Ken Livingstone and economics
Not really meeting here.
Apparently the way to increase the amount of housing available is to artificially reduce the price of it.
Umm, yeah.
Remploy on strike
Difficult one this isn\’t it?
Because of course the disabled (Oh Lord, better say differently abled, eh?) do indeed deserve our support. There but for an accident of genetics, mutation or foetal development go any one of us. Such outcomes which depend upon pure blind chance yes, it is right that we all club together, those of us who got the lucky tickets to aid those who didn\’t.
However:
On average, each Remploy worker is subsidised by the government by £25,000 a year.
Is this the best way to do it? £25k a year is a tad over median income. That\’s a pretty hefty subsidy to a job……a job which doesn\’t pay median income.
And one more thing. How much industrial power do people receiving such subsidies have? In which case, what\’s the point of the strike?
Rachel Johnson is entirely wrong here: wholly so
Many Englishmen reserve their deepest feelings for dumb beasts, says Rachel Johnson
We\’re all entirely willing to agree that some English women have intelligence.
Some.
Dear Lord, what scummy little bastards
Mr Lisitsin was approached by Alexander Shadrin and his company Eco3 Capital to provide funding for the deal. The Russian businessmen knew each other through their membership of the Russian Orthodox Church. Mr Lisitsin backed the scheme on the understanding he would provide £2m as equity to help buy the land for £12.3m.
Unbeknown to Mr Lisitsin, the three defendants – helped by their agent and co-defendant in the case, Alexander Shadrin – used his money to buy the land for £9.3m before immediately selling it on to Mr Lisitsin for the higher price.
This is, well, at risk of libel I\’ll simply quote:
Between them, Mr Balfour, Mr Maggs and Mr Shadrin, shared over £1.5m of the profit that resulted from the “turn”. Mr Mellor was paid a £500,000 consultancy fee. Not only did the presiding judge, Mrs Justice Rose, find the defendants were complicit in fraudulent misrepresentation, she also called into question the evidence they presented.
Mellor wasn\’t being sued.
But really, that is just total scumbag behaviour.
The most important part of the story though is this:
Speaking after the case Mr Lisitsin said he welcomed the decision.
He said: “I welcome the ethical and professional standard of the English judicial system. It is a reason to do business in this country.”
Another phrase for this is \”the rule of law\”. Whosoever you may be, however high and mighty, you really do face the same strictures as everyone else. And that, of course, is one of the things which is worth defending in our current society. Rather than, you know, replacing it with the spirit of the law as to be decided by whichever fuckwit manages to gain political power……
Isn\’t this Olympic thing going well?
Up to 5,500 immigration officials will strike next Thursday in a dispute about job cuts and pay, disrupting nearly 130,000 passengers as they arrive the day before the Olympic opening ceremony.
Yes, of course people have the right to withdraw their labour. They have both the legal and moral right to strike.
We also have the moral (and legal, there is no law against this) right to react to such blackmail as we see fit.
For it is obviously blackmail. The day of the strike has not been chosen at random, it is clearly and obviously an attempt to capitalise upon the Olympics.
My suggestion would be slightly difficult to organise as there\’s no obvious identifying mark of who is a border patrol officer who is striking in this blackmail attempt. But if it were possible to identify them I would argue that we should simply withdraw our labour from them.
No pints in a pub, no sarnies from a cafe, no workmen coming around to fix the house. No petrol from the garage, a refusal to allow them on public transport. Quite simply, they do indeed have the right to withdraw their labour from the market over our treatment of them. I stand by their right to do that as well. All I am suggesting is that we also have the right to withdraw our labour from them over their treatment of us.
They blackmail us, we blacklist them.
Ritchie doesn\’t even understand tax!
So, US corporations have lots of cash. Ritchie says:
As he shows, US non financial corporations have $4.8 trillion in cash – or about $16,000 for everyone in the US.
That’s why they don’t need tax breaks to invest – they already have all the cash they need. They just can’t find anything to do with it. So they’re trying to capture public revenues for private gain instyead because it is the oinpy waty they can think to make money right now.
I have a better idea. Let’s tax them and pout the money to use in the public sector where there is masses to be done. We can be selective – we just need to tax companies with excessive cash. But the impact on recovery and debt would be significant. And that’s why this is a good idea. Why should those without suffer because those with are hiding their cash behind corporate barricades?
Someone who does actually understand what Cay Johnston is talking about (that\’ll be me then) points out that actually, no, we want to lift the tax burden so that the cash gets distributed:
At which point the use of the carrot rather than the stick becomes the obvious move. Simply provide that, for one year only, any and all foreign profits can be brought onshore with no corporate income tax charge. Further, that any such profits brought onshore can be paid out as dividends without incurring a tax charge on the recipients.
Now, of course, we will not get all of that $5 trillion. Let’s imagine that only half of it comes back as US corporations really do need to have some money overseas to finance overseas operations. At which point we can see that there will be a $2.5 trillion stimulus in the US economy. Some 15% of GDP or so. And all of this without increasing the Federal budget deficit or the national debt by even one penny. A huge, massive (it’s near three times the size of Obama’s previous attempt at stimulus) boost to the domestic economy at pretty much no cost. All we’ve got to do is agree not to tax something that we’re not going to be able to tax anyway.
We’ll move some trillions of dollars from unproductive overseas accounts into the hands of individual investors here inside the US. They will then either spend or invest it. Sounds pretty stimulative to me and I really cannot see why anyone would oppose it. A 15% of GDP stimulus at zero cost: what’s not to like?
Less tax, not more, is the solution to this particular problem.
Worstall books elsewhere
Little Big Sis is doing it again. Freebie Kindle book at Amazon today.
I must remind her to try getting people to buy a book occasionally instead of always having one going for free. Mebbe.
In other news she says, fresh from being taken ill on holiday, that the A&E in Malaga is not a great place to spend a Friday night.
Further, it seems that the risk factors for a detached retina are, familial occurrence (Little Big Sis), green or blue eyes (green for me, blue for LBS), age (both of us), short sighted (both) and female (so I\’ve only four instead of five risk factors. Great).
Ho hum.
Extra EU exports rise: Intra fall
Companies have focused their efforts on fast-growing economies in Latin America and Asia, as they attempt to offset the effects of the downturn in the Eurozone, where demand for British-made goods is slowing.
Some 51pc of British exports in the three months to May went to countries outside the EU, marking a 13.2pc rise on the previous year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
By contrast, exports to countries within the EU fell by 7.2pc, with the eurozone\’s hardest hit countries seeing the biggest fall in demand.
Obviously this is just good economics: export to the people who have the money to pay for what you\’re producing.
But the real joy is twofold.
1) Those spouting the nursery book version of Keynesianism, that export cannot rise in and thus provide a fiscal boost in the current environment are wrong.
2) We can now shout even louder at the federasts who insist that 3 million jobs depend upon trade with the EU. It always was bollocks but now we can point to this as yet more evidence: if you\’re making something that others want to buy it is important to note that \”others\” is a plural, meaning that the EU is not the only possible or potential buyer.
#sodairy stupidity again
Lordy be but some people do grasp the wrong end of the stick, don\’t they?
Milk prices have been falling since the 1990s
No, milk prices have been falling since the Neolithic. The prices of all agricultural outputs have been falling since then: that\’s the 8,000 year story of civilisation. That we get ever more efficient at producing the food people need. This leads to our needing fewer people producing it, freeing up that human labour to go do other things like run the NHS, do ballet and become diversity advisers.
If 100% of the people were still peasant farmers we couldn\’t do any of that, could we?
But while prices for the consumer have gone down, the margin awarded to the supermarkets has gone steadily up,
No one \”awards\” fucking margin. Dear God, have these people never heard of this \”market economy\” thing?
“The big problem that we face is what I view as the absurd level of price-cutting by some retailers, particularly those in what is known as the middle ground,” he says. “One retailer is openly selling milk at 99p for four pints. The reality is that such a price is completely unsustainable.
“Such retailers need to understand that if they go on like that, there will be no milk. There is a limit to cost-cutting. Maybe some producers can cut their costs, but not to that level. It is completely impossible.”
Err, no. Simply not true. As it says in the piece itself:
Three dairy farmers go out of business every week, which means not only that livelihoods are destroyed but that buildings fall into ruin and green pastures are sold for development. And as the small producers disappear, the trend will be towards US-style “mega dairy farms”, where up to 8,000 cattle are kept indoors, as the only business models able to produce milk for such low prices.
See? It\’s fuck all to do with processors, supermarkets or the price of butter in China. It\’s that some farmers are more efficient than others. The inefficient ones are going out of business: that\’s what we want to happen. That\’s what makes the entire society richer: producing more output from fewer inputs.
What is it with minimum pricing?
How have we ended up with such a near criminally stupid public policy?
Scotch whisky producers are planning to protest to the European Commission over proposals to set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in the UK.
Leave the illegality aside for one moment: my understanding is that it is illegal and will end up being struck down. But as I say, leave that aside. The much more important question is how did we end up with such a goddam fucking stupid piece of public policy?
No, even if we accept the nonsense that is being spouted about alcohol consumption it\’s still a fucking stupid policy.
Binge drinking is falling, alcohol consumption is falling…..but we\’ll even leave those real world facts aside.
Assume the woo merchants are correct. Too much booze is being drunk because booze is too cheap. So, we wish to make booze more expensive. How are we to do this?
1) Raise the tax upon booze. This raises the price of booze. Job done. Interesting side effect, it increases tax revenue so that we can pay for nurses, bombs, duck ponds and other essentials of democratic government.
2) Impose minimum prices. This raise the price of booze. Job done. The extra cash fattens the profit margins of the booze manufacturers.
In what parody of a sensible universe do the political classes of an entire fucking nation choose option fucking two?
I\’m sorry but I really do not understand this. I just do not understand how all these arts and PPE graduates have regressed to the economic intelligence of a tapeworm. Can someone explain this to me? What is the justification for minimum prices over a booze duty rise?
What the fucking fuck is going on here?
Quite right too
David Cameron doesn’t “see a time” when the government’s austerity programme will end and is poised to extend public spending cuts until 2020.
1) They are spending our money, raised at gunpoint: of course we want them to continue to be frugal with doing so.
2) If the bad times continue then there won\’t be any money to be anything but frugal.
3) If boom times return then we need to do Keynesianism right this time around. A booming economy is exactly when you need to be taking the fiscal stimulus out: when you need to be running that mythical budget surplus.
A wondrous example of Ritchielogic
Two observations do, of course, follow. Yet again we see PWC marketing tax abuse. Second, we badly need a general anti-avoidance principle to stop this abuse.
Why do we need any more rules to stop such abuse? The laws we currently have just closed down this scheme anyway.
That the law is adequate to task is not an argument in favour of changing the law.
Ritchie insists that all companies must act illegally
In his list of what it would take to be a good company the Murphmeister tells us that:
12) Does not discriminate between employees on the basis of race, nationality, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability and similar such issues
Which is pretty odd really. For we\’ve a whole slew of laws which insists that a company musty, on pain of large fines and possibly even criminal sanctions, discriminate between people of different nationalities.
You know, this whole visa, work permit, right to residence and employment, stuff?
In fact, it\’s really very weird indeed. On the one side we\’ve Murphy insisting that everyone obey the unknowable spirit of the law on tax and on the other that everyone must ignore the letter of immigration law.
Or perhaps he\’s just very confused and doesn\’t bother to think through his prejudices before spouting them?
Err, no Tim, no
In order for somebody resident in Russia to open an account on the Isle of Man, they need to have an opening balance of 60,000 Pounds Sterling, which despite my status as cigar-puffing oilman, I do not have. The reason why they demand such a high opening balance for Russian residents (the normal requirement is 5,000 Pounds Sterling) is because of the risk of “money laundering”. And that is about as detailed an explanation as I could get.
What is interesting is that HSBC do not advertise this requirement anywhere, it is simply a decision which gets made at the application stage. Personally, I think the explanation is bollocks. Anyone wanting to launder money from Russia is probably not going to be doing so in small amounts, and I can’t see how a 60,000 GBP opening balance is going to do anything to discourage such activities. If anything, putting a maximum balance on the account would be more of a control on money laundering rather than a minimum balance.
They\’re not putting that minimum on so as to insist that only rich bastards who are going to money launder open and account.
They\’re doing it because the costs of doing the checking of who you are, of monitoring what you\’re laundering or not laundering (yes, even to the laughably inadequate levels that HSBC have been doing so), as so high that only someone who is putting £60k or more into an account makes any money for the bank.
What you\’re seeing here is the costs of the money laundering regulations.
Allow me to translate this publishing blurb for you
It has always been something I have wanted to do. Whenever I read classics from authors such as Charlotte Brontë, I was drawn to the underlying sexual tension between the characters. I would often think about the potential \”uncensored versions\” that the original authors were unable or unwilling to include. After all, a lot of these stories are, at the heart, romances. This was the seed of the idea that has led to the newly launched Clandestine Classics, risqué remakes of classics including Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice.
Readers will finally be able to read what the books could have been like if erotic romance had been acceptable in that day and age, redefining the boundaries and bringing the classics to a new generation of readers. We\’re keeping the works as close to the originals as possible. It\’s not our intention to rewrite them, but to add a deeper relationship and character development to them; to enhance rather than to distort. Our authors are co-authoring these books, adding the \”missing\” scenes for readers to enjoy.
\”We\’ve a few hacks around who can manage sex scenes. But none of them have a clue about plot of a story. So to make some quick cash we\’re sticking the sex scenes into other peoples\’ plots and stories.\”
Kaching! Trebles all round.
That the sexual tension rather vanishes when everyone is getting their rocks off seems to have slipped under the radar screen there.
No you can\’t have it all: Marissa Mayer edition
Bright, good looking, pregnant, new CEO of Yahoo. Marissa Mayer shows that you can have it all, eh?
Nope.
A decade on, it’s refreshing to learn that the Yahoo bosses don’t believe motherhood and executive office are incompatible. Mayer has already said, with geeky grit, “My maternity leave will be a few weeks long and I’ll work throughout it.”
Everything is always a series of trade offs. It is, I\’m afraid, simply impossible to have it all.
Proper sexism in the wild
The players of Japan\’s world-beating women\’s football team are furious after they were forced to fly in economy class to take part in the Olympic Games, while their distinctly average male counterparts flew business class to Europe.
Of course it\’s really us whitey Anglo Saxon capitalists that are the sexists, isn\’t it?
Who would have guessed it?
Tara, 40, says she is courting a European prince. “My love life is better than standard, good-looking princes, that’s all I’ll say, not this country’s though,” she purrs, enigmatically.
The former lover of, among others, Alexander Spencer-Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough’s nephew, says aspiring princesses would be well advised to look to mainland Europe. “In European countries, there are more princes than dentists.”
Tara Palmer Tomkinson poring over the Almanac De Gotha in search of a boyfriend? Say it isn\’t so!
Entries for those more likely to chase Eurotrash below please…..might be a short list I know.