Tim Worstall - It is all obvious or trivial except...

Help independent voices?

December 11, 2024December 11, 2024
TW Blog
Uncategorized

Please consider the number of times you’ve read Tim Worstall this past year and whether you could spare a few pounds to support this work. If everyone contribute, our funding goals could be met in hours.

The environment for free expression and accessible dialogue, once envisioned for news and blogging platforms, faces growing challenges. In the UK, statistics highlight the tension: over 3,300 individuals were arrested between 2016 and 2021 under laws governing offensive online communication. For example, hate crimes and other online offenses are increasingly scrutinized, with monitoring technologies identifying content that breaches legal boundaries.

Writing, rooted in rigorous analysis and wit, represents a bastion of informed, independent thought. However, only a small fraction of readers contribute financially. If you’ve gained £2 worth of insight from his articles, please consider donating today. Any amount—£2, £10, or £25—sustains the creation of content you value.

Together, we can support independent voices while navigating the challenges posed by evolving regulations and digital policies.

Contribute Here

Wah, wah

I would have happily signed that letter.

But they didn’t ask you, did they? On the grounds that they wanted to be taken seriously no doubt….

Now here’s chutzpah

Rachel Reeves has been accused of shortchanging the UK’s devolved nations after leaving the Welsh, Scottish and northern Irish governments with multimillion-pound funding gaps.

The chancellor said the Treasury would fully cover the 1.2% rise in national insurance contributions for employers on salaries above £5,000, which came in on 6 April.

However, Reeves has calculated the amount of money needed by using the Barnett formula, which ensures funding increases proportional to England in terms of population.

Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast – which all operate larger public sectors than England – now say they have been left in the red.

Because they spray more money up against the wall and the English give them more money to spray up against the wall therefore they require more more money from the English to spray up against the wall.

The parricide complaining of being an orphan.

What fun, what fun

When hundreds of 999 calls came in from fans at the Download festival two years ago, the emergency services must have thought a disaster was unfolding at the three-day heavy metal gig in Leicestershire.

In fact, the calls were made automatically from smartwatches and other devices worn by fans because “the tech assumed that people in moshpits had been in a collision”, according to Leicestershire police.

Now the force is appealing to those attending the festival this weekend to turn their devices to airplane mode or disable emergency alerts to avoid unnecessary 999 calls.

Snigger.

But it does show the limits of a planned economy, doesn’t it? Who would have, could have, did, predict such a thing? Therefore there are effects of a thing which are not predictable. Some level of interactions which planning cannot deal with.

Thus a fully planned economy is not possible, is it? Which brings us back to where we alkl really are, which is well, how much should be planned and how much market? That my answer is, in order, “less and more” is fine etc, but it’s not something disproved by someone saying “more and less”. We’re all arguing over the where, not the whether….

Well, quite

The fiscal watchdog assumed that 12pc of non-doms without trusts and 25pc with trusts would go. However, the OBR warned that predicting behavioural responses was difficult.

“How many?” is the important question about an awful lot of economic ideas. We can theorise about who will do what as a result of this or that change. But we only actually find out when we see how many do, in fact, do that.

This is the very base of that Laffer Curve of course. The substitution effects says some will, at some tax rate, say bugger it I’m off fishing. And the income effect means some will work more at a higher tax rate in order to make their nut before they go off fishing. The overall effect on tax collection of a higher rate is the combination of how many do each.

Empirically – counting the actual numbers – we tend to find that the reaction of the lower paid, especially pieceworkers, is domainated by the income effect. That of the richer by substitution. Which is, of course, darkly amusing. For it means that at proper high tax rates we end up shifting the tax burden from the highly paid to the lower. Because that’s how the reactions to the higher taxes change behaviour.

Most socialist and equitable, eh?

Someone’s seriously proposing this?

Civil servants will be given “dangerous” powers to access the public’s bank accounts under Government plans branded a “snoopers’ charter”.

Privacy campaigners and peers have raised concerns about the legislation, which would give mid-ranking officials powers that are usually reserved for police investigators.

The new fraud Bill will allow civil servants to ask banks to provide personal information about a person’s account without a court order, and extract funds if they “reasonably believe” that money is owed to the taxpayer.

The crayon eaters can just take money from your bank account whenever?

Tower Hill for whoever thought that one up then. And their horse.

Well, yes, this is complete nonsense, that’s true

How do we make decisions in the real world? It’s an important question because economic theory says, in essence, that we don’t really need to make decisions at all, because according to the assumptions of both neoclassical and neoliberal economics, we have perfect knowledge. In other words, we know everything now, and in the future, and as a consequence, why would we need to make a decision, because the world is optimal?

Now, obviously, this is complete nonsense. There’s no beating around the bush here. The whole of economic theory is based upon this stupid assumption, and most of the papers that are published in most of the serious economic journals in the world do in some way relate back to this absurd claim.

Given that economics doesn;t make the assumption of perfect knowledge Spud’s wholly correct that this is complete nonsense. Even if not in quite the manner that Spud thinks.

Sigh.

So this isn’t a minor issue. It’s a fundamental problem within the vast range of economic theory that is produced every year by our universities, but which informs the decision-making of people like the UK Treasury and the Bank of England. They assume that we have this perfect knowledge and that there is no difference between risk and uncertainty, but in the real world there is.

The real world is uncertain. In other words, we do not know what is going to happen. We cannot appraise all the possibilities. We can’t attribute probabilities to their outcomes. We simply live in a fog. There’s nothing wrong with that. That doesn’t imply that we are somehow inferior beings. It just means that reality isn’t the same as the economic models that are used by economists to make predictions, which are wholly unrelated to reality.

There are entire libraries full of economists making the distinction between risk and uncertainty.

Well, yes, this is a problem

It could discuss why economics education is so bad that we think that things that aren’t real are significant, when things that are decidedly real are not.

True, true.

What is more, Rachael Reeves does not need to borrow if her books supposedly do not balance. She could just leave a deficit outstanding on the account that exists, all the time, between the government and the Bank of England.

True, true. That’s the monetisation of fiscal policy. Or, if you want to use the MMT lens, printing money to spend it. If you use that MMT lens then you also agree that this can be done but only to the point where inflation starts to appear. At that point you should tax back that newly created money.

We’ve got inflation right now. Therefore we do need to tax back that newly created money.

If only we had decent economic education in this country.

Err, no

“Looking around the world, we see one really big change which coincides with the fall in fertility,” Evans says. Over the past 15 years or so, smartphones have become ubiquitous, and we have seen the rise of an astonishing array of online entertainment — from online sports gambling to pornography to television streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu.”

Jeez.

Aw, Gawd

People writing about class in England without understanding class in England:

The idea that the gentry is a fallen group is perhaps based on an optimistic misconception about what you have to do to remain rich in modern capitalist societies. In fact, you can live off existing wealth. But it’s more than that. If we were to look at the richest 1% through time, we might see families dipping in and out of the group: a wealthy CEO passes money to their children, who remain in the top echelon; but their grandchildren perhaps then fall out of it. Among the aristocracy, though, family lines have managed to sustain themselves in the 1% over many generations. Why? After all, the titled few have just as much, or as little, control over how their children turn out as other wealthy people. Why is it that aristocratic wealth persists and other types often burn out?

Bond and Morton have two possible answers, both of which concern cultural traditions. One is that members of this group are particularly concerned with their dynastic reputation, which prompts them to keep assets together rather than split them between multiple inheritors. The other is that they have a long history of managing money. We think of this group as being out of touch and out of time. “In fact, they are canny wealth managers,” says Morton. “The image of the bumbling aristocrat is false.”

It’s because the aristos marry money.

Alan Sugar is indeed a peer but he’s not an aristo. His grandchildren probably will marry into the aristocracy – or at least the county gentry. Because that’s what the aristos do – marry into money in order to get that roof replaced.

How anyone could observe British class and not note the influx of American brides in the Victorian era is just an absurdity. The bird got the title, Daddy who makde the money got a grandson who would be a Marquis and the roof got repaired.

The aristos haven’t “maintained” their fortunes. They’ve married money without class over the generations. Each side selling what they’ve got.

Sheesh.

Don’t bother to read this then

Helen Lewis devotes her angry, witty book to a narrowly polemical account of the notion and its myth-making boosters. For her, genius is “a rightwing concept”, offensive “because it champions the individual over the collective”.

Because that individual difference is rather the point of the definition of genius. So we’ve an entire book wholly missing the point.

Grooming gangs

OK, so they’re going to have a national inquiry now. But the important thing is the terms of the inquiry. And, obviously, the vigour with which it is pursued. You could, if you actually went at it, have something done by Christmas. They won’t, of course.

But what is the initial question being asked? What powers of evidence? And, of course, how formidable the person running it?

The ‘Progress (Pride) flag is a money-making venture

The ‘Progress’ Pride Flag, was designed by Daniel Quasar in 2018. It is not free and in the public domain, but is copyrighted, and its designer makes money from its use.

Daniel Quasar registered the copyright to the design, which modifies the traditional rainbow Pride flag by adding a chevron with colors representing marginalized communities (transgender people and coloured people) as well as those living with or lost to HIV/AIDS.

Quasar licenses the design for commercial uses, so that businesses and organizations that want to reproduce or sell items featuring the Progress flag must typically pay licensing fees.

Quasar has used platforms like Patreon and crowdfunding to support the flag’s dissemination and maintain some control over how it is used. He also earns income through direct sales of official merchandise and licensing arrangements.

Individuals or organizations using the flag non-commercially, such as flying it at events, displaying it on parades or protest marches, are not usually required to pay, although in theory they might.

Critics of the flag say that it should be free to use. They point out that there already is a ‘T’ at the end of LGBT, so trans people are already included in the (uncopyrighted) rainbow flag. They also point out that the flag’s complexity makes it ugly. The rainbow flag has simple clean lines for the bright colours that embrace everything, whereas the ‘Progress’ flag is a mish-mash.

The rainbow flag was widely accepted as a positive symbol of inclusion, but the
‘Progress’ flag has been introduced as a money-making competitor.

Rainbow Capitalism.

Fuckwit is as fuckwit thinks

Firstly, let’s be clear that US intelligence sources said in March this year that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program that threatened Israel. Mishal Hussein referred to this on Bloomberg yesterday, when interviewing Keir Starmer, and I am sure that her sources were impeccable. There is not, in other words, any self-defence justification for Israel undertaking these attacks. Iran’s nuclear installations are not, according to the best US intelligence, a threat to it. As a consequence, anyone relying on this defence, as are the governments of the USA, the UK, France and Germany, is spreading misinformation, and in a situation like this, where lives are most definitely at risk, that is not forgivable.

1) The Iranian Mullahs have been really quite clear in their insistence that Israel should not exist.

2) There is no reason to enrich uranium beyond 20% other than for a bomb. Yes, Iran has the absolute right – it’s a signatory to hte Non-Proliferation Treaty which says this – to develop its own nuclear power system. Indeed, other countries that have nuclear power are bound by the same treaty to make the technology available. But, in the same treaty, there’s the promise not to develop a bomb. This is this international law that’s so all the rage these days. As I say, enriching beyond 20% is not justified by building reactors – it’s only a precursor to building a bomb. Iran is entiching beyond 20%. QED.

And, yes, sovereign states are supposed to hold themselves to international law, aren’t they.

Spud wouldn’t be out of his depth, oh no

The overarching theme of the whole article was, in fact, that Keir Starmer really does not know why he is Prime Minister, or what motivates him, or what he wants to achieve. He is just where he is, doing what he thought he might do next to make his CV look good, and finding, to his apparent surprise, that for the first time in his life, he is both out of his depth and that his efforts are neither good enough nor appreciated.

The real question is, how did we end up with a man so unsure of himself, so bland, and so lacking in conviction as the prime minister of this country?

Most particularly, how can someone who does not have a passion for politics above all else end up in that position?

Like it or not, I appreciate that after a week away, when I spent a lot of time thinking about politics and how I might best communicate my ideas around the subject, I am possessed of that passion, and yet Keir Starmer is not.

I do not find my own passion troubling. It is who I am.

That said, in the same way, it is apparent that Keir Starmer is not a person meant to be prime minister. He has not got the passion, conviction or understanding that the post demands. We are paying a high price for that.

The Sage of Ely would have it all sorted in a trice.

Bollocks, Honey, whole, complete, bollocks

The housing secretary admitted she had once had significant doubts about the government’s ability to hit its 1.5m homes by the end of the parliament – which she still described as a “stretch target”. It is a pledge that industry experts have suggested cannot be met.

She said: “We know the only time that Britain has built at that sort of level is the post-second world war era and that was with massive amounts of social housing. At the beginning, when we inherited the £22bn black hole, we had meetings and I said: ‘let’s reassess this, are you sure we’re going to be able to do this?’”

The private sector, unadorned, did this in the 1930s. Before the nationalisation of planning under the TCPA, see?

Rewards for failure

SARAH ELIZABETH HEALEY CB CVO
At the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) she is responsible for overseeing growth in housing supply and quality, reform of the planning system, building safety, local government performance and organisation and for work to support communities and faith groups.

From the Birthday Honours List. Made a Dame.

The fight in The Guardian newsroom

Seven men who groomed vulnerable girls in Rochdale guilty of multiple sex offences
Jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts for 50 offences committed by the men between 2001 and 2006
…
Seven men who groomed two vulnerable teenage girls in Rochdale and treated them as “sex slaves” have been found guilty of multiple sex offences.

A long-running trial in Manchester heard that the men subjected the girls to years of misery and expected them to have sex with them “whenever and wherever they wanted”.

“The men” etc.

So satisfying those who would shriek of racism.

Three of the abusers, Mohammed Zahid, 64, Mushtaq Ahmed, 67, and Kasir Bashir, 50 – all born in Pakistan – were stallholders at Rochdale’s indoor market.

Zahid, a father of three who was known as Boss or Bossman, gave free underwear from his lingerie stall to both girls, as well as money, alcohol and food and in return expected them to have regular sex with him and his friends.

Zahid was jailed for five years in 2016 as part of an earlier grooming gang case. He was found guilty of sexual assault of a child after he engaged in sexual activity in 2006 with a 15-year-old girl who he met when she visited his stall to buy tights for school.

Bashir did not attend the 2025 trial and jurors were ordered not to speculate why. It can be revealed that he absconded while on bail before the trial began.

It can also be reported that co-defendants Mohammed Shahzad, 44, Naheem Akram, 48, and Nisar Hussain, 41, had their bail revoked and were remanded in custody in January before the jury was sworn in.

Police received intelligence that the three Rochdale-born taxi drivers were planning to leave the UK and had paid a deposit for their transport, the court heard.

All three denied the accusation but the judge Jonathan Seely said the court was not prepared to take the risk that they too would abscond.

A seventh defendant, Pakistani-born Roheez Khan, 39, was also convicted in a previous Rochdale grooming trial. In 2013 he was one of five men convicted of sexually exploiting a “profoundly vulnerable” 15-year-old girl in 2008 and 2009. He was jailed for six-and-a-half years for engaging in sexual activity with a child and witness intimidation.

They do get there though. Along with the picture caption:

Top row, left to right: Mohammed Zahid, Roheez Khan, Mohammed Shahzad, Kasir Bashir. Bottom row, left to right: Naheem Akram, Mushtaq Ahmed, Nisar Hussain. Composite: Greater Manchester police

No, this is better than it used to be. Back a decade the only clue you’d have as to who was The G publishing a list of the names of those convicted.

Ooooh, no, not really

British investors are facing a $7bn (£5bn) tax blow from Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill”, analysts have warned.

The UK Government alone could have to pay $400m a year as part of the “revenge” tax outlined in the Republican tax and spending bill that has recently been passed by the House of Representatives.

Mr Trump’s bill is set to charge a retaliatory tax on some foreign investments made by entities from countries that the US deems to have “unfair” tax systems – which includes the UK.

The tax, known as Section 899, would levy a 5pc rate on gains made by UK investors – a rate that will increase by five percentage points each year up to a maximum rate of 20pc.

Crucially, analysts have warned the wording of the policy documents open the door to taxing interest earned on holdings of US Treasuries, which are usually tax-exempt.

Aha, no. Treasuries are not tax exempt. Municipals are, not Treasuries.

Foreigners don’t pay US taxes upon interest received, that’s true (ie, nonresident aliens). But that’s true of all bonds, not just Treasuries.

So, you know, not really.

That The Donald is threatening to tax this is true, but it’s not quite as decsribed all the same.

Again?

Prostate cancer screening must be rolled out nationally, Rishi Sunak has urged.

Haven’t we all been through this before? And it was found that as 50% of men will die with it and only 8% (or whatever) of it then and therefore screeing up to about 70 seems sensible, after that why worry everyone?

Now, that might be mixing in a bit of the American experience. But population health isn’t all that different.

Umm, yes

The Government has spent nearly £30 million on fringe research projects such as exploring gay porn after the Second World War and recording Syrian harvesting songs.

An investigation by The Telegraph has found evidence that dozens of overseas projects have been given eye-watering funding by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) since 2022, despite having no obvious benefit to British taxpayers.

A credit for Charlotte Gill might be appropriate there, no?

1
2
3
…
2,159
Next »