Newspapers are not always truthful, but sometimes it is hard to fathom why. A columnist whose work I often admire recently wrote about an academic study into honesty which apparently found that people in European countries tend to be more honest than people in Africa or Asia.
The study did not link the findings with race but with the level of government corruption in different countries, and it is not surprising that a British newspaper should be happy to report that race is not the issue.
What is harder to comprehend is that the columnist completely misrepresented the nature of the study. It appears that young people in various countries were invited to roll a die twice in secret and then report the score on their first roll. People who reported a high score were rewarded with money, and so there was an obvious incentive to lie.
The columnist reported that participants had been secretly filmed, and so the people carrying out the study knew which participants were telling the truth. The curious thing is that this was not true. I say curious for two reasons. The first is that there was no obvious reason for the columnist to misrepresent this fact. The second is that it arguably undermines the entire study. How can we argue that one group of people are more honest than another when we don't actually know whether or not any of them were lying?
At least one national newspaper today is reporting a study into the effects of prolonged cannabis use, which apparently include an increased tendency to financial problems and to antisocial behaviour. The comments however are not favourable. Many of the most highly rated comments refer to people who smoke cannabis and who have successful careers. I imagine that there may be a lot of truth in that.
One comment that is worth repeating is that because cannabis use is illegal, a lot of professional people who smoke cannabis would be unwilling to admit it publicly. That alone might skew the results of any scientific study into cannabis use.
Most of us have met people who live to a great age and enjoy fairly good health despite leading an unhealthy lifestyle. Likewise, it is perhaps unsurprising that there should be people out there who take illegal drugs without any obvious bad effects.
In other news, Kathryn Smith and her boyfriend Matthew Rigby are on trial for the murder of their young child Ayeeshia Jane Smith, who may have died after accidentally consuming cannabis. Meanwhile, cannabis user Clayton Smith begins his sentence for the manlaughter of PC Dave Phillips.
Friday 25 March 2016
Friday 11 March 2016
The economics of commercial expansion
Many years ago I read somewhere that far too many British companies were growing by acquisition and merger rather than organically. Strip away the jargon, and the complaint was that British companies ought to grow by recruiting more staff rather than by buying up other companies or by merging with other companies.
It is common for British companies to buy a controlling stake in another company, although I am not sure that it is common for two companies to merge.
Suppose two companies - A and B - compete in the same market. Suppose also that as company A increases its market share, so company B finds itself struggling. The directors of company A now have a choice. They may either make a bid to take control of company B, or they may continue to grow their own company organically.
In the latter case, it is possible that company B will eventually go out of business, in which case its workers will be made redundant. On the other hand, if company A takes control of company B, then it is probable that many of those jobs could be saved. I say probable because it is perhaps unlikely that there would be no redundancies at company B following the takeover.
In case readers think that I am recommending takeovers as being preferable to organic growth, let me be clear that I am not. I am merely observing that takeovers have at least one point in their favour.
My personal view is that takeovers are extremely risky, and are best avoided. For example, I remember once reading about a successful businessman who bought a controlling stake in what appeared to be a successful company, only to find that it was in fact barely making money. He and his family narrowly avoided becoming homeless as a result.
If you run a company, then you can seek to expand it on the basis of you knowing its strengths and weaknesses. By contrast, if you buy another company, then you are expanding your business empire on the basis of your limited knowledge of a company run by someone else. Surely that is a situation fraught with danger, and therefore best avoided.
It is common for British companies to buy a controlling stake in another company, although I am not sure that it is common for two companies to merge.
Suppose two companies - A and B - compete in the same market. Suppose also that as company A increases its market share, so company B finds itself struggling. The directors of company A now have a choice. They may either make a bid to take control of company B, or they may continue to grow their own company organically.
In the latter case, it is possible that company B will eventually go out of business, in which case its workers will be made redundant. On the other hand, if company A takes control of company B, then it is probable that many of those jobs could be saved. I say probable because it is perhaps unlikely that there would be no redundancies at company B following the takeover.
In case readers think that I am recommending takeovers as being preferable to organic growth, let me be clear that I am not. I am merely observing that takeovers have at least one point in their favour.
My personal view is that takeovers are extremely risky, and are best avoided. For example, I remember once reading about a successful businessman who bought a controlling stake in what appeared to be a successful company, only to find that it was in fact barely making money. He and his family narrowly avoided becoming homeless as a result.
If you run a company, then you can seek to expand it on the basis of you knowing its strengths and weaknesses. By contrast, if you buy another company, then you are expanding your business empire on the basis of your limited knowledge of a company run by someone else. Surely that is a situation fraught with danger, and therefore best avoided.
Saturday 5 March 2016
The rise of the homeless
The Man with the Twisted Lip is a short story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle about a man who earns a substantial salary begging on the streets of Victorian London.
The national press has recently reported an increase in the number of rough sleepers in Britain, and yet at the same time it appears that at least some of them are professional beggars - people who are not in fact homeless, but who can earn more money sitting on a cold pavement than they can from working in a nice warm office.
One national newspaper has reported the case of a man who pretended to be homeless, and earned around £12 per hour - nearly double the national minimum wage.
When I visit one of Britain's larger provincial cities before 7am on a cold morning, and see people in sleeping bags, then I really don't think that those people are pretending to be homeless. If they could all earn £12 per hour, then they would make £84 in a seven-hour day. I have just searched online for hotels in that city which charge less than half that much money for a single room, and soon gave up counting.
Nevertheless I don't doubt that not all beggars are geniune. I never give money to beggars, and for many years now I have followed a policy of either giving food rather than money to beggars or of giving money to charities which help the homeless.
As for a certain magazine commonly sold by homeless people, I haven't bought a copy in many years. I used to read it, but there was too much in it that I disliked.
Related previous posts include:
A rent arrears crisis in London
The national press has recently reported an increase in the number of rough sleepers in Britain, and yet at the same time it appears that at least some of them are professional beggars - people who are not in fact homeless, but who can earn more money sitting on a cold pavement than they can from working in a nice warm office.
One national newspaper has reported the case of a man who pretended to be homeless, and earned around £12 per hour - nearly double the national minimum wage.
When I visit one of Britain's larger provincial cities before 7am on a cold morning, and see people in sleeping bags, then I really don't think that those people are pretending to be homeless. If they could all earn £12 per hour, then they would make £84 in a seven-hour day. I have just searched online for hotels in that city which charge less than half that much money for a single room, and soon gave up counting.
Nevertheless I don't doubt that not all beggars are geniune. I never give money to beggars, and for many years now I have followed a policy of either giving food rather than money to beggars or of giving money to charities which help the homeless.
As for a certain magazine commonly sold by homeless people, I haven't bought a copy in many years. I used to read it, but there was too much in it that I disliked.
Related previous posts include:
A rent arrears crisis in London
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)