Richard Dawkins is an incredibly talented writer and his book the God Delusion was one of the books I began to work my way through at Christmas. Ironically Christmas is often the time when you feel most religious and when it can be at its most inspiring. I would beg any woman or man to sit through a Christmas carol service and not feel moved and closer to the rest of humanity.
There was also a program on British TV which discussed the problem with Atheists, where a number of distinguished non-believers were asked about the massive loss of life that has occurred in a number of godless societies, starting with the Jacobians after the French revolution. In the twentieth century there were a number of instances and I shed a few tears as I walked round Auschwitz/Birkenau. It felt right to take something and I was accompanied by a rose which I left infront of a pile of shoes from those that never returned.
Just as Marxists unrealistically claim Stalin and Lenin perverted communism so it wasn’t really a Marxist society so the atheists try to squirm out of the question of massive death in godless societies. The answer given was they didn’t kill in the name of atheism, where as people do kill in the name of religion.
Oh i imagine that made a huge difference to those that lost their life...... I can imagine the scene now.
'Hmmm look person who about to be killed.. don't worry about it... it will feel much better as it isn't in the name of religion. Are you happy now?'
Dawkin’s book in many ways is directed at the rise of religious power in the US and the push to move creationism back into schools. His book is basically a call to arms for agnostics and atheists and an academic dissection of a belief in god.
In the first paragraph he sadly negates a great deal of the book by directing his argument primarily at Christianity and Islam… hello Mr. Dawkins there are huge swathes of the world which are neither, and the two rising super powers are a case in point.
Secondly he doesn’t point out the benefit of religion which is it provides us with a moral code, that can be twisted and manipulated by individuals, leaders and countries but in its best manifestations can be worthy.
More importantly though, in the form of Christianity I know best, the Church of England, it can be tolerant, open and provide comfort and warmth to individuals and communities.
Perhaps Mr Dawkins we shouldn’t blame religion but look at why humans are so easily able to commit heinous acts.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Property Market.
David Smith of the Sunday times writes very elegantly on the British economy in his weekly economics article. I would like to see him write more about global issues, however, I imagine his brief is to be more UK specific.
To some extent he has aped the economist's Big Mac index, by having his own tongue in cheek index regarding the housing market, the skip index. How many skips are there on his road? If there are a lot then it means the economy is booming. He has broadly been accurate in predicting the housing market, although this is probably more due to his analytical ability than his index.
The global house price boom is phenomenal and tests economists’ powers of prediction to the limit. Personally I have felt the market would cool in the UK but figures for property price growth have continued to astound me.
So what of the future?
As has rightly been pointed out the UK is not building enough houses, so the supply side continues to remain tight, however the demand side has surpassed all but the most bullish expectations, particularly in the UK, the market I know the most about.
We cannot, however, ignore the sheer quantity of speculative capital that has flooded the housing market. The number of ordinary people who are leveraging themselves and buying several properties and restoring them. I know a number of people who struggle to pay for holidays yet have a property portfolio of over a million pounds. They are able to do this by buying off plan, or by self-certifying. One friend has bought hundreds of miles from London, two properties in markets she knows nothing about.The other important factor is the broad based nature of the property price increase, even in Scotland which has a declining population has felt the full effects. Parts of West Yorkshire where thousands of flats have flooded the market have joined the property price surge. So my biggest question is why don't we see more regional imbalances? Is it because properties in these areas were so undervalued for so long?
The city of London is awash with cash, the South East has a huge property shortage, but I cannot believe this is the case in large parts of the UK, yet they have all seen massive property price surges, therefore my personal view is that in the more deprived areas of the UK, speculative capital has played a more important role, and these areas are more likely to see a severe slow down, London and the South East are unlikely to suffer in the same way, when the slow down arrives.
When will this happen, when will property really begin to slow?
It will only be when there is demand side shock to the economy, so this has to be when interest rates reach a tipping point, or when economic growth begins to slow, or if banks begin to tighten their lending criteria. None of these factors look remotely like occurring in the near future.
It will come eventually though, I do not believe it will never arrive.
To some extent he has aped the economist's Big Mac index, by having his own tongue in cheek index regarding the housing market, the skip index. How many skips are there on his road? If there are a lot then it means the economy is booming. He has broadly been accurate in predicting the housing market, although this is probably more due to his analytical ability than his index.
The global house price boom is phenomenal and tests economists’ powers of prediction to the limit. Personally I have felt the market would cool in the UK but figures for property price growth have continued to astound me.
So what of the future?
As has rightly been pointed out the UK is not building enough houses, so the supply side continues to remain tight, however the demand side has surpassed all but the most bullish expectations, particularly in the UK, the market I know the most about.
We cannot, however, ignore the sheer quantity of speculative capital that has flooded the housing market. The number of ordinary people who are leveraging themselves and buying several properties and restoring them. I know a number of people who struggle to pay for holidays yet have a property portfolio of over a million pounds. They are able to do this by buying off plan, or by self-certifying. One friend has bought hundreds of miles from London, two properties in markets she knows nothing about.The other important factor is the broad based nature of the property price increase, even in Scotland which has a declining population has felt the full effects. Parts of West Yorkshire where thousands of flats have flooded the market have joined the property price surge. So my biggest question is why don't we see more regional imbalances? Is it because properties in these areas were so undervalued for so long?
The city of London is awash with cash, the South East has a huge property shortage, but I cannot believe this is the case in large parts of the UK, yet they have all seen massive property price surges, therefore my personal view is that in the more deprived areas of the UK, speculative capital has played a more important role, and these areas are more likely to see a severe slow down, London and the South East are unlikely to suffer in the same way, when the slow down arrives.
When will this happen, when will property really begin to slow?
It will only be when there is demand side shock to the economy, so this has to be when interest rates reach a tipping point, or when economic growth begins to slow, or if banks begin to tighten their lending criteria. None of these factors look remotely like occurring in the near future.
It will come eventually though, I do not believe it will never arrive.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
The Success of Man
The Economist had a few stimulating and interesting articles this week. They discussed whether organic food was really helping the poor as it takes more land, stops us importing from poor countries and perhaps doesn't really reduce poverty. All valid points and worth discussing.
I also went to a zoo this weekend and sat for about 30 minutes looking at a giant gorilla but not in the face, as apparently they view this as aggressive. They are truly incredible creatures, vast, lumbering and eerily human like. If you believe in evolution then there was a point in time when we had the same ancestor, I guess we have the same ancestor with any life but it was much more recent with gorillas. All relative I guess.
I also read another theory about when neandthals and man occupied the same space and why we survived and they didn’t. The new theory says it is because we specialized with women hunting small game and gathering berries whilst the men hunted large game. Neandthals, though, just hunted large game so they had a lower calorific potential than our human ancestors. We ultimately out ate them and therefore out bred them, so they were eventually wiped out. I do wonder who was the last Neanderthal. A man struggling to hunt large game whilst humans bred and reproduced at a greater rate. I imagine him stood looking at the landscape perhaps starving and fleeing the early humans, perhaps even crying.
As I looked at the gorilla I thought about this and thought about how all the animals in the zoo are seeing their habitats disappear. Our potential to exploit the planet, out compete everything else has led to our success but now as the economist rightly points out it means that we are dependent on artificially produced foods. It means that we are slowly eating the planet. Competition for scarce resources our capacity to eat the planet is our danger.
We have to find a way to naturally control our population and our consumption of resources, global warming is a problem, our carbon foot print is a problem but population increase coupled with consumption is THE problem. That gorilla sitting in the zoo knows it. Life is so majestic in its diversity; I just hope we will allow enough of it to survive.
I also went to a zoo this weekend and sat for about 30 minutes looking at a giant gorilla but not in the face, as apparently they view this as aggressive. They are truly incredible creatures, vast, lumbering and eerily human like. If you believe in evolution then there was a point in time when we had the same ancestor, I guess we have the same ancestor with any life but it was much more recent with gorillas. All relative I guess.
I also read another theory about when neandthals and man occupied the same space and why we survived and they didn’t. The new theory says it is because we specialized with women hunting small game and gathering berries whilst the men hunted large game. Neandthals, though, just hunted large game so they had a lower calorific potential than our human ancestors. We ultimately out ate them and therefore out bred them, so they were eventually wiped out. I do wonder who was the last Neanderthal. A man struggling to hunt large game whilst humans bred and reproduced at a greater rate. I imagine him stood looking at the landscape perhaps starving and fleeing the early humans, perhaps even crying.
As I looked at the gorilla I thought about this and thought about how all the animals in the zoo are seeing their habitats disappear. Our potential to exploit the planet, out compete everything else has led to our success but now as the economist rightly points out it means that we are dependent on artificially produced foods. It means that we are slowly eating the planet. Competition for scarce resources our capacity to eat the planet is our danger.
We have to find a way to naturally control our population and our consumption of resources, global warming is a problem, our carbon foot print is a problem but population increase coupled with consumption is THE problem. That gorilla sitting in the zoo knows it. Life is so majestic in its diversity; I just hope we will allow enough of it to survive.
SHIA-SUNNI Conflict
The business wrote an excellent piece this week on the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq. It is a conflict we all know something vaguely about in the West but we have never really seen it unleashed. We blame the Americans and British for their current policies but its roots go back much deeper as I think we are all aware. The nation states that were forged in the region by the British and French.I also think about Jared Diamond whenever I watch clips on the TV about the desert nature of Iraq. The term Fertile Crescent is nothing but a sick joke, is what he said. The land looks incredibly infertile, and the land is always the first place that poor people can eek a living. Coupled with this it is obviously a pressure cooker that has been kept under control and now it has been unleashed.Now the business talks about the potential of conflict between Shia and Sunni nuclear states Iran v Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Thought provoking and quite frightening reading.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
The Global Shift
Historians write beautifully on the concept of deep history the movements that take generations to have their effects felt. Others perhaps view deep history as those small imperceptiable items which we don't really notice but have a huge effect on us and our society.
For me deep history, or the idea it conjures up, are the underlying movements which might be imperceptable in a life time but slowly over time they have a great effect on societies.
One of the deep trends in society occuring around us now is the rise of wealth around the world and particularly in quasi democratic countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and obviously China. Economics used to be called Political-Economy and its study was of both subjects. The economic challenge is something that is very noticeable however, its deeper challenge is on the political system that underpins Western society. More freedom more democracy and all those modern values, which are dear to me, are being challenged and will they lead to more successful and powerful countries than the quasi-democracies or dictatorships that have adopted some market related policies, yet politically remain stunted?
Perhaps in just 20 years the most powerful country in the world might be a dictatorship. We assume, in the West, that China will move to democracy as it becomes wealthy but there are not guarnatees.
The other shift that is occuring around us some of it visible some of it less so are the imbalances in the world economy are slowly being worked out, and with it the power of the US is waning. The long us induced boom is drawing to a close.
We talk about the world's only super power being the US; this may be factually true but practially the US is no longer a super power. It has greater influence than any other country on global affairs, yet it doesn't have the political will or financial muscle to exercise its influence as it once did. We are moving into a multi-polar world. The decline of the US is shown graphically by its inability to win the two wars it has most recently entered into; it is even having to enlist the help of the axes of evil to assit it.
Any history student or casual observer will note that the decline of an empire can be traumatic. The collapse of the USSR and the decline of the Roman empire all left states struggling to cope with the freedom and instability that was left by the declining giant... will we have the same problems now the US is declining? The US has always had a quasi empire not really occupying countries but more indirectlyly exercising its power. So perhaps the indirect nature of its power will also mean that its decline will have less of destabilising effect on the world.
Humans have terribly short memories which perhaps is in part due to our relatively short life spans, especially when compared to the age of humanity, to the oldest trees or to life itself. A biologist would also argue that short-term memory allows us to recover from trauma and deal with life and the intrinsic dangers that have always been a part of existing.
Any student of history will tell you though, that terrible things have happened in recorded history, most people on the street will have a feeling about some of them, but will have rarely considered them. During the 14th century in just a few years 30% of the population of Europe was devastated by the great plague. This is conservative and my feeling is, it was actually more like 50% as in our judgements we intrinsically never want to hear the worst.
Bad things happen to humanity and bad things will happen again, but will they happen in the relatively short time period of the next 50 years or so. Economists with their extremely short time frames and the youth of their subject never really noticed that Malthus has been right. As Jared Diamond indicated with his analysis of collapsed societies. Environmental pressure, coupled with population pressure has led to economic collapse in history and he worries for our future. He doesn't view this as global warming, in my interpretation, but more global environmental pressures.
I should preface these comments by saying terrible things are happening all over the world all the time, however, the global rich elite, those that produce the most literature and therefore, the books which will be read in the future and shape our view of a period have led relatively tranquil lives for the last 50 years. Will the next fifty years see the global rich list of countries suffer problems and will globally a greater number of countries suffer trauma than over the last 50 years. This is a better phrasing of the question.
Taking the short-term view then you would say the future will more than likely follow the recent past then it is looking fairly rosy..., if you take the longer term view you would say that we were probably in for a rough patch simply because history goes through cycles. Change is rarely painless, global population pressure will mount and there are going to be difficult moments...
What will the nature of the these problems and how bad will things get? I can't consider them I want to live and enjoy life, but a conservative judgement has to say the next 50 years are going to be turbulent and challenging.
Finally how will our declining global champion deal with its waning power? Will it go humbly into old age, or will it be the angry champion lashing out at its loss of influence and power?
For me deep history, or the idea it conjures up, are the underlying movements which might be imperceptable in a life time but slowly over time they have a great effect on societies.
One of the deep trends in society occuring around us now is the rise of wealth around the world and particularly in quasi democratic countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and obviously China. Economics used to be called Political-Economy and its study was of both subjects. The economic challenge is something that is very noticeable however, its deeper challenge is on the political system that underpins Western society. More freedom more democracy and all those modern values, which are dear to me, are being challenged and will they lead to more successful and powerful countries than the quasi-democracies or dictatorships that have adopted some market related policies, yet politically remain stunted?
Perhaps in just 20 years the most powerful country in the world might be a dictatorship. We assume, in the West, that China will move to democracy as it becomes wealthy but there are not guarnatees.
The other shift that is occuring around us some of it visible some of it less so are the imbalances in the world economy are slowly being worked out, and with it the power of the US is waning. The long us induced boom is drawing to a close.
We talk about the world's only super power being the US; this may be factually true but practially the US is no longer a super power. It has greater influence than any other country on global affairs, yet it doesn't have the political will or financial muscle to exercise its influence as it once did. We are moving into a multi-polar world. The decline of the US is shown graphically by its inability to win the two wars it has most recently entered into; it is even having to enlist the help of the axes of evil to assit it.
Any history student or casual observer will note that the decline of an empire can be traumatic. The collapse of the USSR and the decline of the Roman empire all left states struggling to cope with the freedom and instability that was left by the declining giant... will we have the same problems now the US is declining? The US has always had a quasi empire not really occupying countries but more indirectlyly exercising its power. So perhaps the indirect nature of its power will also mean that its decline will have less of destabilising effect on the world.
Humans have terribly short memories which perhaps is in part due to our relatively short life spans, especially when compared to the age of humanity, to the oldest trees or to life itself. A biologist would also argue that short-term memory allows us to recover from trauma and deal with life and the intrinsic dangers that have always been a part of existing.
Any student of history will tell you though, that terrible things have happened in recorded history, most people on the street will have a feeling about some of them, but will have rarely considered them. During the 14th century in just a few years 30% of the population of Europe was devastated by the great plague. This is conservative and my feeling is, it was actually more like 50% as in our judgements we intrinsically never want to hear the worst.
Bad things happen to humanity and bad things will happen again, but will they happen in the relatively short time period of the next 50 years or so. Economists with their extremely short time frames and the youth of their subject never really noticed that Malthus has been right. As Jared Diamond indicated with his analysis of collapsed societies. Environmental pressure, coupled with population pressure has led to economic collapse in history and he worries for our future. He doesn't view this as global warming, in my interpretation, but more global environmental pressures.
I should preface these comments by saying terrible things are happening all over the world all the time, however, the global rich elite, those that produce the most literature and therefore, the books which will be read in the future and shape our view of a period have led relatively tranquil lives for the last 50 years. Will the next fifty years see the global rich list of countries suffer problems and will globally a greater number of countries suffer trauma than over the last 50 years. This is a better phrasing of the question.
Taking the short-term view then you would say the future will more than likely follow the recent past then it is looking fairly rosy..., if you take the longer term view you would say that we were probably in for a rough patch simply because history goes through cycles. Change is rarely painless, global population pressure will mount and there are going to be difficult moments...
What will the nature of the these problems and how bad will things get? I can't consider them I want to live and enjoy life, but a conservative judgement has to say the next 50 years are going to be turbulent and challenging.
Finally how will our declining global champion deal with its waning power? Will it go humbly into old age, or will it be the angry champion lashing out at its loss of influence and power?
London Tax Haven.
London we are reliably informed is the onshore money haven in the world. Non British born citizens can avoid paying tax on their overseas earnings and pay only on money that they have brought into the UK.
The city can attract expats by exploiting this loop hole and it is seen as crucal in keeping London's competitiveness, should it be allowed though. We are informed by the times, however, that the 54 billionaires in the country payed a paltry 14.7 million in income tax, and most of this from one man, Dyson, who seems to feel a moral obligation. This is wrong they should be taxed.
Taxes on the rich shouldn't be from a socialist persepctive we want to remove your wealth it should be taxed on you should show a commitment to the country you are living in by making a financial contribution to it. The level should be set low, perhaps 5 to 10% of global earnings but they should still be taxed. It shouldn't be intrusive and simply on the principle if you want to live in this country you are expected to financially contribute to its well-being. British expats should be taxed in the same way perhaps 5% of their earnings, if they are living in a tax free country and earning above a threshold they should make a small contribution to their mother country. If they are in war torn zone, the UK will spend thousands extricating them. They benefit from the passport so they should make some small contribution.
As well as taxing at nominal levels, the government should be hardnosed, if you care so little about the country you are living in to not to be willing to pay 5% of your global earnings then we are happy for you to leave.
This should also be combined with much fairer taxes regarding inheritance. Is it really right that the government taxes so highly that which someone wants to leave their children. This should also be lowered to nominal levels 5% over a million and perhaps applied to all global earnings if you hold a British passport.
Thresholds on taxes applied to dividends and savings should be set at much higher levels perhaps at over 50,000 and also the taxes should be lower.
Coupled with this the government should begin being much more transparent on the the costs of everything within the country. We should all receive a tax statement showing us where our money has gone. The people should be told to vote on the correct level of taxes and where they want taxes to be spent. We should try and balance our budget much more and a flat tax rate should be adopted, but also raising the entry threshold, so that voting on taxes affects us equally throughout society.
We should also bring back a broadly based national service where the young of both sexes are asked to contribute to the well-being of the country by working in the army, hospitals and other social functions.
As has been noted it is unfair that the Scots have their own parliament and can vote on English issues it is also unfair that London's mega rich do not contribute financially to the well-being of the country.
The city can attract expats by exploiting this loop hole and it is seen as crucal in keeping London's competitiveness, should it be allowed though. We are informed by the times, however, that the 54 billionaires in the country payed a paltry 14.7 million in income tax, and most of this from one man, Dyson, who seems to feel a moral obligation. This is wrong they should be taxed.
Taxes on the rich shouldn't be from a socialist persepctive we want to remove your wealth it should be taxed on you should show a commitment to the country you are living in by making a financial contribution to it. The level should be set low, perhaps 5 to 10% of global earnings but they should still be taxed. It shouldn't be intrusive and simply on the principle if you want to live in this country you are expected to financially contribute to its well-being. British expats should be taxed in the same way perhaps 5% of their earnings, if they are living in a tax free country and earning above a threshold they should make a small contribution to their mother country. If they are in war torn zone, the UK will spend thousands extricating them. They benefit from the passport so they should make some small contribution.
As well as taxing at nominal levels, the government should be hardnosed, if you care so little about the country you are living in to not to be willing to pay 5% of your global earnings then we are happy for you to leave.
This should also be combined with much fairer taxes regarding inheritance. Is it really right that the government taxes so highly that which someone wants to leave their children. This should also be lowered to nominal levels 5% over a million and perhaps applied to all global earnings if you hold a British passport.
Thresholds on taxes applied to dividends and savings should be set at much higher levels perhaps at over 50,000 and also the taxes should be lower.
Coupled with this the government should begin being much more transparent on the the costs of everything within the country. We should all receive a tax statement showing us where our money has gone. The people should be told to vote on the correct level of taxes and where they want taxes to be spent. We should try and balance our budget much more and a flat tax rate should be adopted, but also raising the entry threshold, so that voting on taxes affects us equally throughout society.
We should also bring back a broadly based national service where the young of both sexes are asked to contribute to the well-being of the country by working in the army, hospitals and other social functions.
As has been noted it is unfair that the Scots have their own parliament and can vote on English issues it is also unfair that London's mega rich do not contribute financially to the well-being of the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)