house with one more bedroom will typically cost you about £100000.
So if moving is so expensive, surely that should bring down the price of houses? No. Don't forget that you can't buck the market.
Given how much it costs to move, and that if you have room then for £40-£60000 you can add a bedroom and a reception room to your house, what has happened is that the supply of properties has plummeted. But there are still people looking for houses, who can't extend and who need more room. So the market is even more a seller's market than before, and property prices have continued to rise.
As far as I can tell, house prices rise as high as the market can bear. In February, according to the BBC, the average house price in the UK was about £185,000. That is something like seven times average household income (estimating from the National Statistics Online figures for 2004/5).
When I first started being aware of such values, I think the ratio was probably nearer three times - but at that stage, household income was much more likely to be based upon one person's salary than today. Today, two people need to work in most houses for them to afford property - with the consequent impact that this has on family life.
Again, for as long as I can remember, house prices have been rising seemingly inexorably, with just two 1-2 year periods of "correction". People have been saying for most of this time that this isn't sustainable, and there has to be a crash in prices at some stage - but it doesn't happen. Mortgages keep increasing in size - not only do we have 95-100% mortgages, but we have "interest only" mortgages now, where the precise arrangements for repayment are simply kicked into touch for a future date, and we are heading in the direction of possibly having lifetime interest only mortgages, where the term of the mortgage is not defined. All this is because the prices of the houses themselves have got steadily further out of reach.
Various things have been done by the government in an attempt to halt the rise of house prices. One of these was increasing stamp duty. When you buy a house, you pay the government 3% if the price of the house is over a certain threshold. Let's say you are in a house worth £300,000, moving to another with the same value (perhaps you are moving job, or something like that). The cost of moving would be:
- £9000 in stamp duty
- typically £4500 in estate agent fees
- typically £1000 in legal fees
- typically £600 for a Home Information Pack
- typically £1500 in other costs
That's over £16000. If you want to gain a bedroom (say around where we live), you are talking about adding around £80000 to the house price. So to move to a house with one more bedroom will typically cost you about £100000.
So if moving is so expensive, surely that should bring down the price of houses? No. Don't forget that you can't buck the market.
Given how much it costs to move, and that if you have room then for £40-£60000 you can add a bedroom and a reception room to your house, what has happened is that the supply of properties has plummeted. But there are still people looking for houses, who can't extend and who need more room. So the market is even more a seller's market than before, and property prices have continued to rise.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Nescafé Partners' Blend
What Nescafé say:
People object to Fairtrade because it distorts the market place, subsidising supposedly inefficient practices. The problem is that the marketplace is already massively distorted, and has never been "fair". Multinational corporations have such immense buying power that they can offer a "take it or leave it" price - forcing suppliers to sell at a price below the cost of production - driven by consumers whose highest priority for the last thirty years has been cheaper prices in supermarkets. That's not capitalism at work, at least as it was originally conceived of - or not for the benefit of all parties, anyway.
The same thing is happening in all sorts of different markets. In the UK, supermarkets who dominate the retail sector force suppliers to cut prices, making it virtually impossible to make a living from farming, whilst the supermarket profits soar. Subsisting farmers in West Africa are unable to sell their milk at the local market, because milk from the Netherlands, surplus to European requirements and produced with a EU subsidy, is being dumped there.
We did a taste test of various different Fairtrade instant coffees, from suppliers that seem to have more ethical credentials than Nestlé and Kenco. Our preferred option? This one.
When you drink Nescafé Partners' Blend Fairtrade certified coffee, you enjoy an exceptionally smooth, rich coffee. And, better still, you help the people who grow your coffee, their families and their communities with every cup. Learn more at growmorethancoffee.co.ukThis is one brand from Nescafé's range (which include Gold Blend, Blend 37 and Nescafé). To me, the logical inference from this advertisement is that if you drink these other brands, then you are not helping the people who grow the coffee, their families and their communities. Surely if a coffee seller were genuinely concerned about the ethics of Fairtrade, they would make sure all brands were Fairtrade, not just one. This really gives the impression that Nestlé are more concerned about image rather than substance.
Nescafe - it's all about you
People object to Fairtrade because it distorts the market place, subsidising supposedly inefficient practices. The problem is that the marketplace is already massively distorted, and has never been "fair". Multinational corporations have such immense buying power that they can offer a "take it or leave it" price - forcing suppliers to sell at a price below the cost of production - driven by consumers whose highest priority for the last thirty years has been cheaper prices in supermarkets. That's not capitalism at work, at least as it was originally conceived of - or not for the benefit of all parties, anyway.
The same thing is happening in all sorts of different markets. In the UK, supermarkets who dominate the retail sector force suppliers to cut prices, making it virtually impossible to make a living from farming, whilst the supermarket profits soar. Subsisting farmers in West Africa are unable to sell their milk at the local market, because milk from the Netherlands, surplus to European requirements and produced with a EU subsidy, is being dumped there.
We did a taste test of various different Fairtrade instant coffees, from suppliers that seem to have more ethical credentials than Nestlé and Kenco. Our preferred option? This one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)