My journo friend martin advised me yesterday to see deadlines as stimulus to produce - or in my case to 'post' - we have a writing group this sunday and I have posted nada in 3 months.
So........... what have I been doing since ? Well two important events have happened since then: firstly, I played my first game of cricket of the season(3 in 3 days in fact); and secondly, I recall there was an election held.
Now, since this blog is about the economy I should write about the secondary event. Before I do that I will offer a stump mike view of the game of cricket.
I am a wicket keeper.Why do I love to'keep? The simple answer is I like catching balls always have always will.
And I am involved throughout the innings.
But more than that i will review after a session the
whole thing over - who bowled and how they bowled ; each batter and thier strengths and weaknesses; where I did well and where I lost concentration; where I could correct my technique.
This is I believe amplified by the fact that to most spectators and a lot of players that the keeper is invisible. The batter and the bowler are the contestants - in this view - and keeper and fielders extras. Because of the keeper's proximity to one of the stars of the show - he is metaphorically and sometimes literally over shadowed. In this there is a secret, undercoverness to my pleasure in the role.
You may call it geeky or anoraky. What do these terms refer to but a normative judgement that takes its perspective as privileged ('balanced')
Now turning to the other (not so) sporting event - the election race. Why did noone forecast the winner?Even the bookies got it wrong! One theory is the 'shy Tory' theory. I understand this and take some small comfort from it. I would be mortified if anyone knew that i voted Tory - but that is because I don't. But if a Tory voter is shy about voting Tory I am hopeful that they have an inkling of why they should be ashamed - why else would they be shy?
When will they realise what they have done? It is likely that a good percentage of the quarter of the electorate who voted Tory will be worse off in 5 years time as a result of their choice. What I want to ensure is that the blame for this is not shifted on to immigrants, the EU or any of the other scapegoats that the right wing press promulgates.It is an old but sadly effective trick to project the threat outwards on to the 'other' and then represent oneself as the bastion of traditional values.
I am encouraged that more people are joining political parties since the election as a recognition tha we cannot wait 5 years for change. We must be active inside and outside of political parties to represent alternative narratives to the deficit reduction neo- liberal paradigm and to keep pointing out that those policies are responsible for making things worse.
PS I am seeking crowdfunding for a new political party based on the unsung values of wicketkeeping to challenge the hegemony of the two party (Batters and Bowlers) system
Thursday, 11 June 2015
Sunday, 8 March 2015
The solution....to what?
i have been thinking about my usual stupid questions and I think they boil down to
What is..(x) ..the solution to?
For instance in asking the question Why tax? I am surmising that once a society gets to a certain size it grows a state and then the problem that tax aims to solve is how to fund in a fair and equitable way the activities that are best done collectively.
Take another example - what are courts the solution to? Off the cuff i would say that are there to dispense justice. But they presume a legal code not just a moral code. As in the legislature of a parliamentary democracy we expect the judiciary to be representative.Juries do that.Magistrates do that in the UK too. But what about the role of 'the expert' - should judging cases and arguing cases be left to the legal profession? If the problem is - understanding the legislation and the precedents in case law then we will have more experts. If we see courts as representing the community in the process of delivering justice we will fight to at least keep what there is that reflects accountability.
I like to think of society in the way that Heraclitus does - namely that flux is the root of material existence of which human societies are one of the more complex forms Then if a form - eg courts - are unchanging it is worth going back to the basic questions - what need is being addressed /what problem is it an attempted solution - to free us up to consider alternatives that reflect the present context.
Please share your thoughts about institutions that are ripe for reform?
Best wishes
Andrew
What is..(x) ..the solution to?
For instance in asking the question Why tax? I am surmising that once a society gets to a certain size it grows a state and then the problem that tax aims to solve is how to fund in a fair and equitable way the activities that are best done collectively.
Take another example - what are courts the solution to? Off the cuff i would say that are there to dispense justice. But they presume a legal code not just a moral code. As in the legislature of a parliamentary democracy we expect the judiciary to be representative.Juries do that.Magistrates do that in the UK too. But what about the role of 'the expert' - should judging cases and arguing cases be left to the legal profession? If the problem is - understanding the legislation and the precedents in case law then we will have more experts. If we see courts as representing the community in the process of delivering justice we will fight to at least keep what there is that reflects accountability.
I like to think of society in the way that Heraclitus does - namely that flux is the root of material existence of which human societies are one of the more complex forms Then if a form - eg courts - are unchanging it is worth going back to the basic questions - what need is being addressed /what problem is it an attempted solution - to free us up to consider alternatives that reflect the present context.
Please share your thoughts about institutions that are ripe for reform?
Best wishes
Andrew
Monday, 2 March 2015
Immigration Policy - Pride and gratitude
First assumption - that a system of control is necessary. Imagine wearing no clothes. No not in a lubricious way - think of having to regulate your body temperature without the use of clothes. You could do it if you had access to shelter and fire but it would not be efficient. similarly, without the protections of border controls and an immigration policy - it may be possible but you would pass the problems to other parts of the state - housing,education,health providers.
So..what would a policy look like ideally?
.As you know if you read my blog I am keen to critique policies that are ideologically driven and go back to first principles.
Just to declare an interest .. my grandparents were Eastern European immigrants - fleeing from the pogroms that affected Jewish communities at various times before the rise of the Third Reich.
Firstly, the humanitarian principle must be unequivocal - the asylum system should assume that the majority of asylum seekers are not out to game the system rather than the reverse as the UK system at present does.
Secondly, free trade principles - including the free movement of labour - remind us that we are better together than apart. Be this complementing skills shortages or bringing cultural diversity.As a foodie growing up in the 60's I am delighted that I can now source fresh basil or baklava or lemon grass.
Thirdly, a constitution may be needed to set out principles of citizenship - so that it is explicit what membership of a state entails in terms of rights and responsibilities.I would include the expectation that the host lingua franca is learnt by immigrants.
In conclusion, thinking about my heritage - I am still uneasy about my relationship to being English.My parents communicated deference in the face of anglo saxon anti semitism. In turn I
struggle with my internalised anti semitism - my parents changed their name to a British sounding name - and so my identity as a Jewish person I can render invisible (my rugby teacher at school was surprised after 5 years that I was Jewish.). Of course I am grateful this country gave my forbears shelter - I am saying though that in addition to a better immigration system it can take generations
before immigrants can both be grateful and proud of who they are.
So..what would a policy look like ideally?
.As you know if you read my blog I am keen to critique policies that are ideologically driven and go back to first principles.
Just to declare an interest .. my grandparents were Eastern European immigrants - fleeing from the pogroms that affected Jewish communities at various times before the rise of the Third Reich.
Firstly, the humanitarian principle must be unequivocal - the asylum system should assume that the majority of asylum seekers are not out to game the system rather than the reverse as the UK system at present does.
Secondly, free trade principles - including the free movement of labour - remind us that we are better together than apart. Be this complementing skills shortages or bringing cultural diversity.As a foodie growing up in the 60's I am delighted that I can now source fresh basil or baklava or lemon grass.
Thirdly, a constitution may be needed to set out principles of citizenship - so that it is explicit what membership of a state entails in terms of rights and responsibilities.I would include the expectation that the host lingua franca is learnt by immigrants.
In conclusion, thinking about my heritage - I am still uneasy about my relationship to being English.My parents communicated deference in the face of anglo saxon anti semitism. In turn I
struggle with my internalised anti semitism - my parents changed their name to a British sounding name - and so my identity as a Jewish person I can render invisible (my rugby teacher at school was surprised after 5 years that I was Jewish.). Of course I am grateful this country gave my forbears shelter - I am saying though that in addition to a better immigration system it can take generations
before immigrants can both be grateful and proud of who they are.
Monday, 23 February 2015
armchair economics - thinking about the stupid questions
Yes I am lazy.
I am more interested in philosophising about economic issues than doing the graft e.g. fact checking
A hero of mine Tim Harford represnets what I am not - he says that the corrective to ideology is to regularly check to see if the predicitions you made on the basis of your position turned out to be true(See Good Judhgement Project). This is of course the scientific method where any hypothesis is only valuable if it can be proved wrong. Will shares on the FTSE 100 go down? Too general to be proved one way or the other.Will the FTSE 100 go down before the end of March? Can be confirmed or not.
So... leavig that empirical stuff to the Harfords of this world, I am interested in asking the stupid questions.
for instance is social mobility such a good thing? Most peolpe proclaim it as a goal for social democratic systems.But what about the peolpe whose mobility goes down? If social mobility is relative some people must go down for the people to rise upwardsly.Or Is there more room at the top now? How can that be? Maggie thatcher cleverly played this card with the selling off of the utilities n the 80's .We are now she proclaimed a 'sharholder democracy'. thirty years on and we see the rhetoric for what it was as inequality increases and the utilites are owned by entities - socvereign wealth funds, private equity - who have no interest in democracy or even value for money for the consumer.
Another question that bothers me... is it good for a country to have abundant natural resources? Why would it not be? Look at the counties who have the largest deposits of oil - outside of the USA. Saudi Arabia,Iraq,Iran,Venezuela,Nigeria. Would you wnat to live in any of these countries. I don't know what the causal relationship between oil and political instability and corruption but you can see why the term 'the oil curse' was coined.
Any stupid question of your own - let me know.
I am more interested in philosophising about economic issues than doing the graft e.g. fact checking
A hero of mine Tim Harford represnets what I am not - he says that the corrective to ideology is to regularly check to see if the predicitions you made on the basis of your position turned out to be true(See Good Judhgement Project). This is of course the scientific method where any hypothesis is only valuable if it can be proved wrong. Will shares on the FTSE 100 go down? Too general to be proved one way or the other.Will the FTSE 100 go down before the end of March? Can be confirmed or not.
So... leavig that empirical stuff to the Harfords of this world, I am interested in asking the stupid questions.
for instance is social mobility such a good thing? Most peolpe proclaim it as a goal for social democratic systems.But what about the peolpe whose mobility goes down? If social mobility is relative some people must go down for the people to rise upwardsly.Or Is there more room at the top now? How can that be? Maggie thatcher cleverly played this card with the selling off of the utilities n the 80's .We are now she proclaimed a 'sharholder democracy'. thirty years on and we see the rhetoric for what it was as inequality increases and the utilites are owned by entities - socvereign wealth funds, private equity - who have no interest in democracy or even value for money for the consumer.
Another question that bothers me... is it good for a country to have abundant natural resources? Why would it not be? Look at the counties who have the largest deposits of oil - outside of the USA. Saudi Arabia,Iraq,Iran,Venezuela,Nigeria. Would you wnat to live in any of these countries. I don't know what the causal relationship between oil and political instability and corruption but you can see why the term 'the oil curse' was coined.
Any stupid question of your own - let me know.
Saturday, 21 February 2015
why tax?
I am interested in going back to first principles.
Tax is a way of redistributing the income generated in society. But why do we need to do this?
Is it a function of complexity? Or the size of the social group?
Take education as an example
If enough people want to send their children to school - rather than educate them ourselves or pay individually for a tutor - society must find a way of paying for the school - capital expenditure and running costs.e. salaries, heating ,etc. In Europe the first schools were faith schools and it was only later than responsibility for education shifted to government. this was enshrined n legislation and in the developed world there has been talk of the 'right to universal education'. But ideology plays a part when it comes to delineating the boundaries of this right. For instance, does this right extend to higher education? In the UK I grew up benefiting from a grant systems - so my tuition fees and some living costs were covered by my local council. My children though had to take out loans to pay for university education - these are underwritten by central government - and there is now some doubt about how much government saves as many loans will never be paid off.
I think that governments use the argument - as the UK governments did in the last 10 years with tuition fees - about affordability. This is a fig leaf - a pretence of non-ideological reasoning - when policy alternatives always involve preferences which is another word for ideology.
So what does this mean for overall tax policies? Firstly, how big should government be? Scandinavian countries believe in a larger size than the UK which is bigger than US. These are expressions of the balance of the individual versus the social. Secondly, what are the priorities within the overall government budget? US absolutely and relatively spend more on defence than European governments even if the size of the government - relative to GDP - is smaller. Thirdly, what are the sources of the revenue needed to fund government programmes - again this reflects choices - individual vs corporate taxes;direct vs indirect taxes.
At the end of the day tax is an expression of choices - ideological preferences about the role of government.
Next time - tax and technologies.
Tax is a way of redistributing the income generated in society. But why do we need to do this?
Is it a function of complexity? Or the size of the social group?
Take education as an example
If enough people want to send their children to school - rather than educate them ourselves or pay individually for a tutor - society must find a way of paying for the school - capital expenditure and running costs.e. salaries, heating ,etc. In Europe the first schools were faith schools and it was only later than responsibility for education shifted to government. this was enshrined n legislation and in the developed world there has been talk of the 'right to universal education'. But ideology plays a part when it comes to delineating the boundaries of this right. For instance, does this right extend to higher education? In the UK I grew up benefiting from a grant systems - so my tuition fees and some living costs were covered by my local council. My children though had to take out loans to pay for university education - these are underwritten by central government - and there is now some doubt about how much government saves as many loans will never be paid off.
I think that governments use the argument - as the UK governments did in the last 10 years with tuition fees - about affordability. This is a fig leaf - a pretence of non-ideological reasoning - when policy alternatives always involve preferences which is another word for ideology.
So what does this mean for overall tax policies? Firstly, how big should government be? Scandinavian countries believe in a larger size than the UK which is bigger than US. These are expressions of the balance of the individual versus the social. Secondly, what are the priorities within the overall government budget? US absolutely and relatively spend more on defence than European governments even if the size of the government - relative to GDP - is smaller. Thirdly, what are the sources of the revenue needed to fund government programmes - again this reflects choices - individual vs corporate taxes;direct vs indirect taxes.
At the end of the day tax is an expression of choices - ideological preferences about the role of government.
Next time - tax and technologies.
Monday, 16 February 2015
Tax = The will of the people
tax is news.
tax fraud £100 billion vs benefits fraud £2
inland revenue officers for benefits fraud are 10x the IR officers for tax fraud
inequality again
BUT what is tax for ?
Think about it - in Al Capone's words there is nothing certain except death and taxes. But that is not true.
Taxes were first raised in the UK a few hundred years ago - to finance wars.
However there is alot that governments do that has to be paid for and in a democracy we can choose what we want government to spend money on on our behalf. Tax is the will of the people. We want to raise money for wars so be it.We want to raise tax for the NHS so be it.We want to subsidise the nuclear industry(NDA - the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority - absorbs 70 -80 % of the Dept of Climate Change budget[Source Guardian Data Blog]).
It is not the sexiest of topics but think about it and you realise it is people power in practice.
Because our electoral system is flawed it is not reflecting the people's priorities but get that straight and then we need to embrace tax as the instrument it is.
so we need to start questioning why our tax code in UK - the manual - is the longest in the world(Hong Kong has the shortest). One answer I came across is that we have a vast financial sector that makes money by exploiting the difference between the rates in different countries (tax switching). This sector has no interest in harmonising tax rates across the world or even having multilateral tax agreements.Hence we have different bilateral agreements with dozens of countries across the world.
I am certain that tax does not have to be as complex as it appears to be.
So join in the conversation to stop the vested interests from pulling the wool from over our eyes.
I want our children to understand about not just personal finances but about what we do and can do together with our money.
tax fraud £100 billion vs benefits fraud £2
inland revenue officers for benefits fraud are 10x the IR officers for tax fraud
inequality again
BUT what is tax for ?
Think about it - in Al Capone's words there is nothing certain except death and taxes. But that is not true.
Taxes were first raised in the UK a few hundred years ago - to finance wars.
However there is alot that governments do that has to be paid for and in a democracy we can choose what we want government to spend money on on our behalf. Tax is the will of the people. We want to raise money for wars so be it.We want to raise tax for the NHS so be it.We want to subsidise the nuclear industry(NDA - the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority - absorbs 70 -80 % of the Dept of Climate Change budget[Source Guardian Data Blog]).
It is not the sexiest of topics but think about it and you realise it is people power in practice.
Because our electoral system is flawed it is not reflecting the people's priorities but get that straight and then we need to embrace tax as the instrument it is.
so we need to start questioning why our tax code in UK - the manual - is the longest in the world(Hong Kong has the shortest). One answer I came across is that we have a vast financial sector that makes money by exploiting the difference between the rates in different countries (tax switching). This sector has no interest in harmonising tax rates across the world or even having multilateral tax agreements.Hence we have different bilateral agreements with dozens of countries across the world.
I am certain that tax does not have to be as complex as it appears to be.
So join in the conversation to stop the vested interests from pulling the wool from over our eyes.
I want our children to understand about not just personal finances but about what we do and can do together with our money.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)