If you’ve access to a uni library that is?
Economics: Simple market models fail the test
And this one as well maybe?
OK, I have these now. Thank you Paul!
When asked what respectable government had used QE in the past, could it not be argued that the US federal reserve used a form of it in the 30’s/40’s to get out of the great depression?
Richard Murphy says:
September 17 2015 at 7:51 pm
And Japan in the 30s
No, the complaint is that the Fed didn’t loosen monetary policy in the 30s.
And Japan used helicopter money, not infrastructure investment.
You’re young, as hot as you’re probably ever going to get, and there’s a party on every night with people as young and as bright and as hot as you. And you want to stay in your room and masturbate with a dildo? Really?
This week Melbourne University’s Ormond College banned dildos and other sex toys on campus, stating the genre does not allow people at a “formative stage of life” to develop a “healthy sexuality”.
Some students have argued not all sex toys are demeaning (it’s even educational!), and to deny female students the ability to pleasure themselves in their rooms is to clamp down on freedom of expression.
But I reckon there are other freedoms that are more worth fighting for.
The college’s master – theologian and ethicist Dr Rufus Black – argued in a newsletter to the college’s 400 students that sex toys were exploitative, objectify men and “presents men primarily as sex objects who are a means to the end of female pleasure”.
To stop or discourage the behaviour that you don’t want, you need to start with an ideal. For Black, that ideal is that students shouldn’t sit in their rooms playing with toys that objectify men.
To have men enter the world having learned to accept a degraded position in it, alongside women who accept men being degraded – whether that is through the objectification via dildos they see on campus, or the words used to described men in college parlance – is dangerous. We should not allow this acceptance to be internalised in the ruling class.
Well, makes as much sense as the fuckwittery they are doing.
Wonder if anyone has actually used that as a chat up line?
More South Koreans have been embarking on extra-marital affairs since the nation’s top court abolished a law that made adultery illegal and punishable with a prison term.
A survey conducted by Macromill Embrain in August determined that 39.3 percent of South Korean men and 10.8 percent of women have been unfaithful to their spouses.
For the men, that figure is an increase of 2.4 percent on a similar survey conducted in 2014, while the rate is up 4.3 percent for women.
I will admit that I am greatly impressed by Andre Geim, who won both the Ig (for levitating a frog, I think he showed there was enough iron in the haemoglobin to be able to do this?) and the Nobel for graphene. But this year there some interest:
Scientists at Oxford University were awarded the Diagnostic Medicine Prize for determining that acute appendicitis can be accurately diagnosed by the amount of pain evidence when the patient is driven over speed bumps.
Dr Helen Ashdown of the Department of Primary Care Health Services at the University of Oxford said: “It may sound odd, but asking patients whether their pain worsened going over speed bumps on their way to hospital could help doctors in a diagnosis. It turns out to be as good as many other ways of assessing people with suspected appendicitis.”
The Physics prize went to researchers at Georgia Tech who found that most mammals take 21 seconds to urinate, while the Chemistry Prize was awarded to the University of California for inventing a chemical recipe to un-boil an egg. They added urea to a hardboiled egg to break down proteins and return it to its liquid form, before using a machine to re-assemble the broken pieces.
‘Yes, we invented a way to unboil a hen egg,’ said Professor Gregory Weiss, a biochemist at UC Irvine. “In our paper, we describe a device for pulling apart tangled proteins and allowing them to refold.’
The prize for Mathematics was awarded to the University of Vienna for attempts to determine whether the bloodthirsty Emperor of Morocco Moulay Ismael really could have fathered 888 children between 1697 and 1727.
The scientists worked out that it was theoretically possible, if the leader had sex once a day for 32 years without a break.
Now there’s something to aspire to, eh?
It’s all jackets and open necked shirts now Jezzbollah is on the rampage. Rather than the boring suits and silk ties of old style accounting?
Jeremy Corbyn had a sexual relationship with fellow Left-wing MP Diane Abbott who he has now appointed to his Shadow Cabinet, it was claimed last night.
At least John Major didn’t appoint Edwina to the Cabinet.
Or should we take this the other way around, that it’s all open and above board?
Didn’t know this one but fun all the same:
Britain simply isn’t building enough housing to meet the demand for homes. Part of that is due to a brick shortage that began before the recession,
Has the 0.2 of a Professor thought this one through?
The onslaught was expected. But the anti-democratic virulence of Britain’s tax-dodging media monopolists still has the capacity to take the breath away.
Quick question: how do you have monopolist s ?
Liberals swear more on Twitter than rightwingers, says study
Twats: liberal is not the opposite to rightwinger any more than authoritarian is a synonym for leftie.
Yes, the more stupid of the colonials do make this mistake but let’s not follow the fools down that linguistic rabbit hole, shall we?
A liberal is one who believes that consenting adults should be free to get on with whatever they consent to, an authoritarian is one who thinks they should do what they’re told. There are liberals and authoritarians of both left and right. The authoritarians on the right often find themselves being called fascists and the authoritarians on the left are fascists.
For liberals, that consenting adult stuff extends from what one consents to do with one’s gonads to what one does in the economy. For the authoritarians the usual division is that the left authoritarians don’t care all that much about the gonads but do about the economy and for the right vice versa.
It’s all pretty simple really.
Yes, I know it’s also ridiculous:
The Duke of Wellington, a hereditary peer whose father was stripped of the right to sit in the House of Lords 16 years ago, has been elected to the upper house under an arcane procedure invoked after the retirement of another peer.
Charles Wellesley, the ninth holder of the title, won a byelection that took place following the retirement of Lord Luke, a Conservative, in June.
Under the House of Lords Act 1999, Lords were permitted to elect 90 hereditary peers to remain sitting in the reformed second chamber, with 666 peers being stripped of their 800-year-old right to sit at Westminster.
When a hereditary peer dies or takes voluntary retirement a byelection is held. Peers who have a hereditary title are eligible to stand in a byelection and only sitting hereditary peers in the same party grouping as the departing peer can vote.
A total of 48 other hereditary Conservative peers voted in the election under the alternative vote system and, after four transfers of votes, the Duke ended up with 21 votes, beating the Marquess of Abergavenny and the Earl of Harrowby, who picked up six votes each.
48 people vote on which of roughly 700 people should join the upper legislative house of the country.
Quite mad, of course it is, but still rather wonderful. It’s not even one of those odd but wonderful hallowed by tradition things, it’s not even two decades old yet. And I’m sure it’s not logical nor perhaps even sensible. But I like it and so there.
So, Ambrose says that PQE isn’t entirely mad:
Jeremy Lawson, from Standard Life, gave his blessing to radical action this week, arguing central banks should be willing to fund fiscal stimulus directly, and even inject money “directly into household bank accounts” if need be.
Mr Corbyn’s ideas are a variant of “helicopter money”, the term coined by Milton Friedman, the doyen of monetary orthodoxy, lest we forget.
Friedman did not, of course, mean that banknotes should be dropped from the sky, though they could be in extremis, but rather that central banks have the means to create money to fund tax cuts, or to cover state spending, until the economy comes back to life.
So, let us assume that we do end up in extremis. We need urgent expansion of the money supply, as in the scenario where Friedman suggests helicopter money.
OK, does PQE make sense?
No, even here it doesn’t. Because of that “urgent” bit.
PQE is to be spent upon building things. Great, how long does it take to start building things? How long does planning permission take? Environmental permits? Wading through the morass of challenges by hippies, Nimbys and Bananas?
Two years? For a large project, a decade?
That’s not urgent then, is it? Meaning that if we do have an urgent need then we’ll have to do something else: like, say, helicopter money.
That is, even when we’ve a need to expand M0 in order to prevent falls in M4, it’s still not true that PQE does what we need. There’s therefore no circumstances under which it would be useful.
I thought you might be bemused to hear that I had the joy of finding myself behind a particularly pompous man in the queue for parliamentary security this afternoon. I thought he looked vaguely familiar but couldnt quite place him.
As I stood there listening to his ‘banter’ with the guards, which was boring them to tears, I realised that it was Ritchie himself.
I then sat next to him in the waiting room and overheard his side of a conversation with – I assume – a booker for the Andrew Marr show or similar.
‘yes well Andrew can give me a quizzing if he wants too. I’ve done Paxo. I’ve done all of them. I give as good as I receive’. ‘yes well I was behind most of Corbynomics. Between you and me there has not always been quite the credit given that is deserved, but nevermind….’ ‘well to put it in context I know a lot of politicians. I just had a chat with Natalie Bennett, who I know’ (oh the namedropping!) ‘to be clear I would be speaking on my behalf, not Jeremy’s’.
All with the most extraordinary air of pomposity, the like of which I’ve rarely heard.
Richard Murphy is seen as the “brains” behind Corbynomics.
But until recently many leading economists had not even heard of him.
The chartered accountant and tax expert, from Downham Market, Norfolk, is set to become one of Team Corbyn’s key advisers on policy in the coming years.
Dad-of-two Murphy, 57, works mainly from home, but was a fixture on Corbyn’s campaign trail, often warming up audiences with fiery speeches attacking tax avoidance and high executive pay.
The former Southampton University economics graduate claims “People’s QE” is just “part of an armoury” of policies aimed at creating new jobs.
But last night economists cast doubt on his standing.
Prof den Haan admitted: “I’ve heard very little of him.”
When asked if he was a big name among leading economists, he replied: “No, definitely not.”
Prof Yates said: “He’s well known now, extremely well-known in the last few weeks and months because of his blogs and Twitter posts.
“But I think on the issues of ‘People’s QE’ and renationalisation, he’s potty.”
Among my Czech buddies and contacts there’s rather a large number of good programmers. So, we’re setting ourselves up as a programming shop, doing remote work.
Very much a step up from script kiddies doing a bit of Java, but at this stage all work gratefully received.
We have our first contract (moving an application from the soon to be defunct Google Maps API to another one) and the bods have a lot of experience with consumer facing websites for example (as well as all sorts of useful things like writing code for ROMs and so on). They do the Czech sites for a couple of car manufacturers for example.
And there’s me in the middle to deal with language issues as well.
So, what’s the actual rate for offsite work these days? It’s two decades since I even looked at this so I’ve no idea.
What’s a rate at which people say “Yep, I’ll try that!”?
And do any of you actually allocate such contracts and if you do want to try us out with something?
History was made at New York Fashion Week today when a group of stunning models of all shapes and sizes took to the catwalk to model a collection of lingerie designed by plus-size model and body-positive campaigner Ashley Graham.
The size 16 model, 28, debuted her latest lingerie line for Canadian retailer Addition Elle on Tuesday afternoon, by both starring in and running the show alongside a cast of her fellow curvy models.
As the young models paraded one after another down the runway, they all seemed to share the same two identical physical traits.
1) They were painfully thin.
2) They looked painfully miserable.
This is the precise Victoria Beckham look, of course.
Yes, I apologise for quoting Piers Morgan.
As better people than me have said:
Helen Archer, an official woman, said: “This is the culmination of years of determined struggle against a male dominated culture that enslaves women and demands they conform to a perfect ideal of sexual attractiveness.”
But Nathan Muir, a completely normal person in every way from Hatfield, stressed: “What the hell are you talking about?
“She’s a cracker and I can say with cast-iron certainty that if I, or any of my friends, were lucky enough to be on top of her you would need a crane to get us off.”
Martin Bishop, a remarkably ordinary human from Doncaster, said: “The girl with the hips, the magnificent knockers and the warm, happy face… or the arrogant, sulky angle-poise lamp who spends half her life in the bog?
“I’ll be honest, I don’t listen to women all that much but from what I can gather the debate is, essentially, about attractiveness and therefore it is reasonable to assume that I, as a man, am the one who is supposed to be attracted.
“We keep saying it until we are blue in the face – for the love of god, please gain some weight because we do not want to have sex with someone who looks like a 12 year-old boy.”
Thanks for your reply but we don’t do paid guest blogging.
But I assure you that if you write for us, we will promote your article on our social media profile which will surely be beneficial for you.
Do let me know your thoughts about this.
I don’t think you understand. I have regular columns for Forbes, for The Register, for the Adam Smith Institute. This is how make my living, a good one as it happens. You’re asking the equivalent of going into Greggs and asking for a free pastie: because, you know, you’ll tell people about how lovely a Greggs pastie is.
I have, in the past, written for the Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Times, Express, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Philadelphia Enquirer, San Francisco Chronicle and even, yes, for the Daily Sport.
Writing for free on a green website in Scotland is going to give me exposure?
Jeremy Corbyn opened Labour’s meeting today by accidentally re-reading a speech he made just last month for a full 25-minutes.
The 66-year-old leader failed to notice his mistake as he repeated his state of the party address in its entirety.
Opposition representatives from the Blairite wing were sent text messages during the speech warning them not to interrupt the veteran leader, who remained completely unaware that he’s spoken the same words a month earlier.
Robert Mugabe’s recent major appearance as Zimbabwe’s President and party leader descended into shambles when he failed to use pre-briefed lines attacking Margaret Thatcher in his speech to the assemlbled rabble.
According to pre-briefed comments, Mr Mugabe was planning to invoke the memory of Margaret Thatcher by declaring that the Conservatives view Zimbabweans as “the enemy within” – the expression used by Lady Thatcher to describe them in the 1980s.
Lady Thatcher is a hate figure for many Zimbabwean activists who blame her for the decline of British colonialism in the 1980s and the imposition of Mugabe upon that country.
The model for a leftwing resurgence? Evangelical Christianity
Corbyn’s survival requires a sustained grassroots movement. I share none of its core beliefs, but evangelism shows me how this might best be done
So, don’t let inconvenient information reach the faithful, insist upon blind obedience to the dictates of the beard in the sky and above all, don’t let anyone question anything.
Should work, worked for millennia already, hasn’t it?