A lot has changed since I began writing this blog more than three years ago. One change is that I am now far more likely to believe in the power of the inevitable.
When Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace, he believed that all of history is an inevitable process which people cannot influence - not even supposedly powerful people like kings and emperors. On the one hand, this might seem an utterly bizarre notion, but on the other hand there are always exceptions to just about any rule.
Consider football. Suppose Everton play Swansea. It is easy to envisage either team winning the match. Now suppose that Tottenham play Chesterfield. It is hard to imagine any realistic outcome other than a victory for Tottenham.
Tolstoy wrote his novel about the French invasion of Russia in 1812. The invasion was a complete disaster which proved to be the beginning of the end for the Emperor Napoleon.
It is hard not to see a strong sense of inevitability about the events of 1812. Napoleon led a very large army into Russia with little in the way of supplies. It had apparently not occurred to him that it would be very difficult to keep such a large army supplied by foraging. Many of his troops were killed in battle as he marched towards Moscow - notably at the Battle of Borodino - and many more died of hunger.
Eventually the French captured Moscow, but found that almost the entire population had fled. As winter began to draw in, the French abandoned Moscow, and began the long march home. Tens of thousands of soldiers died from the effects of hunger and extreme cold, while many others were either killed in battle or murdered by Russian civilians.
But enough of history. As I write, the British people are looking forward to the long-promised referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. I have not so far spoken out about this, partly because I have a sense of inevitability.
I have previously said confidently that I expect Scotland to leave the United Kingdom at some point in the future, and now I confidently expect Britain to leave the European Union. Even if the outcome of the referendum is a victory for staying in, then I still think it would be only a minor setback. Nothing is more likely to bring the European Union to its knees than its own continued exisence.
As a final points, the European Union has nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights. That is an agency of the Council of Europe, an entirely separate body.
Related previous posts include:
Austerity versus democracy in Greece
Sunday, 22 May 2016
Saturday, 7 May 2016
Jeremy Corbyn is close to the truth
There has been a lot of fuss in the press recently about allegations of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. If I've got it right, three councillors have been suspended because of remarks they made which were deemed to be unacceptable.
I don't know the full facts, but it appears that in at least one case the supposed anti-semitism revolves around a quite reasonable although tongue-in-cheek criticism of Israel. I interpret anti-semitism to mean an irrational dislike of Jews, and therefore I will not use that particular label about criticism of the terror state of Israel.
I remember how a year or two back a famous newspaper columnist asserted that people who criticise Israel also want Britain to have sharia law. Am I perhaps the exception which proves that particular rule?
More recently another newspaper columnist asserted that people who condemn Israel for its various crimes are unwilling to condemn other countries for similar crimes. However I will happily condemn any government in any country which perpetrates acts of terror.
While Jeremy Corbyn has reacted to the negative press coverage about his party by expelling a few people, his response has still been dismissed as inadequate by many people in the media. Apparently Jeremy Corbyn said publicly just before the local elections that there are more important issues facing the country than anti-semitism, and so there are.
What exactly is a Jew? A few months ago I read an essay on the internet about the causes of anti-semitism which argued that Jews are not a race, which is absolutely correct. Nevertheless the law in the United Kingdom on inciting racial hatred does protect Jews - but how many people in the Jewish community ever protest about this? It seems that the non-race of the Jews are quite happy to be treated as a race when it suits them.
Pretty well anyone can become a Jew because pretty well anyone can pretend to follow a religion based on the Old Testament. Once you have asserted that you are a Jew, you acquire a privileged status whereby you apparently have the right to label anyone who annoys you as an anti-semite.
Of course being Jewish - or claiming to be Jewish - does not exempt you from being unemployed or homeless or hungry.
Jeremy Corbyn was right to say that there are more important issues facing Britain than anti-semitism. If you dispute that, then maybe you should try going without food for a couple of days. It might help you to reassess your values.
Related previous posts include:
Starvation Britain
Are you anti-semitic?
I don't know the full facts, but it appears that in at least one case the supposed anti-semitism revolves around a quite reasonable although tongue-in-cheek criticism of Israel. I interpret anti-semitism to mean an irrational dislike of Jews, and therefore I will not use that particular label about criticism of the terror state of Israel.
I remember how a year or two back a famous newspaper columnist asserted that people who criticise Israel also want Britain to have sharia law. Am I perhaps the exception which proves that particular rule?
More recently another newspaper columnist asserted that people who condemn Israel for its various crimes are unwilling to condemn other countries for similar crimes. However I will happily condemn any government in any country which perpetrates acts of terror.
While Jeremy Corbyn has reacted to the negative press coverage about his party by expelling a few people, his response has still been dismissed as inadequate by many people in the media. Apparently Jeremy Corbyn said publicly just before the local elections that there are more important issues facing the country than anti-semitism, and so there are.
What exactly is a Jew? A few months ago I read an essay on the internet about the causes of anti-semitism which argued that Jews are not a race, which is absolutely correct. Nevertheless the law in the United Kingdom on inciting racial hatred does protect Jews - but how many people in the Jewish community ever protest about this? It seems that the non-race of the Jews are quite happy to be treated as a race when it suits them.
Pretty well anyone can become a Jew because pretty well anyone can pretend to follow a religion based on the Old Testament. Once you have asserted that you are a Jew, you acquire a privileged status whereby you apparently have the right to label anyone who annoys you as an anti-semite.
Of course being Jewish - or claiming to be Jewish - does not exempt you from being unemployed or homeless or hungry.
Jeremy Corbyn was right to say that there are more important issues facing Britain than anti-semitism. If you dispute that, then maybe you should try going without food for a couple of days. It might help you to reassess your values.
Related previous posts include:
Starvation Britain
Are you anti-semitic?
Saturday, 16 April 2016
Mutual defence is evil
The Polish government wants NATO to help defend it against possible Russian aggression.
NATO was founded in 1949 as a mutual defence organisation. Mutual defence is fundamentally wrong, although I can't think of anyone other than the fictitious Edmund Blackadder ever saying so.
Is there any evidence that mutual defence discourages wars from happening? I can't think of any, although comments are welcome. What I do know is that the past twenty years have witnessed wars in such countries as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria - and neither NATO nor any other mutual defence arrangement prevented a single one of those wars from happening.
Rather than preventing wars, mutual defence treaties tend to make wars - when they occur - much larger and far more destructive than would otherwise be the case. The two world wars would not have happened had it not been for the insane and immoral belief in mutual defence. Wars would still have happened, but they would not have been grotesque calamities on a global scale.
I often wonder what right the United Kingdom - or any country for that matter - has to go to war against another country which every other country in the world does not equally enjoy. For example, Britain took part in the bombing of Libya in 2011, shortly after David Cameron became Prime Minister. If Libya were ever to bomb Britain, then David Cameron would either have to condone the bombing, or else be guilty of monumental hypocrisy.
Of course we are often expected to believe that certain countries have not merely a right but also a duty to go to war. Maybe the people who hold to this point of view could explain in what circumstances another country might have a duty to go to war against Britain. For example, should any country have gone to war against Britain in 2011 in order to punish the British for waging war against Libya, and murdering Libyan civilians?
Related previous posts include:
George and Baldrick
What is a patriot?
NATO was founded in 1949 as a mutual defence organisation. Mutual defence is fundamentally wrong, although I can't think of anyone other than the fictitious Edmund Blackadder ever saying so.
Is there any evidence that mutual defence discourages wars from happening? I can't think of any, although comments are welcome. What I do know is that the past twenty years have witnessed wars in such countries as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria - and neither NATO nor any other mutual defence arrangement prevented a single one of those wars from happening.
Rather than preventing wars, mutual defence treaties tend to make wars - when they occur - much larger and far more destructive than would otherwise be the case. The two world wars would not have happened had it not been for the insane and immoral belief in mutual defence. Wars would still have happened, but they would not have been grotesque calamities on a global scale.
I often wonder what right the United Kingdom - or any country for that matter - has to go to war against another country which every other country in the world does not equally enjoy. For example, Britain took part in the bombing of Libya in 2011, shortly after David Cameron became Prime Minister. If Libya were ever to bomb Britain, then David Cameron would either have to condone the bombing, or else be guilty of monumental hypocrisy.
Of course we are often expected to believe that certain countries have not merely a right but also a duty to go to war. Maybe the people who hold to this point of view could explain in what circumstances another country might have a duty to go to war against Britain. For example, should any country have gone to war against Britain in 2011 in order to punish the British for waging war against Libya, and murdering Libyan civilians?
Related previous posts include:
George and Baldrick
What is a patriot?
Sunday, 3 April 2016
Is the steel industry worth saving?
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)