Just been reading an article on the BBC website about how saying "no" to austerity is gaining ground in Europe. The comments really have to be seen to be believed, with most people blaming corruption, capitalism, "the market" and so on for the debt overhang. Once commenter rejoices that people are starting to tell their politicians to chose growth rather than choose austerity. Really? Do they think that politicians come into work and say "What shall it be then, growth or austerity? Shall we all earn more and consume more or shall we pay off debts and earn less? -- I know, let's choose austerity! -- OK then, austerity it is." The whole mindset on the left is completely infantile.
Politicians haven't "chosen" austerity at all, they've borrowed for absolutely as long as they've been able to, in order to finance consumption which they euphemistically rename "investment in people", and now that they can't borrow -- either at liveable rates of interest or, in some cases, at all -- the path of austerity is forced upon them. At this point, of course, leftists always decry the evil influence of "moneylenders" (i.e., investors, pension funds, etc.), saying that, of course the country could achieve growth "if only" the moneylenders would do what they are supposed to do and, well, just keep on lending us money. That way it becomes somebody else's fault if we can't do what we want to because we haven't got the money: in the case of the international markets, it's "moneylenders", in the case of the Eurozone, it's Germany. What a convenient excuse!
Let me try to paraphrase the arguments that are being made:
"Life on Earth is a bit grimy and hard work, so we've decided to decamp en masse and go to live in Heaven instead.
"The window's open, let's all jump out together and zoom off up to Heaven then.
"Oh noes! Something is wrong! We seem to be going down, not up!
"This is unfortunate and completely unforeseen. If we continue to go down, as we are now, at an ever increasing pace, innocent people could get hurt, and it will all be the fault of the force of gravity. It really would be so much more convenient if only we could float upwards instead, but this cursed force of gravity won't let us."
Combine this with the natural tendency on the left to see agency where there is only the working out of cause and effect, and you have the essence of the "international financiers won't let us be free" theory so ably displayed by Occupy Wall St. and its clones.
Wednesday 25 April 2012
Tuesday 17 April 2012
Spain, Argentina, Repsol and YPF
I wonder if now would be a good time to talk to the Spanish about recognising Britain's claim to the Falklands?
Sunday 15 April 2012
Another poor article on Spiked
Spiked is a bit of a curate's egg, supposedly sourcing articles from all over the spectrum, and publishing them without fear or favour and so on. In reality, the articles vary from hard-left and unaware that any other viewpoint exists, to a soggy just-right-of-centre semi-dryness, and the quality varies from fairly interesting to quite dull.
Too much is poor. To wit, Who benefits from housing handouts? by one Neil Davenport. Where to begin? Well a summary, I suppose: private landlords have always wanted to charge "whatever they liked for a shoddy room or flat", rent control stopped them [cheers], Thatcher's right-to-buy scheme destroyed the unity of the proletariat by taking them out of their poverty and allowing them to start accumulating capital [boos], and, most fantastically of all "with a monopoly on living space ... landlords have been able to massively increase rent prices over the past 20 years".
Say what? The average house price in the UK in Q3 1992 (a little late to represent the introduction of right-to-buy, but never mind) was some fifty-four thousand pounds (source: Nationwide). The average house price in the UK in Q3 2011 was some one hundred and sixty-six thousand pounds, over three times as much. I've left the numbers unadjusted for inflation in both cases, since presumably that was part of Mr Davenport's point; at least, he doesn't mention if he's adjusted "massively increase" for inflation. Even so, even if you use inflation adjusted house prices, prices now are still twice what they were in 1992. A fairer comparison also might be with 2011 and 1980, say, when house prices were a mere twenty three thousand pounds, so that house prices in nominal terms have actually gone up a "massive" seven and a bit times.
The point of that is that, in this country at least, private landlords must take their costs, the costs of their housing stock, from the market. Which, also in this country at least, they do not dominate. House prices here are dominated by the owner-occupier market, and the price of investment residential property tags along in lock-step since it is, in all respects, exactly the same stock, at least as far as private landlords are concerned. It would be much more informative if Mr Davenport were to look at the return on capital in the residential rental market over the period 1990 (say) to 2011; but that, alas, he does not do — probably because those numbers are hard to get and, in any case, irrelevant to having a good old, if terminally unenlightening, bash at the capitalists.
Too much is poor. To wit, Who benefits from housing handouts? by one Neil Davenport. Where to begin? Well a summary, I suppose: private landlords have always wanted to charge "whatever they liked for a shoddy room or flat", rent control stopped them [cheers], Thatcher's right-to-buy scheme destroyed the unity of the proletariat by taking them out of their poverty and allowing them to start accumulating capital [boos], and, most fantastically of all "with a monopoly on living space ... landlords have been able to massively increase rent prices over the past 20 years".
Say what? The average house price in the UK in Q3 1992 (a little late to represent the introduction of right-to-buy, but never mind) was some fifty-four thousand pounds (source: Nationwide). The average house price in the UK in Q3 2011 was some one hundred and sixty-six thousand pounds, over three times as much. I've left the numbers unadjusted for inflation in both cases, since presumably that was part of Mr Davenport's point; at least, he doesn't mention if he's adjusted "massively increase" for inflation. Even so, even if you use inflation adjusted house prices, prices now are still twice what they were in 1992. A fairer comparison also might be with 2011 and 1980, say, when house prices were a mere twenty three thousand pounds, so that house prices in nominal terms have actually gone up a "massive" seven and a bit times.
The point of that is that, in this country at least, private landlords must take their costs, the costs of their housing stock, from the market. Which, also in this country at least, they do not dominate. House prices here are dominated by the owner-occupier market, and the price of investment residential property tags along in lock-step since it is, in all respects, exactly the same stock, at least as far as private landlords are concerned. It would be much more informative if Mr Davenport were to look at the return on capital in the residential rental market over the period 1990 (say) to 2011; but that, alas, he does not do — probably because those numbers are hard to get and, in any case, irrelevant to having a good old, if terminally unenlightening, bash at the capitalists.
Saturday 7 April 2012
Antal Fekete on the Gold Standard
A most interesting article, giving me lots to chew over.
I hadn't heard of the Real Bills theory of money before, and Prof. Fekete seems to make a most convincing argument for it. Sadly, I had found the Quantity Theory of money entirely sufficient for my own musings, and even though I'm now assured of the rightness of the Real Bills theory, I'm not exactly sure where the Quantity Theory goes wrong [ :-) ]. It looks like there's going to be a need to read and re-read on my part.
Being a cautious chap, I immediately looked up both Antal Fekete and the Real Bills theory of money on Wikipedia, only to find an enormous number of other articles that I will now have to read as well: how annoying (but, actually, pleasing).
I hadn't heard of the Real Bills theory of money before, and Prof. Fekete seems to make a most convincing argument for it. Sadly, I had found the Quantity Theory of money entirely sufficient for my own musings, and even though I'm now assured of the rightness of the Real Bills theory, I'm not exactly sure where the Quantity Theory goes wrong [ :-) ]. It looks like there's going to be a need to read and re-read on my part.
Being a cautious chap, I immediately looked up both Antal Fekete and the Real Bills theory of money on Wikipedia, only to find an enormous number of other articles that I will now have to read as well: how annoying (but, actually, pleasing).
Monday 2 April 2012
Make your own vegetable stock
A nice little post on making vegetable stock from scraps over at The Garden of Eating. Basically: avoid brassicas, as they tend to make the stock bitter, avoid anything that's going rotten or mouldy (obviously), anything wilted is OK, highly-coloured vegetables may colour the stock (beetroot will make it red, onion skins will make it brown).
Since I associate brown coloured stock with something more flavoursome than clear, rightly or wrongly, I'll probably try adding onion skins; however if anything is going to be mouldy it's an onion skin, so minute inspection will be in order there!
Since I associate brown coloured stock with something more flavoursome than clear, rightly or wrongly, I'll probably try adding onion skins; however if anything is going to be mouldy it's an onion skin, so minute inspection will be in order there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)