Introducing a new unit for political and economic calculation: The Observer

The Sunday Guardian has picked up on the mech engineer\’s report about food waste. They\’re using the wrong numbers, of course. However, they do give us a very useful indeed number, a unit, one that can be used in all sorts of political and economic calculations.

Britain – and much of the rich world – has got used to filling the fridge with what looks nice, not what it actually needs. The cost of that indulgence is, says the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, £10bn annually.

OK. £10 billion is around 0.6% of GDP.

An alternative to voluntary change is to tax the food industry in just proportion to the damage it causes.

So, there we go then. Something that causes losses of 0.6% of GDP is a problem large enough that Something Must Be Done. Taxation, or regulation, or hang the bastards, something, this is a large enough problem that we have now triggered the need for action.

Which is just fine by me.

The EU wastes more than £10 billion of our money: Off with its head!

The NHS most certainly has waste of 7 or 8% of its budget: we must therefore reform it.

The collection of corporation tax costs the entire economy more than £10 billion a year. Abolish it.

The bureaucracy costs more than £10 billion: that intestines as jugular ligatures solution looks reasonable.

I think we should thank the newspaper for giving us such an obviously useful method of judging which problems are important enough that we ought to do something about them. If £10 billion is the benchmark then let us measure everything by that £10 billion number. The things that cost more than that we must reform.

Bonzer really.

There\’s also this proof that the leader writers at The Observer are in fact just ignorant cunts:

Here we come to the uncomfortable core of the problem. Price is the key factor in our behaviour with food and food may, simply, be too cheap. Certainly, in Britain it is cheaper than at any time in history: we spend less than 10% of household income on food and drink. In 1950, we spent around 25%. In the developing world, 50% or more of income is spent on food. Tellingly, Britain spends less than any other country in Europe.

Facepalm.

This is known as \”a good thing\”.

We\’ve managed to solve the age old human problem: what to have for lunch. We\’re richer than most of current humanity and all of past: we only spend 10% of our collective production on feeding ourselves. What sort of moron decries our having solved Adam and Eve\’s problem, of having to labour in the fields all our lives?

Thinking about it probably the same people who decry that other great modernism, the abolition of pain in childbirth.

Ignorant, ignorant, fools.

8 thoughts on “Introducing a new unit for political and economic calculation: The Observer”

  1. I really don’t know how these people get a voice.

    Rich people who complained years ago that we had to have euthanasia to ensure there would be enough to eat. Yes, you, Baron P.

    Now that there’s easily enough to eat – it wouldn’t be cheap if there wasn’t – this, too, is a bad thing.

    The peasants are throwing away the potato peelings and this offends the new puritans.

    Which, if you treat these statements as a literary simultaneous equation, mean that they really just want to control the peasants. Or kill them.

    Like I said, feudalism disguised as socialism.

  2. Once again, the Left calls for making poor people poorer by artificially raising the price of food. They have already raised it through their moronic insistence on biofuels, though they now dishonestly claim they never supported them.

    Anyway, back to the main point – they want to make poor people poorer. This is a consistent message from them. It needs to be hammered home.

  3. I had this very same conversation with an acquaintance yesterday.

    His (typically middle class view) was that poor people should eat what he does: £3 artisan loaves, handmade cheeses, Italian parma ham etc. instead of supermarket bread, cheese and ham. And if they can’t afford the good stuff, then they should simply eat less of it.

    He genuinely could not be made to understand that people would find that problematic or offensive.

  4. Suck record- same with a colleague of mine. She just can’t understand that poor people have to be able to eat too.

  5. We can’t go back to the policies that got us here. We tried freedom; it didn’t work. We let people pick for themselves what they were going to eat, and how much of it they bought.

    I am going to form a committee to determine a way to control what people buy. Send your ideas to me at:

    [email protected]

  6. Someone somewhere has stated that the waste includes potato peelings, orange peel and the like. Is this really waste?

  7. If you brought back food rationing a la 1945 everybody would be lean and clear eyed.
    And there would be money left over to build the NHS etc – well it happened that way didn’t it!

  8. But hang on, don’t we keep hearing about how terribly expensive food is going to get which will lead to infants starving in the streets etc. etc. therefore we must immediately hand all our cash to Caroline Lucas?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *