Stimulus

September 21st, 2011

If I steal £100 from you and use it to pay the wages of a railway worker, I have not stimulated the economy because you will now be unable to use that £100 to buy a new pair of shoes.

It really is that simple. So why do ministers and intergovernmental organisations struggle with it so much?

Gas Everywhere

September 21st, 2011

Vast gas reserves have turned up in Lancashire. This is not surprising to those who have been paying attention. There is lots of gas everywhere. There is as much conventional gas as there is oil. And coal bed gas can be found all around the world.

Paying for Children

September 21st, 2011

We’re tired of picking up the bills for other people’s kids. We already pay millions every year in school taxes.

— Lindsay Naegle

You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game! We never would have had these kids if we thought we had to pay for them. Promises were made!

Homer Simpson

The Simpsons: Season 15 Episode 8The Simpsons: Season 15 Episode 8 TV Schedule

The Police Are Not Enough

August 7th, 2011

Buildings burnt down; shops looted; homes destroyed. All because “a minority of people who do not represent the people of Tottenham” went on a rampage. The police were completely unable to maintain order.

The police will be criticised, but I think that misses the point. The police are what they are. They were trying their best. They’re not suddenly going to get ten times more effective, no matter what anyone does or how much is spent.

The law abiding are completely at the mercy of thugs. If more of the thugs realise this we’re in trouble. That’s why I think it’s a problem that the law abiding have been disarmed.

Tottenham

August 6th, 2011

Sky News has some pretty exciting live video from Tottenham right now.

What strikes me about this is just how much havoc the bad guys can cause when they are minded to. The police are fairly powerless — they can’t deploy the amount of force needed for fear of escalating things.

Well, guess what: there are some tough economic times ahead. Scenes like those in Tottenham tonight could become more common. It’s not hard to imagine a level of unrest in which the police completely lose control.

What then for the disarmed middle classes? We are told there is a gun crime problem in Tottenham, so we know the bad guys have guns. Some of the police have guns. But the likelihood is that they are outnumbered by the bad guys.

What we really need to maintain order in tough times is an armed middle class.

Life or Death

July 17th, 2011

“Why is it better to be alive than dead?” asked someone at a gathering I attended recently.

This was met with much derision at the time, but I thought I’d attempt a serious answer.

If A is better than B, that means someone prefers A to B. So someone has to do the preferring. In game theory is the concept of revealed preference. You can tell what people prefer by the way they behave.

So it is better to be alive than dead because people behave as if they would rather be alive than dead.

The context of the question was a discussion that started after someone suggested that it would be good if everyone in the world could become middle class. People don’t want to live in mud huts; subsistence farming. They want long and comfortable lives without threat of starvation.

So if you want to know why it is better to be middle class than to live in a mud hut, the answer is that it enables you to act on all your other preferences, including the one about not dying of starvation. To deny that this is better is to deny that people have preferences.

Padfone

July 17th, 2011

The Asus Padfone is a smartphone that can be docked to a larger screen, turning it into a tablet.

photo of Padfone

And it’s finally a tablet I want, having resisted the first two iPads.

I can carry it in my pocket, but when I’m at home or at work I can dock the phone into the tablet and do everything on a lovely big screen. It’s been argued that you might as well have two devices and sync the data between them, but there are many advantages to a single CPU with multiple form factors:

1) If I’m half way through typing an SMS or Google+ post and decide I want the bigger screen, there’s no interruption. Saving a draft and loading it into a different device would interrupt my train of thought.

2) I only have to manage one set of installed apps. With two devices, I have to install the apps I want on both, and install updates twice too. Similar arguments can be made for device configuration and preferences.

3) I only have to pay for one 3G data connection. These can be had pretty cheaply anyway, but managing two contracts is a pain, and paying twice for what amounts to the same data stream seems pointless. In fact, with this configuration I will use less data — I don’t have two devices both syncing stuff from Evernote, for example.

4) I only have to charge one device. I assume the phone and tablet will charge together, with the phone docked in the tablet. If the phone gets low on juice later in the day, there’s a good chance I can dock it and keep working.

5) It seems like the future. The amount of stuff that can be done on a smartphone-sized device is about to hit some critical level. Already desktop PCs are only needed for high end games and serious number crunching. The PC has become a laptop has become a netbook has become a phone. The only problem is the ergonomics, and a single device with multiple form factors is a good solution.

I have thought of a downside: a phone is somehow more personal than a tablet. If I bought a standalone tablet the chances are my wife would use it a lot at home, too. With the Padfone this is less likely because I wouldn’t be able to do phone stuff while she is doing tablet stuff. This thought is enough to make me consider delaying a planned upgrade of my wife’s phone from Blackberry to Android. Maybe we should become a two Padfone household.

Engadget has more photos.

The Myth of Happyland

July 12th, 2011

In response to my review of The Spirit Level Delusion, commenter John asked:

If I had a chance from birth of living in a competitive environment, based on hierarchical ranking, acording to ‘public achievement’, or a more cooperative one in which everyone thought more about the welfare of each other rather than themselves, based on ‘personal fulfilment’, I know which one I’d prefer.

What about you?

I think this explains a lot about why people find socialism appealing. They want to live in a village from a children’s story, with the postman always helping out the baker. They want to live in Happyland. But they forget that human nature makes this impossible, so they get into all kinds of trouble trying to bend human nature.

It is possible for people to co-operate and think about each other’s welfare. Families, groups of friends and even companies do it all the time. But it does not scale. It is not human nature to care very much about the welfare of someone in another city you’ve never met. You might say you care, but are you willing to sacrifice a family holiday for a random stranger?

The Spirit Level is not a book about places where people are co-operative and care about each other’s welfare. On the contrary, it describes societies where wealth is redistributed by force.

If people really cared more about the welfare of strangers than their own, you would not need the force. Wealth has to be redistributed through taxation, that is to say by threatening to put people in prison unless they pay money to the government. Since they’re not doing it voluntarily, it’s safe to presume that the people who are net payers into the system either resent it, or have been persuaded that they are really paying into a fund that will at some point in the future benefit them personally, or otherwise do not understand what is going on.

It’s not sounding much like Happyland.

So what really happens when people are forced to “co-operate” and “care” about each other’s welfare? Human nature is revealed: people follow the incentives in front of them. If I find that I have to do twice as much work to earn 50% more, I am likely to decide that it’s not worth it. So you lose some of my productivity. What you get from me will be less than my ability could provide.

If people find their needs are met without any effort, they’ll take that deal; it would be irrational not to. But it’s not a very satisfying existence, so you end up with lots of unemployed, unemployable people causing trouble, and the productive people resenting them. After all, people know what is fair. If half of your earnings are taken away so that a stranger can live in a big house for free, it’s not fair.

So perhaps if Happyland was on offer, I would choose to live there. But it’s not. Attempts to force Happyland into existence invariably end up like the Twentieth Century Motor Company of Starnesville, Wisconsin. Everyone might be equal, all right, but they’re a lot poorer and not too happy about it.

Now you might be getting the impression that I take a dim view of human nature. Far from it. If people are left to their own devices; if they stand by their own achievements; if they are not faced with perverse incentives such as being better off by not working; then they are resourceful, they co-operate, and they help each other. It’s much easier to help someone if you know him personally, and you can decide for yourself whether or not to help him based on your own judgement of his merits. You’ll do it willingly.

If you know you can work twice as hard and reap all of the benefits, you’re more likely to do so and your productivity will be of value to others. The generally increased productivity means people are richer.

If you know that your choices are to work hard to feed and house yourself, or to go cap in hand to your family, friends and neighbours, you will work hard. And if you fail, people will see that you tried and will help you. That’s human nature too.

It’s the Happylanders who think that freedom equals chaos who have a dim view of human nature.

So I’ll take the competetive environment, thanks. I’m a net producer, so I already know I’d do well in it. And given the chance, I’ll look after me and mine, and they’ll look after me.

There is No Energy Shortage

July 7th, 2011

Last night I attended a talk by Michael Jennings entitled Why there is not and will not be an energy shortage.

This is a “pencast” I made with my Livescribe pen. You can see my written notes, hear the audio, and click on the notes to jump to that point in the audio (though you may have to rewind a bit if there is a long gap between Michael talking about something and me writing it down).

It’s an interesting medium — I’m not sure if it is as good as a video of the presentation. For example, you can’t see the original slides. But you can download them.

Also, the pen seems to have trouble detecting when I am writing if I do not write firmly. So towards the end, when my hand is tired, some of the writing turns to scribble. But it is still possible to follow it. I am quite pleased with the audio quality given the conditions.

Civil Service Alternate Reality

July 3rd, 2011

I found myself at a social gathering sitting between a civil servant and a fireman. “What do you do?” asks the fireman. “I’m a civil servant,” answers the civil servant.

Why do they answer like that? Surely you must do *something* in the civil service? Are you a tax inspector and don’t want to admit it in front of strangers, or do you do something utterly mundane and think that civil servants command respect? Or perhaps the explanation is mundane and your job is a bit hard to explain and it’s easier to be vague.

In any case, “did you go on strike?” asks the fireman. Apparently, the civil servant has to reapply for her job, and either had a day off to do that or had to go somewhere else to do it, because whatever it was that needed to be done, she chose to do it on the day of the strike. “Because I didn’t want to cross the picket line, but I didn’t want to lose a day’s pay either.”

“It’s terrible isn’t it?” says the fireman. “Something has to be done.”

“The MPs are riding roughshod over everyone,” says the civil servant. “*They* get better pensions than us. I wish I had gone on strike. I wouldn’t mind doing anything to annoy that lot.”

It really is another world.

I held my cool, only for my wife’s sake, really. I have no particular desire to be friends with such people. But if I was to say:

Reapplying for your job is par for the course in the private sector. We don’t get nice final salary pensions, either. And frankly, it sounds like you civil servants are riding roughshod over everyone, and perhaps the MPs are, for once, representing people like me who have to pay for your pensions. But they’re not going nearly far enough. There’s no money to pay for you any more. Taxes could be increased, but it would not increase revenue because we have reached the point where production is retarded enough by a tax to more than cancel out the benefit. The government is borrowing £5000 per household per year, and this cannot continue, partly because the people doing the lending are about to realise they will never get paid back. So I wish you would lose your job and go and do something that doesn’t cost me quite so much money.

If I were to say that, I would be considered a very bad and mean person and no longer welcome at the social gathering. And yet, I’m not the one whose income depends on violence against others.

The only way this state of affairs has come about is through euphemisms like “civil servant” and “tax”, and the failure of pretty much everyone to think properly.