So a group of bankers are going to try and setup their own alternative trading system, as they feel the charges are too high..... nothing can be more ironic than the large banks complaining about charges. Incredible what is the world coming to?
Perhaps the stock exchanges are making too much money and lowering the cost of transaction would be a good thing, surely however, more important is to try and create a model where investment bankers are encouraged to think over the long run, and government tax on savings and investments is brought down.
Their bonuses are so huge, that they are in the UK encouraging companies to merge, diverge anything to increase their commissions, these same companies that often complain about high charges can adopt policies which may be detrimental to the long term health of companies and economies because they get huge fat bonuses on an annual basis. When they can earn millions in a year, when they can earn tens of millions in a year, what is the incentive to think about the long term health of companies, to build long term relationships? This is a far greater problem than the charges applied to buying and selling shares. The UK as one of the most open countries in the world will perhaps over time be most effected by this.
The liberal economic view is often a little naive, it is like escapism, it is the easy view to adopt, it is comforting and in many ways it is largely right. In some crucial ways it is wrong. The bankers are part of the market, the market is the best system, let Adam Smith's invisible hand guide the allocation of resources. Government intervention is always bad. Undoubtedly the market is a vital instrument in allocating resources, however, the Liberal Economic view is also naive, and ignores crucial facts.
Let’s start with trade...
Two countries by specialising in what they have a competitive advantage in will become richer; as the cost of the product will drop... trade is good...... what if you have nothing of importance to trade? What if you are the country that has a very low value added product, the benefit is disproportionate to the country with the higher value product and for many in the country in the lower value product, the benefits will perhaps be minimal, just visit Bolivia and parts of Africa to see the truth in this.
Governments should intervene to nurture nascent industries, the government should try and encourage technology transfer, government interference matters... just look at Japan, Korea, China... governments have played a massive interfering role in helping their countries to develop. It is naive to think governments should leave everything to the invisible hand of the markets.
The market is better than an average or poor government but a cleverly constructed policy by a government to help develop industries to protect industries can have a major positive effect on a country's economy. The problem with this policy is it can be exploited by unions and politicians to protect industries which are not so vital for the future of a country.
So what does this mean for the future what does this have to do with investments banks?
In many ways the investment banks are exploiting the UK’s unwillingness to intervene in the functioning of the market. The UK benefits from the inward investment of capital however, are these mergers really in the long term benefit of the companies and UK plc? The Spanish after all have a tax advantage which is heping them fund the takeovers. Why are smaller foreign companies able to purchase large well run British ones? This is surely wrong and only possible because the British government is so willing to let finance dictate the terms of the running of the UK economy. Leave it all to the market is their mantra as long as we can over tax.
Governments should never ever leave everything to the markets and they should try and help their companies and nascent industries where they can. They need to avoid supporting hundreds of companies. They should though adopt policies to help their best companies grow and develop as Porter says create clusters of companies as competition is important, but it should often be slowly introduced... governments matter.... what is the danger with this policy?
In protecting it can also stop openness to the change, companies must always evolve this is the power of capitalism; governments will often provide funds for the most politically sensitive companies and not those that will have the most importance for the future of an economy. Perhaps just like the bank of England is independent so should the government protection board. It would have to be called something less politically charged. The government sets the policy and the board decides those companies and industries which should benefit the most. The banks shouldn't be targeted but the government should try and adopt policies which encourage and help the long term development of companies, and make Banks think about the long term. The governments should try and reduce the importance of investment banks in the running of the economy and their short term horizons. The government should encourage no foster competition in this area, so that the charges commissions and bonuses available will drop and hence they should begin thinking more over the long run….so that talented people are spread more evenly throughout the economy. Obviously it goes without saying that it should continually invest and improve infrastructure and education.
Stock exchanges lower their charge.. nah I say Investment Bankers should first start by lowering theirs. Policies to reduce the importance and charges of investment banks will never happen in the UK as it has allowed finance to become too important as a proportion of the overall economy, anything it does that effects the revenue stream of the financial community would be devastating for the short run in the UK, something no government will ever be able to sanction. It needed to encourage and develop a more diverse economy, now it is beholden to the financial community whether it is or isn’t in the long run benefit of the UK. The only country which could force change in this area because of the size and diversity of its economy is the US.
Thatcher took the brave decisions that transformed the UK economy, she was willing to make the tough choices and the wealth that flowed has powered the labour government these last ten years. She also helped unleash the city a money generating machine, however, does it now operate for the good of the economy as a whole over the long run?
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
The Problem with Economists
It is known as the dark science. It has tried to turn itself into a science at various stages and it is always a joke that you can never get two to agree. They have a huge influence on our lifes as we all pretty much work in a money based economy. Their views and ideas about how an economy should be run, if they gain the ear of the politicians, can effect every single one of us.
I don't think this is their problem, their problem is their lack of historical perspective. An ecologist can look at soil samples or ice extracts from greenland, whereas most economists will only look back a maximum of 60 years and normally much much less, after all how long have we had sophisticated economies.
They should be forced to study huge quanities of history..... they should be forced to read about the worst century, the 14th, to study Roman history.... they need a far greater historical perspective.
The problem with economists is they don't take the long view, after all we are all dead aren't we Mr Keynes....Many of the policies they advise are incredibly short term , they view success over incredibly short term scales, a generation is an extremly short time scale yet we all know in historical terms this is nothing.
This is the problem with Economists, because two never agree, surely that just makes it more interesting.
I don't think this is their problem, their problem is their lack of historical perspective. An ecologist can look at soil samples or ice extracts from greenland, whereas most economists will only look back a maximum of 60 years and normally much much less, after all how long have we had sophisticated economies.
They should be forced to study huge quanities of history..... they should be forced to read about the worst century, the 14th, to study Roman history.... they need a far greater historical perspective.
The problem with economists is they don't take the long view, after all we are all dead aren't we Mr Keynes....Many of the policies they advise are incredibly short term , they view success over incredibly short term scales, a generation is an extremly short time scale yet we all know in historical terms this is nothing.
This is the problem with Economists, because two never agree, surely that just makes it more interesting.
Questions I don't like
I always remember someone asking me a question when i was a student.
Stalin industrialized Russia at a huge human cost but that helped crush the nazi, was the cost worth it.
I could never answer it... i still can't.... i don't like questions like that... it is too painful to consider....
Suddenly we are faced with a similar situation, not quite on the same scale but nevertheless a similar question....
Tonight i watched a program about the atrocities in Iraq, and the massacres that Saddam committed, yet look what we have now! People are being killed daily, which is worse? I really don't know. What I do know is that unless you can improve something you shouldn't intervene and the very least you should leave is an improved infrastructure. I remember when they entered Baghdad a colleague of mine pointed out the celebrating masses. I said I will hold up my hand and admit I was wrong with my criticism of the invasion in 5/10 or even twenty years if we have improved the situation for the people at the moment we haven't, we are failing them.
Stalin industrialized Russia at a huge human cost but that helped crush the nazi, was the cost worth it.
I could never answer it... i still can't.... i don't like questions like that... it is too painful to consider....
Suddenly we are faced with a similar situation, not quite on the same scale but nevertheless a similar question....
Tonight i watched a program about the atrocities in Iraq, and the massacres that Saddam committed, yet look what we have now! People are being killed daily, which is worse? I really don't know. What I do know is that unless you can improve something you shouldn't intervene and the very least you should leave is an improved infrastructure. I remember when they entered Baghdad a colleague of mine pointed out the celebrating masses. I said I will hold up my hand and admit I was wrong with my criticism of the invasion in 5/10 or even twenty years if we have improved the situation for the people at the moment we haven't, we are failing them.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
The Challenge of Science
The popularity of science is diminishing, few and far between are the politicians with a scientific background, yet its importance in society has never been greater.
The creationist are challenging in some schools the idea that evolution really occured the scientists responded, as was covered by the New Scientist, with a conference in the US regarding whether science could replace religion. Richard Dawkins feels that they should go on the offensive... that Scientists should come out as it were.
As important in the same issue were the signs of how science is reaching further into our lifes and minds helping us understand the human brain and behaviour, how in analyzing the minute the miniscule they are beginnging to change how we look at reality, impacting subject such as philosophy, psychology, economics.....
What does this mean?
I am always reminded of the Khmer Rouge and how they massacred anyone educated... the killing fields... scienists have always challenged the status quo, but what Dawkins is doing? Questioning whether religion should be usurped whether it should exist...hmmmm?
My reading isn't as comprehensive as i would like in this area, and i hope to change that over the next few months.. but could perhaps the greatest conflict of the future will not be between, the West and Islam but between those that believe and those that don't?
There was a piece in the New Scientist discussing if you don't believe, then you lose your connection with eternity... which can perahps be replaced with your atoms being reused and being transferred so in a way you do......hmmm........
The creationist are challenging in some schools the idea that evolution really occured the scientists responded, as was covered by the New Scientist, with a conference in the US regarding whether science could replace religion. Richard Dawkins feels that they should go on the offensive... that Scientists should come out as it were.
As important in the same issue were the signs of how science is reaching further into our lifes and minds helping us understand the human brain and behaviour, how in analyzing the minute the miniscule they are beginnging to change how we look at reality, impacting subject such as philosophy, psychology, economics.....
What does this mean?
I am always reminded of the Khmer Rouge and how they massacred anyone educated... the killing fields... scienists have always challenged the status quo, but what Dawkins is doing? Questioning whether religion should be usurped whether it should exist...hmmmm?
My reading isn't as comprehensive as i would like in this area, and i hope to change that over the next few months.. but could perhaps the greatest conflict of the future will not be between, the West and Islam but between those that believe and those that don't?
There was a piece in the New Scientist discussing if you don't believe, then you lose your connection with eternity... which can perahps be replaced with your atoms being reused and being transferred so in a way you do......hmmm........
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Press American Interest/London Review of Books
Recently I have been in essay mode when it comes to my reading material. I picked up a new magazine called American Interest. It is a little like the Harvard Business Review in format but its topics are from a far wider subject area. I have also been reading the London Review of Books the last few weeks. Its personals are far funnier than those I have seen in the New York Review of Books. There may be a play in London based on an advert in the New York Review of Books... it would seem to me it should be based on those from the London Review of books..... much more entertaining.
There was recently in LRB a wonderful piece on Iraq and in particular the funds for reconstruction. Leaving some kind of infrastructural improvements should be the very minimum that can be provided to the Iraqis, judging by this article however, it would seem they are being let down as most of the funds for reconstruction have already been spent with very little to show.
There are two ways of looking at a war. The first discussion point is the moral reason for engaging in a conflict, the second is how you win a war and the peace. Regarding the second point the fact that the US and British governments engaged on two fronts in two very difficult environments and countries is mind boggling. It seems like military and political suicide. I wonder whether we will ever find out why. I think the first thing any politician should do before he engages in an ambitious foreign agenda is sit down with five esteemed historians, individually, and have a history lesson....surely they would both have then followed a different path.
The American Interest had an article written by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times, regarding the imbalances afflicting the world financial system and in particular the US trade deficit. 75% of excess world exports are being taken by the US. This is a phenomenal sum and obviously leading to an enormous US global IOU. This has to change and can it change without significant dislocation is one of the most pressing questions of the next twenty years. Severe economic problems as we all know puts society under significant pressure and can lead to international conflict and distasteful regimes gaining power.
Interestingly he also touched on the detail that has had little coverage which is China could actually use the IOU as leverage over the US and its policies. The Americans did this with the French and British at the time of the Suez crisis, now that would be a twist...
It is a truly excellent piece of journalism.
There was recently in LRB a wonderful piece on Iraq and in particular the funds for reconstruction. Leaving some kind of infrastructural improvements should be the very minimum that can be provided to the Iraqis, judging by this article however, it would seem they are being let down as most of the funds for reconstruction have already been spent with very little to show.
There are two ways of looking at a war. The first discussion point is the moral reason for engaging in a conflict, the second is how you win a war and the peace. Regarding the second point the fact that the US and British governments engaged on two fronts in two very difficult environments and countries is mind boggling. It seems like military and political suicide. I wonder whether we will ever find out why. I think the first thing any politician should do before he engages in an ambitious foreign agenda is sit down with five esteemed historians, individually, and have a history lesson....surely they would both have then followed a different path.
The American Interest had an article written by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times, regarding the imbalances afflicting the world financial system and in particular the US trade deficit. 75% of excess world exports are being taken by the US. This is a phenomenal sum and obviously leading to an enormous US global IOU. This has to change and can it change without significant dislocation is one of the most pressing questions of the next twenty years. Severe economic problems as we all know puts society under significant pressure and can lead to international conflict and distasteful regimes gaining power.
Interestingly he also touched on the detail that has had little coverage which is China could actually use the IOU as leverage over the US and its policies. The Americans did this with the French and British at the time of the Suez crisis, now that would be a twist...
It is a truly excellent piece of journalism.
Oil Strike 2006
It is a funny old world and sometimes you wonder what gets reported in the press.
In Aberdeen, which due to the Oil rush is a boom town again, 10 days ago 900 divers went on strike. It was news in Scotland but in the English press not a word.
Their demand was for a 50% pay rise and they were offered 35% which they rejected and they walked out on strike. About one week later the employers, who subcontract to the oil companies, struck a deal and it was for 46%. A truly incredible rise…
Who can begrudge them though? I know stories on the North Sea oil rigs of the sheets from divers being collected covered in red patches, where they have bled during the night from their ears and noses.
It is a reminder that can so easily be forgotten that when there are supply shortages in the labour market and an industry is very profitable, workers can demand large pay increases. I do wonder whether one day globablly we will ever see shortages that allow workers to ask for large pay increases. China is after all aging.
It reminds me of one of the greatest natural tragedies to hit Europe, The Black Plague in 1347. It was one of the first examples of chemical warfare as the Mongols or Tartars were afflicted by the plague and were laying seige to a European town. They used large catapults to fire in some of the corpses and it quickly spread through the population who began to flee taking the plague with them spreading it throughout Europe.
There are estimates that perhaps 30% of the population of Europe was wiped out, a heart-breakingly high number. One simply can't imagine the pain, the human loss and rupture that it must have caused. In many countries society would have been in a state of near collapse.
The consequence economically during the plague were devastating however, for the working man that survived they were suddenly able to demand far higher salaries, and it was the beginning of the end of serfdom in Europe.
So the message for the modern working man living in poverty in many parts of the world, is have less children and practise birth control at the preconception stage. The problem is it is something that everyone needs to practise for it to have a consequence but fewer children, would ultimately lead to higher salaries over a generation or two for their children. For governments that really want to help their people they need to think about ways that they can encourage pre-conception birth control.
In Aberdeen, which due to the Oil rush is a boom town again, 10 days ago 900 divers went on strike. It was news in Scotland but in the English press not a word.
Their demand was for a 50% pay rise and they were offered 35% which they rejected and they walked out on strike. About one week later the employers, who subcontract to the oil companies, struck a deal and it was for 46%. A truly incredible rise…
Who can begrudge them though? I know stories on the North Sea oil rigs of the sheets from divers being collected covered in red patches, where they have bled during the night from their ears and noses.
It is a reminder that can so easily be forgotten that when there are supply shortages in the labour market and an industry is very profitable, workers can demand large pay increases. I do wonder whether one day globablly we will ever see shortages that allow workers to ask for large pay increases. China is after all aging.
It reminds me of one of the greatest natural tragedies to hit Europe, The Black Plague in 1347. It was one of the first examples of chemical warfare as the Mongols or Tartars were afflicted by the plague and were laying seige to a European town. They used large catapults to fire in some of the corpses and it quickly spread through the population who began to flee taking the plague with them spreading it throughout Europe.
There are estimates that perhaps 30% of the population of Europe was wiped out, a heart-breakingly high number. One simply can't imagine the pain, the human loss and rupture that it must have caused. In many countries society would have been in a state of near collapse.
The consequence economically during the plague were devastating however, for the working man that survived they were suddenly able to demand far higher salaries, and it was the beginning of the end of serfdom in Europe.
So the message for the modern working man living in poverty in many parts of the world, is have less children and practise birth control at the preconception stage. The problem is it is something that everyone needs to practise for it to have a consequence but fewer children, would ultimately lead to higher salaries over a generation or two for their children. For governments that really want to help their people they need to think about ways that they can encourage pre-conception birth control.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Shifting Power.
In the late 80s Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, was the book that everybody was reading. American’s were worried about their relative decline compared to Japan. Then the technology induced revival of the US, the bursting of the property bubble in Japan changed all that.
Fast forward 18 years or so and now it is the rise of China. The West worries about the movement of industry to the East, and I do sometimes wonder what we will have to export to them…
The most important impact of the rise of Chinese power, and of Russian power will be those middling countries in the developing world. The global agenda will increasingly be set by Chinese ideas, views and attitudes. The rise of China is more important to them than it is to the West, as they have far less wealth. China is inviting a whole host of African leaders to Beijing, is investing huge sums of money throughout Africa. This will only spread, with their war chest of money, and with huge swathes of the West increasingly financially under pressure they will have little competition from the liberal democratic West. Perhaps it won’t be just Chinese money but also the financial wealth from countries such as Russia.
In the UK there is a massive debate regarding the correct level of taxes, this misses the point somewhat. The reason we are having this debate is financially we are struggling to support our social and military commitments. We have constructed a very worthy social support network that is coming under strain.
Paul Kennedy said that when a country’s military expenditure and commitments become too much of a burden for an economy then this is when their decline begins. In the modern world this is social and military commitments. The huge problem, in the West, is that we have reached this stage across a huge range of countries. The countries that are performing fiscally are well managed small countries.
So as has been discussed in many papers the balance of power is shifting, in many ways the balance of power has shifted…. We the people are just catching up.
So what is the future?
Competing on innovation they say is the only way but how much of development is due to innovation, the Brits have been wonderful inventors, yet the US they say is the country that has benefited more from British creativity. Move into higher value products, however, can everyone in the UK/US really do this.. Surely there is a limit to the amount of higher value work a country can do. Any teacher will tell you there is a huge difference between the abilities of children. Not everyone can be a PHD scientist.
Far more important than our ability to innovate, is the general quality of education, fiscal intelligence, social harmony and diversity allowing us to be more open to new ideas… and the ability to change as the world changes. The US for all its deficiencies is the country in the world that has a greater ability to transform itself than anyone else… and the dark cloud, whether liberal democratic countries will be able to make these changes. Another political economic challenge is rising, the economic argument was won, with the collapse of Russia, what we are seeing now is a new political system and way of doing things.
Anyone that is close to China will tell you how they are more divided, have more internal dissent than you would ever believe from the outside, however, the political gauntlet has been thrown down, and not just by China but also Russia. Perhaps it won’t be the West that faces China with an alternative liberal political system but India..now there is a thought…
Fast forward 18 years or so and now it is the rise of China. The West worries about the movement of industry to the East, and I do sometimes wonder what we will have to export to them…
The most important impact of the rise of Chinese power, and of Russian power will be those middling countries in the developing world. The global agenda will increasingly be set by Chinese ideas, views and attitudes. The rise of China is more important to them than it is to the West, as they have far less wealth. China is inviting a whole host of African leaders to Beijing, is investing huge sums of money throughout Africa. This will only spread, with their war chest of money, and with huge swathes of the West increasingly financially under pressure they will have little competition from the liberal democratic West. Perhaps it won’t be just Chinese money but also the financial wealth from countries such as Russia.
In the UK there is a massive debate regarding the correct level of taxes, this misses the point somewhat. The reason we are having this debate is financially we are struggling to support our social and military commitments. We have constructed a very worthy social support network that is coming under strain.
Paul Kennedy said that when a country’s military expenditure and commitments become too much of a burden for an economy then this is when their decline begins. In the modern world this is social and military commitments. The huge problem, in the West, is that we have reached this stage across a huge range of countries. The countries that are performing fiscally are well managed small countries.
So as has been discussed in many papers the balance of power is shifting, in many ways the balance of power has shifted…. We the people are just catching up.
So what is the future?
Competing on innovation they say is the only way but how much of development is due to innovation, the Brits have been wonderful inventors, yet the US they say is the country that has benefited more from British creativity. Move into higher value products, however, can everyone in the UK/US really do this.. Surely there is a limit to the amount of higher value work a country can do. Any teacher will tell you there is a huge difference between the abilities of children. Not everyone can be a PHD scientist.
Far more important than our ability to innovate, is the general quality of education, fiscal intelligence, social harmony and diversity allowing us to be more open to new ideas… and the ability to change as the world changes. The US for all its deficiencies is the country in the world that has a greater ability to transform itself than anyone else… and the dark cloud, whether liberal democratic countries will be able to make these changes. Another political economic challenge is rising, the economic argument was won, with the collapse of Russia, what we are seeing now is a new political system and way of doing things.
Anyone that is close to China will tell you how they are more divided, have more internal dissent than you would ever believe from the outside, however, the political gauntlet has been thrown down, and not just by China but also Russia. Perhaps it won’t be the West that faces China with an alternative liberal political system but India..now there is a thought…
Friday, November 03, 2006
Poor Quality Journalism
Today I feel angry, whatever, I read I feel I am not getting anyone who is capable of facing the real issue. Is half the world blind? Obviously extremely intelligent people are writing these articles and surveys but why are they not reflecting properly?
First the business published a critique of the Stern report about the environmental impact of global warming. It completely misses the point….. I want to hit my head and go doh….. The point isn’t the world is getting warmer the point is the cumulative effect of humans on the environment. The issue is population…. consumption, global warming, running out of resources, degradation of water supplies.. talking about one issue global warming is pointless, we have to talk about human’s global effect on the environment. So the issue is how we deal with all these issues not just one… the greatest danger doesn’t come from global warming it comes from population pressure combined with scarce resources, made scarcer. Then the question is how do we transform capitalism and democracy to cope in a world where people might be poorer and on one which isn’t based on always more people more consumption? Finally when political power is closely linked to economic power which large country is going to take the steps to perhaps make itself poorer and reduce its population? This is the problem…
The Independent was equally disappointing but from the opposite angle. They had a full front page on the increase in Air Travel… now really… so the Editor of the independent where does he go on holiday? I bet he takes his kids to a cold beach in the UK….. the problem isn’t air travel the problem is population and wealth… so do you propose making us poorer Independent? Tell your kids that this year they are not going on holiday and not having an IPOD. Will you, of course you won’t so you blame the government! You have to first face the truth, we have to have less kids and accept less…. Are we willing to do it…..I don't know if I am I like my life too much That is the question… finally whatever we do in the UK doesn’t matter a jot without change globally…..
Finally some notes on poorer quality work in the Economist the last few weeks: The Economist. High quality/low quality. The Economist represents what is best in free thinking journalism and sometimes what is worst. It can change direction make bold statements, however, on occasions its journalism can fall in quality. The last two weeks there have been several articles which have been well constructed full of facts which have said very little. The first of which was an article talking about the rise of the Asian consumer, quoting hundreds of facts how exports to this area are rising… America’s importance is declining. Tell us something we didn’t know….
The really interesting points were never mentioned though. Which countries would lose from this shift in importance to the East, so they are importing more, but most of this will be capital goods to help their exports… now the really important details, assuming Asian consumers will be the future drivers of the world Economy as the US weakens then what will they want to buy from the West? What can the West export for them. This was never considered, never debated, and in any change there are always winners and losers who will be the losers.. oh so they will buy luxury goods will they?.... hmmm… this will keep Europe going… now then time for some deeper analysis. The second article that was of rather weaker quality was regarding the changing nature of the US economy and the falling long term trend rate of growth…. Hundreds of facts were quoted but the impact never was… analysis is explaining what might happen not just diagnosing whether it will… only one fact is necessary to know that it will, that is the baby boomers retiring, this could have been said in a paragraph with just a few facts…. What happens is far more important, how this will effect the world, and more importantly how do we create a sustainable economy which isn’t always based on more people, more consumption….. one day we will reach a Malthusian problem.. when I don’t know, but something always based on more is going to hit problems eventually. The rest of the magazine has been great well done… but we should always pick up on what is of poorer quality.
In conclusion why does this happen, because most people don't like being properly challenged in debate they like to hear an alternative to what they think, so they sit round not really challenging each other..... so here I am challenging you all to improve... they’ll hate me for it.
First the business published a critique of the Stern report about the environmental impact of global warming. It completely misses the point….. I want to hit my head and go doh….. The point isn’t the world is getting warmer the point is the cumulative effect of humans on the environment. The issue is population…. consumption, global warming, running out of resources, degradation of water supplies.. talking about one issue global warming is pointless, we have to talk about human’s global effect on the environment. So the issue is how we deal with all these issues not just one… the greatest danger doesn’t come from global warming it comes from population pressure combined with scarce resources, made scarcer. Then the question is how do we transform capitalism and democracy to cope in a world where people might be poorer and on one which isn’t based on always more people more consumption? Finally when political power is closely linked to economic power which large country is going to take the steps to perhaps make itself poorer and reduce its population? This is the problem…
The Independent was equally disappointing but from the opposite angle. They had a full front page on the increase in Air Travel… now really… so the Editor of the independent where does he go on holiday? I bet he takes his kids to a cold beach in the UK….. the problem isn’t air travel the problem is population and wealth… so do you propose making us poorer Independent? Tell your kids that this year they are not going on holiday and not having an IPOD. Will you, of course you won’t so you blame the government! You have to first face the truth, we have to have less kids and accept less…. Are we willing to do it…..I don't know if I am I like my life too much That is the question… finally whatever we do in the UK doesn’t matter a jot without change globally…..
Finally some notes on poorer quality work in the Economist the last few weeks: The Economist. High quality/low quality. The Economist represents what is best in free thinking journalism and sometimes what is worst. It can change direction make bold statements, however, on occasions its journalism can fall in quality. The last two weeks there have been several articles which have been well constructed full of facts which have said very little. The first of which was an article talking about the rise of the Asian consumer, quoting hundreds of facts how exports to this area are rising… America’s importance is declining. Tell us something we didn’t know….
The really interesting points were never mentioned though. Which countries would lose from this shift in importance to the East, so they are importing more, but most of this will be capital goods to help their exports… now the really important details, assuming Asian consumers will be the future drivers of the world Economy as the US weakens then what will they want to buy from the West? What can the West export for them. This was never considered, never debated, and in any change there are always winners and losers who will be the losers.. oh so they will buy luxury goods will they?.... hmmm… this will keep Europe going… now then time for some deeper analysis. The second article that was of rather weaker quality was regarding the changing nature of the US economy and the falling long term trend rate of growth…. Hundreds of facts were quoted but the impact never was… analysis is explaining what might happen not just diagnosing whether it will… only one fact is necessary to know that it will, that is the baby boomers retiring, this could have been said in a paragraph with just a few facts…. What happens is far more important, how this will effect the world, and more importantly how do we create a sustainable economy which isn’t always based on more people, more consumption….. one day we will reach a Malthusian problem.. when I don’t know, but something always based on more is going to hit problems eventually. The rest of the magazine has been great well done… but we should always pick up on what is of poorer quality.
In conclusion why does this happen, because most people don't like being properly challenged in debate they like to hear an alternative to what they think, so they sit round not really challenging each other..... so here I am challenging you all to improve... they’ll hate me for it.
Darwin and the Bible.
These words as I am sure you are aware are from Genesis, and as an Aunt of mine used to say the literature in the bible is wonderful so just a few lines….
001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
The new Yorker recently published a stimulating essay on Darwin about the quality of his writing and the huge gap between his travels on the Beagle the publishing of his great work. How in many ways he is the one great scientist who amateurs read for pleasure, his prose they said is beautifully constructed……
Sitting here in the naughts I look back and think about the impact that he has had upon our society, upon our belief system and how all the major religions have managed to survive, and yet how he managed to release such an earth shattering thesis, without been persecuted.
Gallileo espoused ideas which for us are far less threatening to the modern religions, but was persecuted. There is a play in London about his life. How he was tortured, and forced to make a public statement saying he renounced all his beliefs… his daughter watched him through the last years of his life Darwin never suffered this kind of persecution. I guess society was primed for his revelations, they were in the midst of the industrial revolution, and my feeling is if society hadn’t, Darwin perhaps wouldn’t have published… Darwin's impact has been greater, but the greater man was Galileo as he was alive in a more hostile environment.
The one thing that I find quite remarkable, is the Victorians left us with the idea that we could shape the planet and the environment to our will, that we are the ultimate masters. The positive attitude can be seen in journals such as the Economist, where anything is possible, man can truly over come anything. Through Darwin, though, they also left us with the idea, that ultimately there is one thing we can never truly over come and that is death. They eroded the belief for many in an after life… now that is ironic…
I can remember lying in my bed as a nine year old and thinking what came first…. Darwin, Hawkins, Newton, Einstein… they will never explain that… oh there was gas was there, and before the gas.. what?...... how can something come from nothing… no one will ever explain that… we may come within one milli second of the start of the universe they say and before that millisecond what? Somethings will never be explained… even a 9 year old can see that..
001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
The new Yorker recently published a stimulating essay on Darwin about the quality of his writing and the huge gap between his travels on the Beagle the publishing of his great work. How in many ways he is the one great scientist who amateurs read for pleasure, his prose they said is beautifully constructed……
Sitting here in the naughts I look back and think about the impact that he has had upon our society, upon our belief system and how all the major religions have managed to survive, and yet how he managed to release such an earth shattering thesis, without been persecuted.
Gallileo espoused ideas which for us are far less threatening to the modern religions, but was persecuted. There is a play in London about his life. How he was tortured, and forced to make a public statement saying he renounced all his beliefs… his daughter watched him through the last years of his life Darwin never suffered this kind of persecution. I guess society was primed for his revelations, they were in the midst of the industrial revolution, and my feeling is if society hadn’t, Darwin perhaps wouldn’t have published… Darwin's impact has been greater, but the greater man was Galileo as he was alive in a more hostile environment.
The one thing that I find quite remarkable, is the Victorians left us with the idea that we could shape the planet and the environment to our will, that we are the ultimate masters. The positive attitude can be seen in journals such as the Economist, where anything is possible, man can truly over come anything. Through Darwin, though, they also left us with the idea, that ultimately there is one thing we can never truly over come and that is death. They eroded the belief for many in an after life… now that is ironic…
I can remember lying in my bed as a nine year old and thinking what came first…. Darwin, Hawkins, Newton, Einstein… they will never explain that… oh there was gas was there, and before the gas.. what?...... how can something come from nothing… no one will ever explain that… we may come within one milli second of the start of the universe they say and before that millisecond what? Somethings will never be explained… even a 9 year old can see that..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)