Curious Snippets from a Cynical Optimist

Gordon Where's Yoor Troosers?

2009-01-21T02:27:00.000-08:00

Gordon Brown is to order Labour MPs to back a controversial plan to exempt details of MPs' expenses from the Freedom of Information Act.

The prime minister will impose a three-line whip on the vote, raising the prospect of a backbench rebellion.

You have to hand it to him. History will show Brown as a man who was not afraid to make decisions which were electorally unpopular. In fact, so unafraid is he, he has not yet made a single popular decision in his whole 18 month premiership!

Parliament, Expenses & Pay

2008-01-13T10:48:00.000-08:00

Apologies for my relative silence over recent days. A combination of being busy and suffering blogging fatigue from a dearth of good stories put my posting on hold.

Anyway, to the furore on MPs pay I thought I would offload my own thoughts. Apparently MPs might have their pay aligned with senior judges at over £100k pa. But a large portion of the public think MPs are paid too much already. So what do I think?...

1) MPs have to be paid. To have a situation whereby they vote on their own pay is silly on one hand as it places them in a tricky situation, but on the other it shows constituents their MPs true colours. In this sense it may be self limiting and restrain pay more than handing it to an independent body.

2) I personally don't feel one way or another over their level of pay. £60k is above the national average but not 'money for old rope' territory. MPs do tend to work for their money. It is generous but hardly sticking two fingers up at us minions.

So what would I do? Increase their pay to something higher, by all means, but cut their expenses commensurately so their is no net increase in cost to the taxpayer...

1) Cut their "additional costs allowance" that enable MPs to claim expenses for running a second home, and which leaves them free to keep the capital gain on this home. Either the second home should remain in public ownership to be sold when the MP retires/loses seat (or made available for another MP), OR MPs should be made to finance the entire cost out of their salary.

2) Pay mileage allowance at cost, not 57.7p

3) Capitalise their pensions and in future run a money purchase scheme, paying in to a private fund, and not leaving the taxpayer with a liability for those they have sacked. There should be no automatic final salary pension.

4) Scrap the "resettlement grant" for MPs who lose their seat which equates to 50-100% of salary. MPs should take out private 'unemployment' insurance if they so wish.

5) MPs should also have to produce receipts for all expenses as common practice in the private sector. They might also consider having to personally bear the cost of items below £50.

As for other expenses with regard to running an office etc, this is entirely reasonable. But as Milton Friedman said, there are 4 ways to spend money. Making MPs bear more costs personally will encourage them to minimise their costs as it will come out their own pocket. Providing their salaries are increased less then the cut in expenses then I have no problem with us paying a higher basic salary. Thus ends the lesson according to Vindico.

What Brown Can Learn From Edmund Hillary

2008-01-11T14:02:00.000-08:00

Just fucking die already!!!

(Note I direct this at brown. Hillary was a top bloke, I don't wish him dead)

Blair The Banker

2008-01-10T01:23:00.000-08:00

What the fuck does the warmongering twerp know that could possibly help JP Morgan?..

Tony Blair has taken a part-time post with US investment bank JPMorgan.
Mr Blair, who stood down as UK prime minister in June last year, has been employed "in a senior advisory capacity", the bank said.
He said he looked forward to advising the bank on the "political and economic changes that globalisation brings".
It is not known how much JPMorgan will pay him, but some estimates say more than $1m (£500,000) a year. The bank said he had a "unique perspective".
It said Mr Blair would advise the firm's chief executive and senior management team, "drawing on his immense international experience to provide the firm with strategic advice and insight on global political issues and emerging trends".

His old contacts wont want to talk to him now he is an ex-PM. His only real friend in power is Bush, and he is about to leave office! Blair might have a grasp on the machinations of international politics, helped by his efforts to re-shape the world in his image when in Number 10, but beyond that he doesn't really have much clout.

Blair barely managed to grasp rudimentary economics, let alone understanding the complex workings of global financial instructions. All I can think is Morgan simply wants the prestige of an ex-PM. Blair could hardly join The Carlyle Group, having to sit alongside the bloke he ejected from office in 1997! No, JP Morgan is a much better fit. Perhaps they have extended Blair a credit line capable of supporting Cherie's spending habits?!

Silly Lilly, Houses & Tea

2008-01-08T04:50:00.000-08:00

Just a few stories to share with you...

Lilly Allen apparently thinks private schooling for her children is a waste of money and she would rather move to the catchment area of a good school. I am still trying to work out how she equates paying a premium on house prices in a good catchment area vs paying school fees, unless of course the two figures are substantially different!

Richard Hammond has made a mistake with his new house. Within 70 hours he decided the change in lifestyle would not suit his family. An expensive mistake, quoted at £40k. Well, that all depends on whether you think that people factor both stamp duty and agent/legal/removal fees into the price of a property accurately, in which case it is the seller who bears the costs!!

And, courtesy of a friend of mine, I discover the International Standardization Organisation has a standardized method for brewing tea. I kid you not, ISO 3103! Go take a look for yourself. Go on. Oh all right, here it is...

The pot must be white porcelain or glazed earthenware and have a partly serrated edge. It must have a lid that fits loosely inside the pot.
If a large pot is used, it must hold a maximum of 310 ml (±8 ml) and must weigh 200g (±10g).
If a small pot is used, it must hold a maximum of 150 ml (±4 ml) and must weigh 118g (±10g).
2 grams of tea (measured to ±2% accuracy) per 100ml boiling water is placed into the pot.
Freshly boiled water is poured into the pot to within 4-6mm of the brim.
The water must not be hard.
Brewing time is six minutes.
The brewed tea is then poured into a white porcelain or glazed earthenware bowl.
If a large bowl is used, it must have a capacity of 380ml and weigh 200g (±20g)
If a small bowl is used, it must have a capacity of 200ml and weigh 105g (±20g)
If the test involves milk, then it can be added before or after pouring the infused tea.
Milk added after the pouring of tea is best tasted when the liquid is between 65 - 80°C.
5ml of milk for the large bowl, or 2.5ml for the small bowl, is used.

Money, Gold, Slavery

2008-01-07T10:05:00.000-08:00

I recently watched this series of videos on money. Like a lot of people I knew money was not backed by gold any longer, I knew banks could lend out more than they had deposits, and I knew our fiat monetary system was given its value by law. But I didn't quite get the full picture of money as debt. The videos are well worth watching if you have the time (total running time about 47 mins)...

Part 1 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-fD78zyvI

Part 2 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hfXavRTM4Fg

Part 3 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_yvRZoM-2r8

Part 4 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f0p8LepIuVM

Part 5 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PzXZ_Hs1g6U

The underlying logic flowing from the fact that all money is debt, is that the only way out of the present credit crunch is for interest rates to fall, for people to borrow, and for the money supply to expand; somewhat counter-intuitively to the notion that banks will keep interest rates high, become more cautious over lending, and hike savings rates to attract deposits.

This all begs the question whether the emerging online 'currencies', commodity currencies, will begin to grow significantly as people grow wary of fiat money. Online gold exchanges such as BullionVault allow customers to transact with gold reserves held in international vaults. The advent of the internet, on-line shopping, and the recent growth in individual currency trading makes the spread of such currencies more possible than ever before.

Gold has always been universally seen as a relative safe haven; a commodity which cannot easily be inflated and will hold its value. With the current and rapidly growing global uncertainty, and even at Gold's historically high price, is now the time to buy gold, not necessarily as an investment but as a currency?

Wind Turbines Just Crap

2008-01-07T08:30:00.000-08:00

The Register has an interesting article confirming that windmills are about as useless as a "chocolate teapot"...

A study of domestic turbines was published by renewable energy consultants Encraft in December. According to the study, only one of the 15 household wind turbines generated enough to power a 75W light bulb. The average daily output was 393.3W: an average of 17W per hour.

In all, only three of the turbines generated over 400W of electricity, with one generating 1,790W per day.
Four of the turbines didn't even make it into three figures. By way of comparison, a washing machine consumes 4KW/hr (4,000W), and a fridge-freezer 1.9KW. [PDF,1MB]
The average turbine also operates at only 1.84 per cent of capacity.
The carbon-obsessed BBC has suggested that a domestic turbine may contribute about "a fifth" of a household's electricity needs - but the reality is this is only true if the household's only electricity need is a single crack-den-dim light bulb.
The numbers suggests that the turbines would take, at best, 15 years to pay for themselves.
However, it appears that the measured windspeed for many sites fell below the predicted figure. Turbulence in built-up areas makes for poor windflow. Or as SK Watson, of the Centre for Renewable Energy System Technology at Loughborough University, observes:
"Those areas with higher capacity factor are where urban areas tend not to be!"

The trial has suffered other problems. One turbine was stolen, another damaged, and a further one was beseiged by pro-bat protestors. Several needed their inverters replacing.

I think some of the enviro-fascists who think sticking windmills all over the country and such micro-generation systems will stave off the need for nuclear power need their inverters changing?

However, Encraft MD Matthew Rhodes, quoted in The Guardian found one "benefit" from the white elephants. Apparently, seven out of ten people who see a turbine say it reminds them to save energy.
The logic is, apparently, that when one sees one of these monuments to self-righteousness, one dashes back to turn the lights off.

Trust the Guardian to find a benefit where sane people see none!

But surely there must be cheaper ways of inducing feelings of guilt and low self-worth in the general population - such as availing oneself of the latest Radiohead album, perhaps?

ROFLMFAO!!!

EU Is A Socialist Hell-hole

2008-01-07T07:19:00.000-08:00

It's official. The EU is definitely a socialist hell-hole. Via Iain Dale I find this article from EU Observer. Apparently the EU wants to impose tariffs on imports from outside the EU based on their carbon footprint...

According to a draft commission proposal, firms from heavily polluting countries outside Europe would be obliged to buy EU carbon emission permits as part of the bloc's Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), Reuters reports

What the fucking fuck? So it's not even a tax on the specific product, but rather on all firms from countries with bad overall footprints! If ever we needed yet more proof that the EU is merely a socialist dystopia then this is it.

The tariffs are simply about protecting EU businesses. If they apply this to carbon then why not employment regulations or holiday entitlement, etc? The reason is because that would seem overtly protectionist, but by wrapping up trade restrictions in the fluffy and un-challengeable guise of enviro-mentalism they do a nice re-spray on the idea. Though I suspect it won't be long before talk of tariffs to protect the social model begins to circulate. And the big fucking joke is that the lone voice in opposition in Mandelson. Are my eyes fucking deceiving me!!!

Why should European consumers subsidise workers in European companies? If I want to buy a 'terravision' from China, then I will. I don't want some bearded clam sticking his fucking nose into my dealings. Why should I have to fork out more for a TV because some twat in sandals has choked on his organic yoghurt over the carbon emissions of Shandong province? That's the problem with climate change disciples, they just cant leave the rest of us alone. They want us all to live by candle light, drive a Prius, and knit our own food.

The idea, originally floated by Sarkozy, is just insane. Sarko needs a foot, nay metre, of barbed wire shoved up his urethra and vacillated until he fucking begs for forgiveness, bleeds himself in to a coma, and experiences excruciating agony with every piss. Then he needs his brain removing and destroyed like a dangerous dog, with his lifeless body stuffed and put on display for us all to see what a cunt looks like.

BBC Business Coverage?

2008-01-07T06:10:00.000-08:00

Found this gem...

BBC business reporter Declan Curry's role will expand beyond Breakfast to cover all of BBC News' on-air and online business reporting in daytime.
Curry will continue to report for Breakfast but will also report through the morning on News 24 and for BBC One's One O'Clock News...

...Peter Horrocks, head of the BBC's multimedia newsroom, added: "Declan is a hugely popular and respected business presenter. Extending his sharp and entertaining work across two BBC channels and the web will provide a valuable enhancement to our growing business audience."

Growing business audience? Fair enough, Declan does a good job in the mornings and basically reports the facts about the markets and news releases. But does the BBC really think they a growing business audience? The BBC business coverage is pitiful. When they do cover issues it is usually with a heavy anti-business, anti-capitalist, bias and with a poor grasp of underlying concepts. Sky news at least has Jeff Randall who provides a decent analysis of business news.

Because I'm Worth It

2008-01-07T02:16:00.000-08:00

Oh yes, baby! If I were to pop my clogs tomorrow, how much would by cold, lifeless, body be worth on the open market? Well, here's the answer...

$4740.00The Cadaver Calculator - Find out how much your body is worth.

Democracy USA Style

2008-01-06T04:52:00.000-08:00

One journalist at the Beeb has been having a go at democracy in the USA which allows a lose of the popular vote to become president. Laughably he uses Britain's parliamentary democracy as a utopian model of 'one person, one vote'!..

And I didn't say that the American people will elect their president, because collectively they do no such thing: for the popular ballot in each state is converted into a delegated franchise in an institution called the Electoral College, and it's the members of the college, whose numbers reflect the combined representation of each state in both houses of Congress, who actually vote for one or other of the candidates.
Because of the uneven distribution of the US population, this means a presidential contender can actually lose the popular vote across the whole nation, but can still win the Electoral College, as George Bush himself did in 2000, and as Benjamin Harrison did in 1888, and as Rutherford B Hayes had done 12 years before that...
...But it's certainly not a democracy in the sense that most of us would understand that term, when it comes to selecting - rather than electing - a president, and it was never intended that it should be

He assumes that democracy has to mean every vote is counted equally. In the UK a vote in a marginal constituency is worth more than one in a safe one. Further, the USA is federal, unlike the UK. The US system is still democratic, it is just that votes are filtered through a particular system and so marginal differences can lead to bizarre results. The same is true of every electoral system in the world, including the UK, where marginal swings can get lost in the first-past-the-post system but broad trends and swings are reflected crudely but fairly effectively.

What's more, us voters in the UK don't even get a chance to directly elect our prime minister, so which system is more democratic?

If our political parties opened up their leader selection process, and held open primaries around the country, it might help re-engage the public in the political process. If I had the opportunity to select the leader of the Conservative party or Labour party, it would certainly start to draw me back in. The system of open primaries is perhaps one of the reasons the US political system is dominated by just two parties and smaller parties find it hard to gain traction.

Hoo Bee This Huckabee?

2008-01-05T10:01:00.000-08:00

Seeing as he won the Iowa caucus for the Republican party, what are his policies?

Tax

Abolish Federal Income Tax
Introduce a 'Fair Tax', a consumption tax, with a rebate to all set at the poverty line
Pro globalisation and free trade, so long as it's fair (not sure what he means there!)

Healthcare

Move from employer-based to consumer based healthcare, putting people in control

Educations

Wants to see poorly performing teachers fired. Supports charter schools. Still likes state control and has strong views on what should be taught and how.

War on Terror

Believes in war on terror as an 'ideological war' of of the world. Is intent on 'winning'.

Other

Secure the borders, get tough in immigration
Supports 'right to life. Opposed to stem cell research.
Supports traditional marriage 'between one man and one woman'.
Big on energy independence, including through use of alternative energy.
Opposes gun control.

So in all it is not a bad policy list. Not as libertarian as I would like to see but certainly bold enough to move in the right direction. For us limey's over here in blighty it seems incredibly radical. Abolishing the income tax? That would ruffle a few feathers at cream teas down the women's institute!! The cries of 'but who is going to help the vulnerable' and 'burn the rich' can be heard reverberating around the towns and villages. The torch of liberty shines dim in this socialist hell hole we call Britain!

UPDATE:

Prize cunt de jour, Tim Watkins, spouts utter bollocks over at Comment is Free with regard to Huckabee's fair tax plans...

In any other western democracy, being a flat-taxer would put Huckabee at the outer limits of political sanity. The detail is complicated, but the concept is as simple as the name suggests: an end to a progressive income tax, an end to the consensus that those who can afford to contribute more to the good order and running of society should pay more than those struggling to get by. Outside of the former Soviet states, a flat tax system is a political non-starter for the simple reason that asking you, me and Bill Gates to pay the same tax rate on either our income or the goods and services we buy, would destabilise a country's economy, government spending and social cohesion.

Is this bloke fucking serious? 'destabilise the economy', what is this fucking moron drinking? No mention of the rebate that households will receive so that poor people will end up paying less tax. No, that would destroy his argument. But he does drop it in later on with an attempt to dismiss it as an impossibility by telling us it can never be implemented...

There are any number of practical reasons why a flat tax is a bad idea in practice. For one, switching to the Fair Tax - that is, an effective 30% tax rate on every purchase, with rebates paid in advance on purchases up to the poverty level - would mean repealing the 16th amendment of the US constitution, which empowers Congress to "collect taxes on incomes", but not consumption. Huckabee's as likely to get the constitution amended for tax reform as he is to walk on water. (Some commentators, such as Dean Baker in Comment is Free earlier this week, point out that in reality the rate could climb as high as 40%.) For another, government services would depend on people continually increasing their spending at a time in history when we need to learn to live sustainably and save more

Er...the constitution was amended to allow direct taxation, so why not indirect? And what kind of economically illiterate and intellectually retarded cunt thinks spending must increase to finance government spending? Firstly, the economy grows. Secondly, inflation only spending increases will not require more tax revenue. The fair tax is also not designed to replace all taxation, just direct, leaving ample room for manoeuvre.

Where does CiF find these amoeba-brain transplants patients? Why can't he just fuck off and live in a communist commune in a small part of the vast American country and leave the rest of us alone to get on with our lives?

India Calling

2008-01-04T14:59:00.000-08:00

For all of you who have had to endure Indian call centres, 'Hello, this is Mujibar and how may I be helping you today please', and felt the extensive head wobbling at the other end, Miracle Of Rare Device has this transcript of his short conversation with British Gas. He speaks for us all!

What?

2008-01-04T08:18:00.000-08:00

NO, NO, NO, Fucking NO! Am I going mad? [my emphasis]

Ministers are planning to give teachers and other third parties powers to protect children from being forced into marriage, according to reports.
The Times newspaper said on Friday that local authorities, women's rights groups and social workers were among the organisations which would be able to take legal action to prevent the marriages.
Under the measures, a third party would apply for a marriage protection order from the courts requiring those involved to stop the marriage.
It would be a criminal offence to breach the order, punishable by a jail sentence or a heavy fine.
A Ministry of Justice document leaked to the paper said: "An application made on a victim's behalf allows the victim to be one step removed from the court proceedings.
"Victims may feel unwilling or unable to take action against the perpetrators who may be members of their family."

Uh...so does the victim have to request help? Could this be used to prevent consensual marriage by an individual who doesn't like it? If the victim has to request assistance, then why not simply allow the victim to directly request a court order and give them anonymity, with the state or other organisations named above then taking up the case after it has been lodged? Surely this would prevent any abuses by ensuring the request has to be lodged by the victim.

As the article reads, it seems the state is adopting the right to interfere in an individual's private life, and then sub-contract that right to other organisations. It sounds very dangerous to me.

Iowa Starting Gun

2008-01-04T03:22:00.000-08:00

The results are in from the Iowa caucus with some interesting results...

The Democratic race has Obama penciled in as a clear leader, way out ahead of Billary (thank fuck!).

John Edwards seems to have come from behind to move into second place, pissing on Clinton's parade. As for poor Richardson trailing up the rear, I think we best not talk about it.

The Republican race is the one which interests me. Giullani is faring terribly in this first test with just 3.5%, while Ron Paul is showing an excellent and solid performance for an underdog with 10%.

Some interesting analysis over here suggests that the core republicans may be out of touch with the country as a whole! Amongst "Independent Republicans" Paul polled 29% vs McCain on 23%, Romney on 19% and Huckabee on just 17%, seemingly the reverse of the total polling figures. This would suggest that the Republican base has indeed dwindled, leaving a hardcore Christian-conservatives, while the libertarian Ron Paul resonates more with the wider electorate!

Opinions Are Like...

2008-01-04T03:08:00.000-08:00

Opinions are like arseholes - everybody has one, so he saying goes. So don't forget that you can join YouGov and take part in their surveys, and pocket a few pennies for doing so.

Since you are reading this blog you are clearly a highly respectable and intelligent person who's views deserve to be thrust forth onto the world! So come on, particularly you libertarians out there.

Smart Arse Kids

2008-01-03T13:08:00.000-08:00

Don't you just love them? The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid term. The answer was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues...

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So We need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.
The student received the only "A" given.

Picture This...

2008-01-03T04:18:00.000-08:00

Apparently taking a photograph is an act of terrorism...

TWO grandparents have been thrown out of a Hampshire shopping centre after being told they posed a terrorist threat because they had taken photographs of their grandchildren.
Ex-pats Kim and Trevor Sparshott were ejected from Fareham Shopping Centre while on a visit to relatives from their home in Spain.
A security guard swooped on the couple as they captured the moment they surprised their grandchildren by arriving at the centre unannounced.
The Sparshotts said they were told cameras are banned from the centre because of the terrorist threat. The official then ordered them to leave and told the couple they were banned for life from returning.
Shopping centre manager Pam Gillard said taking photographs without prior permission is banned because of the security risk, but added that the Sparshotts were welcome back to the centre anytime.

What security risk? It's a fucking camera. Has the shopping centre banned mobile camera-phones as well? I suspect they felt frisking each customer as they enter the shopping centre was a bot over the top. Cuntrags!

Do Not Criticise Islam

2008-01-03T04:08:00.000-08:00

Article here...

It didn’t attract much notice, but the General Assembly of the United Nations ended the year by passing a disgusting resolution protecting Islam from criticism of its human rights violations...

...The resolution goes under the innocuous title "Combating defamation of religions" – but the text singles out "Islam and Muslims in particular". It expresses "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism".

Er, surely the solution is information, not resolutions or legislation? But then we live in a fascist world now!

Boo, Capitalism, Boo!!

2008-01-03T03:48:00.000-08:00

Yet another painful brain-turd from Comment is Free. This time having a go at the biggest evil of all: capitalists. So let's have a look...

By far the most significant consequence of "selfish capitalism" (Thatch/Blatcherism) has been a startling increase in the incidence of mental illness in both children and adults since the 1970s. As I report in my book, The Selfish Capitalist - Origins of Affluenza, World Health Organisation and nationally representative studies in the United States, Britain and Australia, reveal that it almost doubled between the early 80s and the turn of the century. These increases are very unlikely to be due to greater preparedness to acknowledge distress - the psychobabbling therapy culture was already established.

Nice of him to get in a plug for his book, and also to quote his sources.

Add to this the astonishing fact that citizens of Selfish Capitalist, English-speaking nations (which tend to be one and the same) are twice as likely to suffer mental illness as those from mainland western Europe, which is largely Unselfish Capitalist in its political economy. An average 23% of Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians suffered in the last 12 months, but only 11.5% of Germans, Italians, French, Belgians, Spaniards and Dutch. The message could not be clearer. Selfish Capitalism, much more than genes, is extremely bad for your mental health. But why is it so toxic?

The WHO's mental health pages are here. UK basic stats here. Why is it that Sweden appears to have higher figures on just about every measure than the UK? France doesn't seem to be a picture of happiness and light either. I am not sure where his stats come from but the ones I can find don't seem to match up quite. But then that is the problem with statistics - you can measure the same thing in different ways, read into them pretty much anything you want, and prove anything you want.

Readers of this newspaper will need little reminding that Selfish Capitalism has massively increased the wealth of the wealthy, robbing the average earner to give to the rich. There was no "trickle-down effect" after all.

Give to the rich? I wasn't aware we handed large sums of money to high earners. Oh...he means tax cuts; taking less from the rich and allowing them to keep more of their hard earned money. Oliver also seems to forget the brain drain of the 60's and 70's and the present brain drain which is the "worst in the world", both caused by high-ability people with high earning potential leaving the country in search of higher paid jobs. Cutting taxes for these people has a similar affect, increasing their net income and encouraging them to stay. Thank fuck Thatcher did cut the tax rates for these people or we would be in a seriously terrible state as an economy. The poor would be even poorer, and no doubt this would still be blamed on greedy capitalist pigs!!! As it happens, the poor in Britain have some of the best living standards of poor people inthe world; there's a few billion people around the world who would be more then happy to swap places with the British "poor"!!

The real wage of the average English-speaking person has remained the same - or, in the case of the US, decreased - since the 1970s. By more than halving the taxes of the richest and transferring the burden to the general population, Margaret Thatcher reinstated the rich's capital wealth after three postwar decades in which they had steadily become poorer.

The solution is therefore to strip back government and cut taxes for middle-lower earners then isn't it? Oh no...illogical...does not compute...FUCK OFF!!!

Although I risk you glazing over at these statistics, it's worth remembering that the top 1% of British earners have doubled their share of the national income since 1982, from 6.5% to 13%, FTSE 100 chief executives now earning 133 times more than the average wage (against 20 times in 1980); and under Brown's chancellorship the richest 0.3% nobbled over half of all liquid assets (cash, instantly accessible income), increasing their share by 79% during the last five years.

And this is a problem why? So long as these people achieved their success by honest means then where is the issue? Is Oliver perhaps concerned because everybody is not equal? Tough shit, that's life. Aren't we lucky these people are in Britain generating wealth, and not in another country? If they were elsewhere we might look more equal as a society but we would be materially worse off. Who wins exactly?

In itself, this economic inequality does not cause mental illness. WHO studies show that some very inequitable developing nations, like Nigeria and China, also have the lowest prevalence of mental illness. Furthermore, inequity may be much greater in the English-speaking world today, but it is far less than it was at the end of the 19th century. While we have no way of knowing for sure, it is very possible that mental illness was nowhere near as widespread in, for instance, the US or Britain of that time.

Aha. So here we really get to the crux of it. He is saying that capitalism is to blame, and yet the unbridled free market of the 19th century was far less equal than today. Further, inequality cannot be blamed for the increase in mental health cases as it has remained pretty constant for over 3 decades as the table below shows...

What does the damage is the combination of inequality with the widespread relative materialism of Affluenza - placing a high value on money, possessions, appearances and fame when you already have enough income to meet your fundamental psychological needs. Survival materialism is healthy. If you need money for medicine or to buy a house, becoming very concerned about getting them does not make you mentally ill.

I contend that it has very little to do with capitalism at all. I am stressed, not because of the pressures of running my business, but because of the oppressive government that looms large above me. Regulation, taxes, erosion of freedoms, nannying, initiatives, programmes, taskforces, ASBOs, CCTV camera proliferation, politicians, incompetence etc, etc, etc. If government was so small as to be virtually imperceptible, I would be free to get on with my life and I would be a great deal happier and far more content than I am now. The state takes 40% of our incomes, and by similar measure thus invades into 40% of our lives, if not far more by the burdensome nature of regulations/licensing etc. Take this intrusion out of my life and I would be far more free.

But Selfish Capitalism stokes up relative materialism: unrealistic aspirations and the expectation that they can be fulfilled. It does so to stimulate consumerism in order to increase profits and promote short-term economic growth. Indeed, I maintain that high levels of mental illness are essential to Selfish Capitalism, because needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism.

I work about 60-100hrs each week. I have not had a holiday for almost 4 years. I scrape by at present while I divert every extra penny and ounce of energy into my business. Why do I do this? Yes, because I want to earn good money and live a nice life, but money is not what motivates me. I am motivated by achievement. My nightmare is to be a number - born, go to school, get a job, retire, die - and to leave no lasting impact on the world. I want to achieve, I want to prove myself, I want to carve my own path and have something to be proud about at the end of my life.

Money is a measure of achievement and a means to an end. Up to a point extra money improves your lifestyle, but there is only so much you can spend money on. Once you have yachts, cars, houses, islands etc what next. Beyond probably about £50m money becomes a tool. The game is investment. Making money for the sake of money is not actually about the money at all, it is about winning, it is about playing the game. The likes of Branson uses their vast wealth to have fun by playing the business game. It is the excitement and achievement which drives these people, not the money itself.

With overstimulated aspirations and expectations, the entrepreneurial fantasy society fosters the delusion that anyone can be Alan Sugar or Bill Gates, never mind that the actual likelihood of this occurring has diminished since the 1970s. A Briton turning 20 in 1978 was more likely than one doing so in 1990 to achieve upward mobility through education. Nonetheless, in the Big Brother/ It Could Be You society, great swaths of the population believe they can become rich and famous, and that it is highly desirable. This is most damaging of all - the ideology that material affluence is the key to fulfilment and open to anyone willing to work hard enough. If you don't succeed, there is only one person to blame - never mind that it couldn't be clearer that it's the system's fault, not yours.

Well, people who believe earning lots of money will improve their life are absolutely correct. If you are a normal person with income in the thousands, then a few hundred thousand or few million will undoubtedly improve your life. Your path to that money may not do anything to improve your quality of life, but that is no business of anyone else other than the individual concerned.

Depressed or anxious, you work ever harder. Or maybe you collapse and join the sickness benefit queue, leaving it to people shipped in to do the low-paid jobs that society has taught you are too demeaning - let alone the unpaid ones, like looking after children or elderly parents, which are beneath contempt in the Nouveau Labour liturgy.

I believe there are lots of people in jobs who are quite capable of getting better jobs but who don;t bother to actively look or improve their training through inertia. Once you have a job the easy thing to do is nothing, you turn up each day and get paid and it is easy. To go and search for a better job, or to take training courses, or whatever, takes effort. It is ultimately about self-motivation and priorities. When you have bills to pay, mouths to feed, and get stuck in a rut, it is hard to keep your motivation.

There is much tearing of hair across the media and advocacy of nose-pegging on these pages of the "grin and bear it" variety. In fact, there is an alternative. We desperately need - and before long, I predict we will get - a passionate, charismatic, probably female leader who advocates the Unselfish Capitalism of our neighbours. The pitch is simple. Not only would reduced consumerism and greater equality make us more ecologically sustainable, it would halve the prevalence of mental illness within a generation.

No doubt his ideal female leader is Polly Toynbee! And is suspect if such a hypothetical situation occurred, that mental health would not halve within a generation. I just hope we never get a chance to test my prediction.

Of course if that is the life Oliver, or anybody else, wishes to have they are free to do so. A free and libertarian society, even the authoritarian one we have currently, provides for such diversity. Oliver and his friends could follow the Jewish Kibbutz model and set up a commune right here in the UK. Wealth and responsibilities could be shared and they could exist in a micro-socialist bubble. In this way both libertarians and egalitarians, individualists and collectivists, could co-exist quite happily. Unfortunately people of Oliver's ilk are not happy about that, they are hell-bent on forcing the rest of us to follow their model.

CiF Equality Nonsense

2008-01-01T05:25:00.000-08:00

Comment is Free is once again proving that while comment is free, thought is apparently extremely expensive with this piece by Yvonne Roberts...

What price equality? It's apparently always too high for those who mistakenly believe they have the most to lose. One in four Norwegian businesses allegedly face the threat of closure because they have failed to ensure that 40% of directors are female - abiding by a law passed in 2003. Business heads have had five years to meet the quota - and a great deal of change has resulted.
In 2000, only 6% of directors were female. Now, they make up 37% of directors, just short of the target. Will companies who fail to meet the quota actually be closed? Unlikely, although they may face alternative punishments. Are quotas a good idea? Absolutely.

The fucking retarded cow. How can quotas be a good idea? Norwegian companies are now stuffed with token women just because they have vaginas and not because they are up to the job. How is that beneficial? The company loses from possible bad management, shareholders lose from bad company performance, employees lose form potential bad company performance, and capable business women lose by having their credibility and achievement stripped out from under their feet. Everybody will question whether a woman has got there by merit or because of quotas. It is the biggest fucking stupid brain-crap of a thought. Communist bitch!

In the UK, 96% of directors of boards are male. What does that reflect? Bad business sense; poor understanding of the market; anachronistic recruitment procedures and a pathetic fear of the unknown. And, of course, it demonstrates rampant inequality. (And don't spout all that stuff about this being a middle-class woman's thing. The young women powering through and crashing their heads up against the glass ceiling are white working class and black and ethnic minorities too, and they are more hungry. Ironically, the middle-class women are more likely to give up on their careers when children come.)

Ok, I am sure we can all see that there is a slight prejudice in the high powered environment of corporate business, however the solution is not to impose quotas. In fact there is no solution, we just have to wait for the barriers of prejudice to gradually break down as they are and have been doing. It is not bad business sense or a poor understanding of the market, dear. What's the betting this silly bint has never run a business, let alone spent a great deal of time in the real world. She lives some kind of nice fluffy pink world. Somebody send this cow to the slaughter.

As Linda Grant says "The time is not ripe. And yet it always is". The time is ripe in the UK for equality legislation that has real muscle. Bring in quotas and class actions in which an individual who wins a case brings improvements for a whole group of employees of whom that individual is representative.

Oh get real. Equality legislation does not help the people it is intended to help. Perhaps all families should be made to have an equal number of boys and girls so they reflect the balance in society. FUCK OFF!

Critics - many of them female - say that quotas result in the least talented being promoted to positions in which they are ineffectual, not only becoming a management liability but also making it more difficult for other women who do have the right attributes to make their own mark.

Yes, and ironically the females who do get it are precisely the ones with the intellect who probably manage to succeed. Those who don't understand why quotas are bad do not deserve to make decisions over which salad dressing to buy, let alone make business decisions.

A counter argument says that, first, an all-male board lacks balance and fails to reflect a substantial part of the market that it is trying to reach. Second, talent is rare enough - to exclude half the population simply on the grounds that they are alien to your own comfortable culture shows rotten logic. Third, the slow crawl to equality isn't working in the UK - and quotas have worked well elsewhere.

And that is a competitive issue. If a company with a men only board was under performing and a competitor realised that women's insight gave them an edge then the free market would achieve what legislation never could. The reality is that you do not need a balanced board in order to understand the market you serve. Again this fallopian monster displays her complete ignorance or life.

A government can create laws and use incentives and penalties, like Norway, to batter away at traditional conditioning and prejudices. In the US in the early 1960s and 70s, for instance, quotas and class actions spurred change - at least until legislation was overturned by a conservative supreme court. In 1970, for instance, 0.6% of General Motors' students of engineering were female. Seven years later, they had risen to 32%.
In the UK, some major companies have changed their policies. Motivated by maximising profit and reducing the cost of recruitment, training and retention, they have seen the need for change - IBM and HSBC to name a couple.

Precisely. The market is forcing the change, not the government. Yes, the government can use legislation to partake in a bout of social engineering but, apart from it being antithetical to freedom and liberty, it is totally fucking counterproductive.

My neighbour is 42 and about to take six months maternity leave after the birth of her second baby. She was hired by her company as a temp, at the age of 28. She is now vice-president of the company, a very large company, and on the board.
She went to an ordinary comprehensive and did an ordinary degree, but someone recognised her ability, even though initially, she lacked the confidence to see it herself. Now, she is encouraging a working life that is very different for her employees, male and female, more flexible and less workaholic, because that's what she wants for herself.

Great. Good for her. She is obviously an asset to the company. Her talent was recognised and she has made it to the board WITHOUT QUOTAS.

If Morgan Stanley, who reported a further £4.7bn of sub-prime related losses in December, had a board that consisted of 50% women, it's a strong possibility that it would have been advised not to be so greedy: that it's a ridiculous idea to expect families living on next to nothing to pay exorbitant interest rates on mortgages. Strange how such a financial mess doesn't get blamed on the poor quality of male directors on a range of City boards.

Somebody pass me a shotgun. I need to put this mental-case out of her misery. Advised not to be so greedy? What the fuck? And the interest rates were LOW; that is the whole fucking point. If the rates were high the people on low incomes would not have taken out the loan. Thank fuck this women is only a journalist and something important.

In the UK, the continuation of unequal pay, unequal representation in parliament, on boards, in the unions and in the senior ranks of business, industry and the professions says that, like Norway, it's time to try something astounding. And let everybody profit.

Yeah, control your nannying tenancies, leave companies the fuck alone, and watch the change happen naturally.

Happy New Year And Stuff

2008-01-01T04:42:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year everybody. Any new resolutions this year? I was going to give up swearing, but then I thought fuck it!

It is bizarre how the turning of a new year feels liberating. The physiological effect of the chimes on Big Ben is astounding. Maybe it is just me, but I feel ready to kick some ass in 2008.

As I peruse the news stories this morning I thought I would highlight a few to you and look ahead into this new year...

The EU has been sticking it nose in where it doesn't fucking belong to astonish everybody with their hypocrisy, saying Kenya's presidential poll was "flawed", "lacked credibility" and "fell short of international standards". Are you fucking kidding me? This from an organisation with no legal or moral legitimacy, which has defied the will of the people of Europe to resurrect the construction, who's lawmakers are not directly elected and who's accounts have not been signed off for 13 years. Fine, the elections were undoubtedly a mess, and mass vote rigging does appear to be widespread, but why is that any business of the EU?

The 6 Gulf states which make up the Gulf Co-Operation Council have taken another step along their path of integration with the formation of a common market. "The nationals of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are now to be seen as equal, economically, whichever country they chose to live in. They will be able to work, buy houses and companies, trade shares, go to school and receive medical treatment in all six states.". Lucky them. Yet another step towards a world of regional power blocks.

Cyprus and Malta are now officially members of the Eurozone. The lucky buggers can now buy and sell internationally (well, across the Eurozone) without having to convert their currency. They will also start to feel the benefits of economic servitude.

The Fabian Society, the institution for intellectually retarded socialists, has suggested Brown makes July 5th, the 60th anniversary of the NHS a new bank holiday. "The most appropriate date would be on the anniversary of the health service - an institution which appeals equally to people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". Fuck off. The NHS is an abomination not worthy of praise. It has succeeded in expediting the deaths of many thousands, if not millions, of people since it's creation. A communist construct which guarantees every citizen equally abysmal treatment, it's only achievement has been to increase the public's dependence on the state. The NHS deserves not praise but scorn and derision. It should be replaced with private health insurance.

Also on the subject of the NHS, Brown is considering making smokers quit in order to receive treatment. "People could be expected to lose weight and give up smoking in exchange for rights to healthcare to be enshrined in a new NHS constitution, Gordon Brown will signal today". No you fucking imbecile. The solution is to internalise the costs and make the individual take responsibility for their actions. An insurance system which reflected the individual's circumstances and lifestyle choices would free society from collectively shouldering the costs of an individuals choice and make them pay.

Darling is set to overshoot on his government borrowing forecasts. An anticipated £5bn overshoot would require him to raise taxes or cut spending to the tune of £200 per household to avoid breaching Brown's golden rule. The fact Brown is currently overshooting his original forecasts by about £100bn is of slightly more concern to me.

So isn't the world looking rosy for 2008?!

Climate Change and Beards

2007-12-31T09:31:00.000-08:00

For those of you who don't read the Sunday Time and missed Jeremy Clarkson's column this week, I can tell you he was spot on yet again.

The Archbishop of Canterbury told the faithful on Christmas Day that unless human beings abandon our greed, we will be responsible for the death of the planet....

...Then we must ask how much old Rowan really understands about the implications and causes of global warming. He thinks that taking a holiday in Florida and driving a Range Rover caused the flooding in Tewkesbury this summer. But then he also believes it’s possible for a man to walk on water and feed a crowd of 5,000 with nothing more than a couple of sardines.

Hmm. Well here are some facts that Rowan might like to chew on over his fair-trade breakfast cereal. The Alps are enjoying good snowfalls this year, in much the same way that the Alps in New South Wales enjoyed healthy snowfalls last summer.
The hurricane season finished a couple of weeks ago and, contrary to all the scaremongering from Al Gore’s mates, the number of severe storms, for the second year in a row, was slightly below average.

Quite. The mysterious, invisible, and all powerful deity, who nobody has ever seen, also sent a pretty big flood himself, should you believe the claptrap in the Bible!

In the light of all this, I would like Rowan Williams to come out from behind his eyebrows and tell us how many people have been killed by greed-induced global warming. Because even the most swivel-eyed lunatic would be hard pressed to claim it’s more than a few dozen.
Meanwhile, I reckon the number of people killed over the years by religious wars is around 809m. I tell you this, beardie. Many, many more people have died in the name of God than were killed in the name of Hitler.
Between 1096 and 1270, the Crusades killed about 1.5m. Way more than have been killed by patio heaters and Range Rovers combined. Then there was the 30 years’ war, which reduced Europe’s population by about 7.5m. And the slaughter is still going on today in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto was killed by a religious nut, not a homeless polar bear.

Spot on. I will take no lectures from religious zealots on the importance of peace when religion is the root cause of most, if not all, or history's conflicts. But Clarkson, not yet finished in his savaging of the archbishop continues...

We have been told by those of a communist disposition that if we return to a life of sackcloth and potato soup (bishops excepted) and if we meet all the targets laid down by the great scientist John Prescott at Kyoto, then Britain will be a shining beacon to the world. Others will see what we have done and immediately lay down their 4x4s.
Rubbish. America and China and India will ignore our lunacy and our economic suicide and continue to embody the human spirit for self-improvement (or greed, as Rowan calls it).
No matter. Old Rowan will doubtless applaud the move. This is a man who was arrested in the antinuclear protests of the 1980s. Who refused to call the 9/11 terrorists evil and said they had serious moral goals. Who thinks that every single thing bought and sold is “an act of aggression” on the developing world. Who campaigns for gay rights but wouldn’t actually appoint a homosexual as a bishop. And who recently said in an interview that America was the bad guy and that Muslims in Britain were like the good Samaritans.
In other words, he’s a full-on, five-star, paid-up member of the loony left, so anything that prevents the middle classes from having a Range Rover and a patio heater is bound to get his vote

The bloke live in cloud fucking cuckoo land. But then he also wears a frock!

I genuinely believe we are born with a moral compass and we don’t need it reset every Sunday morning by some weird-beard communist in a dress. I am, as you may have gathered, completely unreligious, but it doesn’t stop me trying to be kind to others, and I’m never completely overwhelmed with a need to murder madmen in pulpits. Slightly overwhelmed sometimes, but never completely.
Morally, the world would be no worse if religion were abolished. Practically, it would be much, much better. And so, given the choice of which we should give up, God or the patio heater, the choice is simple.

Absolutely correct. Atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive. Religion does not have the monopoly on virtue or compassion. Religion, or more accurately organised religion, and individual liberty are, however, mutually exclusive. Religion requires the complete and absolute surrender of reason and logic, and the total unquestioning acceptance of a belief system based purely on faith. No facts, no evidence, just faith.

That religion requires the perpetual suspension of reason and rationality, so such virtues cannot thus be applied to other areas of life, for as soon as one applies reason and rationality to one thing religious faith surely collapses.

Religion is a simulacrum: something that is made real by its believers, not something that is believed in because it is real. As eloquently explained by Morpheus in the film The Matrix...

"The matrix is a system, and that system is our enemy. But when you are inside.....you see the very minds of the people we are trying to save, but until we do, these people are still a part of this system.....most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent upon the system that they would fight to protect it."

Religion is control. Religion is exploitative. Religion is the self-enslavement of your willing self. Religion is power. Religion is dangerous.

New Years Honours

2007-12-29T08:33:00.000-08:00

What.......................THE FUCK?

Diana, Mrs BABAR
Team Leader, Litigation and Employment Group, Treasury Solicitor's Department.

Graham Michael BADMAN
Director of Children's Services, Kent County Council. For services to Local Government.

Dr Margaret BENT
Senior Research Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford. For services to Musicology.

Timothy Richard HORNSBY
Commissioner, National Lottery. For public service.

John Andrew HOWISON
Lately Director, Trunk Road Infrastructure and Professional Services, Transport Scotland, Scottish Executive

Dr Godfrey John JENKINS
Head, Climate Change Programme, Hadley Centre, Meteorological Office. For services to Science.

Ms Evelyn May TAYLOR
For services to Aromatherapy and to the Beauty Industry.

Kathleen, Mrs CARR
Catering Supervisor, House of Commons.

Colin WEIGHTMAN
For services to Bee Keeping.

There are more! Go look for yourself.

Eight For 2008

2007-12-29T08:10:00.000-08:00

Having so far avoided being tagged for the "eight things I'd like to see in 2008" meme, like the wonderful cold I received over Christmas from one family member, and which I am currently suffering with, From The Barrel Of A Gun has tagged me to list my wishes ;-) So here goes...

1. Some far-sighted, eminently sensible and venturing investors hurl money at my company, following a hugely successful technology showcase in the spring and a productive exhibition in Barcelona. All the opportunities we have lined up fall into place and my business takes a fast route to private equity financing for major up-scaling.

2. Gordon Brown does not hold a general election in the spring since, as a parliamentary candidate, I will be far too busy with item (1) to commit sufficient time to run any kind of wholehearted attempt to unseat Francis 'Maastricht bitch' Maude.

3. Ron Paul gets elected as President of the United States of America and heralds a new dawn for personal liberty and small government. Brits catch on the idea of liberty and wake up to the fact that the self flagellation of electing a socialist government is masochistic and twisted and vote for a revolution in freedom in Britain.

4. The enlargement of the Eurozone on Jan 1st to include Cyprus and Malta hastens the collapse of the currency. The member nations return to their old currencies and prosper from the flexibility of floating exchange rates. The Euro is accepted as a flawed concept and the nations of Europe give up on the misguided dream of "ever closer union" and begin to diverge economically according to the own national culture and comparative advantages.

5. Gordon Brown is ousted as leader of the Labour party and/or loses a vote of no-confidence in the House of Commons, leading to the wanking cyclops's fall from government. All the shit created by Brown when in Number 11 lands on his doorstep, people see him for the charlatan he really is, and he dies mysteriously in a freak Polonium 210 poisoning incident.

6. This blog goes from strength to strength and substantially increases it's readership, and Google Adsense starts showing some decent ads and paying in GBP rather than worthless USD.

7. I get round to writing, or seriously begin writing, my book on Liberty, as well as finish reading the books I have piled up including The Wealth of Nations and The Communist Manifesto.

8. I discover a long lost relative who has left me a fortune in their will and I escape to a private island in the Caribbean, which I lay claim to and turn into an internationally recognised principality. I invite fellow freedom lovers and we all drink beer and eat steak.

I am supposed tag 5 more so I pick Prodicus, John Trenchard, Nation of Shopkeepers, Little Man What Now, and Cynical Chatter. Apologies if they have already been tagged!