Well I call it a review. I read the contents page and the epilogue, and dipped into one or two bits in between.
I'm sure it is a valuable historical record, and should be on the reading list of Economics courses for years to come. But if you have witnessed a car crash, watching a small family car hit by an oncoming sports car driven by a reckless driver, do you really need to know the name of the sports car driver and why he behaved that way? It's not an uncommon event. Recklessness and greed are not uncommon drivers of behaviour.
As a fan of Paul Ormerod, I'm more interested in 'Why most things fail'.
The underlying answer is that human beings vastly overestimate their own abilities. And the more intelligent and/or successful someone is, the more likely this is to be the case. Pack a group of such people together, and common sense goes entirely out the window, replaced by a massive dose of hubris.
So we go for the grand project, a massive centrally controlled state(communism-failed), control of global temperatures (will never happen), and a new global financial model where people only get rich, and 'bubbles' don't happen (subject of Tett's book).
What we really need, is a 'damage limitation' apprach. Manageable projects- a state that provides a structure to society in which individuals can maximise their potential, but leaves them free to choose how to do that- initiatives to limit the excesses of unrestrained economic growth, pollution, environmental destruction, but with specific, acheivable and measurable objectives- and in the financial world, I agree with Gillian Tett's epilogue, which (paraphrased) says that money and credit are too important to be left to bankers. I for one hope I never hear the words 'too big to fail' again.
Saturday 1 January 2011
Sunday 7 November 2010
The long term unemployed
The BBC web site has a howl of protest on its comments page, about government plans to put the long term unemployed to work for short periods.
200,000 of those claiming benefits have been unemployed for 3 out of the past 5 years. 76,000 for 5 out of the past 7 years. About 3 people in every 1,000 of the population. Say 600 people in Swindon.
If they each did a month's work a year, that would be a group of 50 people throughout the year, available to do useful work in the community that would otherwise not be done.
What is wrong with that?
It's not an unreasonable demand to make on someone who has been saying for a year that they are available for work, but have found none.
No one else would be put out of a job, if the work is selected intelligently, and I'm sure the unions would watch like hawks over this (quite rightly).
200,000 of those claiming benefits have been unemployed for 3 out of the past 5 years. 76,000 for 5 out of the past 7 years. About 3 people in every 1,000 of the population. Say 600 people in Swindon.
If they each did a month's work a year, that would be a group of 50 people throughout the year, available to do useful work in the community that would otherwise not be done.
What is wrong with that?
It's not an unreasonable demand to make on someone who has been saying for a year that they are available for work, but have found none.
No one else would be put out of a job, if the work is selected intelligently, and I'm sure the unions would watch like hawks over this (quite rightly).
Monday 1 November 2010
Prisons
There seem to be just 2 main options (3 if you include letting people go free) that are discussed. Expensive, high security prisons, or freedom on probation.
No one seems to consider the option of cheap, low security prisons.
Hotel chains can make a profit selling rooms at £29 a night.
My proposal is to have certain classes of prisoner stay in accomodation similar to a Premier Inn. No security other than CCTV, and one manned entrance. Maybe a requirement to check in at random times for a retinal scan or a drug test.
Prisoners would be told that if they absconded or misbehaved, they would be caught, and put into a high security unit, with an extra year or two on their sentence and no parole.
I suggested this to a magistrate, who thought that most prisoners would be too stupid to appreciate this, and would just abscond.
Clearly violent prisoners, those thought likely to abscond and gang leaders would not be sent to such places. They would be used instead of releasing criminals back into society early, or for people currently not given a custodial sentence.
Some of them would be employed cleaning or cooking.
Others would attend training or remedial courses.
But they would be kept away from their home area, and the temptations to return to their old ways.
No one seems to consider the option of cheap, low security prisons.
Hotel chains can make a profit selling rooms at £29 a night.
My proposal is to have certain classes of prisoner stay in accomodation similar to a Premier Inn. No security other than CCTV, and one manned entrance. Maybe a requirement to check in at random times for a retinal scan or a drug test.
Prisoners would be told that if they absconded or misbehaved, they would be caught, and put into a high security unit, with an extra year or two on their sentence and no parole.
I suggested this to a magistrate, who thought that most prisoners would be too stupid to appreciate this, and would just abscond.
Clearly violent prisoners, those thought likely to abscond and gang leaders would not be sent to such places. They would be used instead of releasing criminals back into society early, or for people currently not given a custodial sentence.
Some of them would be employed cleaning or cooking.
Others would attend training or remedial courses.
But they would be kept away from their home area, and the temptations to return to their old ways.
Sunday 31 October 2010
local govenment cuts
the LGA says cuts will mean the end of help forthe elderly. How hypocritical can you get! No cuts to massive pensions, 7%pay increases for councillors, no cuts in overpaid managers, but the elderly, yes we'll cut their benefits. This is down to the LGA, not the government, it's up tothe LGA what they choose to cut and this latest announcement says it all...
Saturday 30 October 2010
A blog to get started
Radio, TV, press are full of people with opinions. Often the opinions are not what people really think. They may be paid to express controversial opinions to boost readership, or they have political or business motives. According to Bing, Eric the Red gave Greenland its name to encourage settlers, so this has been going on for a long time. My opinions are a bit unusual, in that they are what I really think, but I thought I'd publish them, for anyone who was interested.
I'll start with housing.
Everyone deserves a decent home. Warm. Dry. Safe and secure. Ideally they choose a home they can afford to rent or buy from their income. If they can't afford the rent of the most basic apartment, then the state will provide them with somewhere to live using taxpayer funds,and most taxpayers would be happy with that principle. But:
1) If your circumstances improve, you should either move out to rent or buy your home privately, releasing a home for someone who has a greater need, or pay the full market rent for your home,unsubsidised by the state, to repay some of the taxpayer funds you have used in the past, so they can be used to build more houses.
2) You can't expect to live exactly where you want to. The state has an obligation to use its money wisely. Lots of people who pay their own way can't afford to live exactly where they want. If they are paying taxes to pay part of your rent, you shouldn't expect to live in more expensive housing than they do.
Does this sound ultra 'right wing'? Apparently it is.
Some people say that once you have been given subsidised state housing because of your need, you should keep it forever, even if you earn more than average, even if you are living alone in a four bedroomed house. The fact that this means there are thousands of young families waiting to be housed while you and those like you are occupying a house you could afford to give up, is regarded as an unrelated fact. A problem to be solved by increasing the taxes of those who are paying their own way in the world.
Why would someone say this? I suspect for cynical political reasons. A lot of voters get state help with housing these days. They'd be as likely to vote for housing reform,as turkeys would be to vote to make Thanksgiving a UK public holiday.
I'll start with housing.
Everyone deserves a decent home. Warm. Dry. Safe and secure. Ideally they choose a home they can afford to rent or buy from their income. If they can't afford the rent of the most basic apartment, then the state will provide them with somewhere to live using taxpayer funds,and most taxpayers would be happy with that principle. But:
1) If your circumstances improve, you should either move out to rent or buy your home privately, releasing a home for someone who has a greater need, or pay the full market rent for your home,unsubsidised by the state, to repay some of the taxpayer funds you have used in the past, so they can be used to build more houses.
2) You can't expect to live exactly where you want to. The state has an obligation to use its money wisely. Lots of people who pay their own way can't afford to live exactly where they want. If they are paying taxes to pay part of your rent, you shouldn't expect to live in more expensive housing than they do.
Does this sound ultra 'right wing'? Apparently it is.
Some people say that once you have been given subsidised state housing because of your need, you should keep it forever, even if you earn more than average, even if you are living alone in a four bedroomed house. The fact that this means there are thousands of young families waiting to be housed while you and those like you are occupying a house you could afford to give up, is regarded as an unrelated fact. A problem to be solved by increasing the taxes of those who are paying their own way in the world.
Why would someone say this? I suspect for cynical political reasons. A lot of voters get state help with housing these days. They'd be as likely to vote for housing reform,as turkeys would be to vote to make Thanksgiving a UK public holiday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)