As I write, there is a lot of comment in the national press about whether or not the British government should try to save jobs in what is left of our steel industry.
Allowing our steel industry to close would leave Britain dependent upon imports of steel from other countries. We would have to accept what those other countries offered us in terms of price and quality.
I am not advocating a return to the days of state ownership, with its flair for incompetence. After all, how many people nowadays regard British cars from the 1970s as design classics?
Nevertheless I cannot see how a country which can afford to squander billions of pounds on vanity projects like HS2 cannot also afford to require that the steel used in constructing HS2 be produced in this country.
Britain has lost its coal industry. Money that was once spent on keeping the coal industry afloat is now spent on other things, and yet I cannot help but wonder if we are really better off for having lost our coal industry. If the coal mines were such a drain on our economy, then their closure ought logically to have heralded a new era of prosperity. If that happened, then I for one failed to notice.
Britain has yet to return to the low levels of unemployment last seen in the 1960s, and many people still queue for food banks. I wonder if that situation could really be improved by the loss of our steel industry.
Related previous posts include:
How important is manufacturing?
The end of coal
Sunday, 3 April 2016
Friday, 25 March 2016
Honesty and drug use: two scientific studies
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.
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, 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
Saturday, 27 February 2016
The Trump phenomenon
Donald Trump is a curious figure, but then the world of politics is full of curious figures.
As I write, the USA is looking towards its next presidential elections, and the propect of Donald Trump being the Republican candidate cannot be ruled out. Neither can the prospect of him becoming president.
I have just read an essay in a national newspaper by the veteran columnist and obnoxious idiot Max Hastings, in which he examines the Trump phenomenon. He refers to Trump the racist, Trump the liar, Trump the opportunist, and I have three questions.
First, what is his definition of the word racist? Second, in what sense is Trump any more of a liar than hundreds of other American politicians? Third, in what sense is Trump any more of an opportunist than hundreds of other American politicians?
Hastings also refers to moderate, rational Americans, but fails to make clear who these people actually are. So far as I am aware, I have used the word moderate in only two of my previous blog posts, and in both cases I asked what the word means. I have used the word rational in only one previous blog post, and in a context which I think made my meaning clear.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump, but he comes across as a man who speaks bluntly about issues that matter to ordinary Americans, and I am not surprised that many ordinary Americans warm to him. Hastings does not warm to him, however, and claims that:
The policies of Donald Trump, if they can be dignified as such, include building a wall across the U.S. border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants, and making South Koreans pay cash for the presence of American troops to defend them from the North.
While I accept that building a wall along the frontier with Mexico would be very expensive, and also that it might not prove very effective, I am not prepared to dismiss it as a bad idea. If nothing else, it suggests that Trump is at least taking the immigration debate seriously.
As for making South Korea pay for American troops, I would prefer to see American troops removed from South Korea altogether. If North Korea with its struggling economy can afford to maintain a threatening stance towards South Korea, then surely the far more prosperous South Korea can afford to maintain a more terrifying stance.
Perhaps the most revolting assertion made by Hastings is that millions of whites hate him [Obama] — for not being white. If white people hate Obama, then it is perhaps more likely because they hate what he has achieved - or not achieved - during his two terms in office.
As I write, the USA is looking towards its next presidential elections, and the propect of Donald Trump being the Republican candidate cannot be ruled out. Neither can the prospect of him becoming president.
I have just read an essay in a national newspaper by the veteran columnist and obnoxious idiot Max Hastings, in which he examines the Trump phenomenon. He refers to Trump the racist, Trump the liar, Trump the opportunist, and I have three questions.
First, what is his definition of the word racist? Second, in what sense is Trump any more of a liar than hundreds of other American politicians? Third, in what sense is Trump any more of an opportunist than hundreds of other American politicians?
Hastings also refers to moderate, rational Americans, but fails to make clear who these people actually are. So far as I am aware, I have used the word moderate in only two of my previous blog posts, and in both cases I asked what the word means. I have used the word rational in only one previous blog post, and in a context which I think made my meaning clear.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump, but he comes across as a man who speaks bluntly about issues that matter to ordinary Americans, and I am not surprised that many ordinary Americans warm to him. Hastings does not warm to him, however, and claims that:
The policies of Donald Trump, if they can be dignified as such, include building a wall across the U.S. border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants, and making South Koreans pay cash for the presence of American troops to defend them from the North.
While I accept that building a wall along the frontier with Mexico would be very expensive, and also that it might not prove very effective, I am not prepared to dismiss it as a bad idea. If nothing else, it suggests that Trump is at least taking the immigration debate seriously.
As for making South Korea pay for American troops, I would prefer to see American troops removed from South Korea altogether. If North Korea with its struggling economy can afford to maintain a threatening stance towards South Korea, then surely the far more prosperous South Korea can afford to maintain a more terrifying stance.
Perhaps the most revolting assertion made by Hastings is that millions of whites hate him [Obama] — for not being white. If white people hate Obama, then it is perhaps more likely because they hate what he has achieved - or not achieved - during his two terms in office.
Saturday, 20 February 2016
Will your tumble dryer catch fire?
In November last year, the American company Whirlpool announced a major recall of tumble dryers, after it emerged that hundreds of them have caught fire. The dryers which caught fire were apparently manufactured by either Indesit or Hotpoint, both of which are subsidiaries of Whirlpool.
The affected dryers were apparently all manufactured between 2004 and 2015, and so it seems that for around eleven years a large multinational company was selling large firebombs without apparently realising it. I can't help but wonder how many overpaid muppets were on the payroll of Indesit and Hotpoint during those years.
People who report owning one of these dangerous tumble dryers are being put on a waiting list to be visited by a repair man (described as an engineer) who will supposedly make the appliance safe. To speed things along, some people have been given a free replacement, while others have taken advantage of an offer to buy a new dryer at a discounted price.
While it might seem at a glance that Whirlpool are taking this seriously, the truth would appear to be very different. Consider the following points:
I find it curious how - so far as I am aware - not one of Britain's elected politicians has dared to speak out on this matter. Surely it would not be hard for either David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn to make a public statement urging Whirlpool to move a bit faster.
Update: a national newspaper has recently observed that:
Another update: Whirlpool has now given in to pressure from Trading Standards, and is now advising customers to disconnect their faulty tumble dryers until the modification work has taken place.
It appears that this in turn resulted from Trading Standards giving in to pressure from Which Magazine and from London Fire Brigade, who believe that a faulty tumble dryer caused a fire in a tower block in Shepherd's Bush in August 2016. I wonder if anyone in either Whirlpool's head office or in the British government is going to resign over this fiasco.
The affected dryers were apparently all manufactured between 2004 and 2015, and so it seems that for around eleven years a large multinational company was selling large firebombs without apparently realising it. I can't help but wonder how many overpaid muppets were on the payroll of Indesit and Hotpoint during those years.
People who report owning one of these dangerous tumble dryers are being put on a waiting list to be visited by a repair man (described as an engineer) who will supposedly make the appliance safe. To speed things along, some people have been given a free replacement, while others have taken advantage of an offer to buy a new dryer at a discounted price.
While it might seem at a glance that Whirlpool are taking this seriously, the truth would appear to be very different. Consider the following points:
- At least one national newspaper has reported that it may take more than three years for Whirlpool to fix every faulty tumble dryer in the country. How many houses will burn down in the meantime?
- People who are disabled or who care for disabled people are rarely given any priority.
- A Hotpoint tumble dryer owned by Dennis Marinakis caught fire even after it had been modified and supposedly made safe.
- Modification work is prioritised by date order, which hardly makes sense in rural areas. Once an engineer has driven a long distance to a remote town or village, it would make sense to modify all the dryers in that location on the same day.
I find it curious how - so far as I am aware - not one of Britain's elected politicians has dared to speak out on this matter. Surely it would not be hard for either David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn to make a public statement urging Whirlpool to move a bit faster.
Update: a national newspaper has recently observed that:
Leon
Livermore, the chief executive of the Chartered Trading Standards
Institute has ... told the Observer: ‘Central government itself does have
back-up powers to force companies into recalls and to take action. So we
would call on the government, in particular the Department for
Business, Innovation & Skills, to take action before someone dies.’
Another update: Whirlpool has now given in to pressure from Trading Standards, and is now advising customers to disconnect their faulty tumble dryers until the modification work has taken place.
It appears that this in turn resulted from Trading Standards giving in to pressure from Which Magazine and from London Fire Brigade, who believe that a faulty tumble dryer caused a fire in a tower block in Shepherd's Bush in August 2016. I wonder if anyone in either Whirlpool's head office or in the British government is going to resign over this fiasco.
Friday, 5 February 2016
Asylum and hypocrisy
It is reported that the United Nations has spoken out about the ongoing residence of Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. I won't comment on what they have said, but rather on the situation as a whole.
Since 2012, Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in a bid to avoid being extradited to Sweden to stand trial for rape. For most of that time he has been granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government.
On the one hand I do not think it is right that Ecuador should help Assange to avoid criminal charges, but on the other hand I am aware that the United Kingdom has for many years now allowed foreign criminals to avoid justice in their own homelands by allowing them to remain in this country as refugees.
I am reminded in particular of two Indian men who were wanted on terror charges in India who were allowed to remain. Asylum is supposed to be granted where people are under threat of persecution because of their beliefs, not because they have committed crimes.
I'd be surprised if there have not also been many abuses of asylum status by criminals taking refuge in Sweden.
Related previous posts include:
Air strikes against Iraq are wrong
Since 2012, Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in a bid to avoid being extradited to Sweden to stand trial for rape. For most of that time he has been granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government.
On the one hand I do not think it is right that Ecuador should help Assange to avoid criminal charges, but on the other hand I am aware that the United Kingdom has for many years now allowed foreign criminals to avoid justice in their own homelands by allowing them to remain in this country as refugees.
I am reminded in particular of two Indian men who were wanted on terror charges in India who were allowed to remain. Asylum is supposed to be granted where people are under threat of persecution because of their beliefs, not because they have committed crimes.
I'd be surprised if there have not also been many abuses of asylum status by criminals taking refuge in Sweden.
Related previous posts include:
Air strikes against Iraq are wrong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)