Of course, we must do anything at all to protect the children, even ban things. Yes, ban Marmite:
After being served at a school's breakfast club, the yeast extract has been removed from the menu for being too salty - and parents are blaming 'Nanny State politicians'.
Well, no, it isn't Nanny State politicians actually. We'd really all be rather in favour of their banning aconite or strychnine from the school menu. The problem is idiocy:
The food industry's Guideline Daily Amount of salt for a child aged five to ten is 4g. A child's serving of Marmite is 2g, providing 0.25g of salt, or six per cent of a child's recommended intake.
As Paracelsus tried to drum into us all those years ago, it is the dose which is the poison. The idiocy doesn't stop here of course. Back awhile there were rules drawn up for what may not be advertised to children on the grounds that some foods are harmful to them. Yes, Marmite got caught up in this as well. For those drawing up the regulations decided that 100g would be the appropriate serving size to use as the basis of their calculations....yes, you've spotted it. Marmite was banned for its salt content for they had decided to use a 50 portion serving size to work out the salt content.
So far so trivial of course (although it is the subsequent lack of advertising revenue which is leading to all those calls for publicly funded childrens 'programming) but it's worth noting in the larger debate.
Say, about the financial markets, something which clearly isn't trivial. Perhaps we should have more regulation. Perhaps we should have less, or simply different such. Whatever the theory of such regulatory measures, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that at least some of those who devise the regulations in our fair land are identifiably and provably idiots.
There, now doesn't that make you feel better about the future and the delights it holds?
The BBC reports that a thorough review of the NHS in England by the National Audit Office has found "little evidence" that patient’s complaints improved services. In fact, most don’t even bother to kick up a fuss because they don’t think it will make any difference, while those that do find the whole process a bureaucratic mess.
A spokesman for the Patients Association said: “Despite the army of people involved, the NHS is light years away from a genuine complaints service. It lacks compassion, is bureaucratic beyond belief and takes far too long. This is not a "service", it is a sham.'
In response to the report, a spokesman for the Department of Health has stated that: "From next year, we are simplifying the system. Greater emphasis is to be placed on working with the complainant to resolve cases satisfactorily at a local level. We are also requiring NHS organisations and local authorities to publicise the complaints procedure and encourage people to use it. In addition, local organisations will publish information on the number of complaints received and how they have been dealt with."
However, this response fails to address the underlying problem the report highlights. Although the process of complaining is arduous, the real problem is that apathy reigns supreme; patients rightly fail to see how such a vast inefficient bureaucracy can even hope to offer a decent service. As such, what point is there in complaining?
With most people taxed beyond the means of paying for private healthcare, patients are unable to take their custom elsewhere, surely the most common reaction to bad service in the private sector. Foundation Hospitals have failed to address this core problem. Instead, people should be free to divert their money – which the government currently wastes on the NHS – into privately provided healthcare. This would empower many more people to enjoy the undoubted benefits the private system, currently only enjoyed by the very wealthy.
Here's an excellent piece by Thomas J DiLorenzo on who really got us into the credit mess – American politicians and regulators.
The Community Reinvestment Act 1977 didn't just force lenders to make bad loans to 'sub-prime' borrowers. It stopped banks making any business decisions that would prejudice this shaky market. The Act also funded 'community' – that is, advocacy – groups to make sure that the banks knuckled under. The lenders knew it was all daft, so to spread the risk, lenders like Freddie Mac 'securitized' their loans in a big way – spreading the infection around the planet.
In 1995 the authorities 'streamlined' the working of the Act by pressuring the banks to carry on making bad loans – telling them not to pay too much attention to tradition creditworthiness tests, and ruling that a borrower's participation on a credit-counselling was proof enough that they could repay a mortgage, which the banks then had to give.
Rising house prices and economic prosperity, fuelled by low interest rates (Federal Reserve again), disguised this craziness for years. But now all those sub-prime borrowers are defaulting big time. And politicians are blaming the bankers!
I've just returned from the US, where I spent the last few days in Kansas City, Missouri, at the Cerner Health Conference. Cerner is one of the world's leading healthcare IT suppliers, but they also devote a lot of time and effort to 'thought leadership' and healthcare policy reform. That's why I was there.
One high point was hearing Fred Thompson – the former senator, presidential candidate, and Law & Order star – give the keynote address. I also had the chance to talk to him briefly afterwards. A number of things struck me. First of all, it's no wonder his presidential campaign didn't go well – and I mean that as a compliment! Thompson came across as far too honest and straightforward for that kind of election.
He made the point that politics was suffering from a lack of leadership, and a fundamental dishonesty on the part of the politicians. Absolutely everyone knows that medicare and social security, for instance, are completely unsustainable and will soon either become insolvent or impose an unbearable burden on American taxpayers. And yet no one is prepared to stand up and say that or to propose real alternatives.
True enough. But Thompson also made it clear that the electorate must shoulder some of the blame for this. Voters punish politicians who tell them the truth, and reward those that tell them what they want to hear. In terms of leadership, they reap what they sow.
That being said, the thing that impressed me the most was the audience's reaction to his speech. At one point he said that people needed to stop looking to government for the answers to their problems, and take responsibility for themselves. The crowd of several thousand healthcare professionals burst into spontaneous applause. Can you imagine that happening at a British health conference? No, thought not...
If you happen to be living outside of Scotland, Korea, Uganda Turkey, China, Israel, India, Europe or Taiwan, you may have missed an excellent (and widely published!) article by Dr Eamonn Butler, the ASI's director.
Eamonn argues that the current financial crisis was not caused by capitalism being fatally flawed. Instead, he rightly points out that it was caused by politicians forcing banks to give out bad loans, monetary authorities flooding the West with cheap credit and regulators being asleep at the wheel. In conclusion, Eamonn argues that – regardless of its current difficulties – capitalism continues to pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
The free-market argument can be lost amongst the voluminous nonsense leaking from the pens of journalists, as well as the populist drivel spewing from the mouths of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, who are posturing for the upcoming elections. As such the article is well worth a read.
Landfilling our rubbish is such a good idea that it's very difficult to come up with any rational reason why we shouldn't do more of it rather than less.
This isn't the first time that local councils have been taken to the cleaners by dodgy banks.
While it's possible that we tax payers will make a profit on those preference shares in the banks, it's not in fact certain.
Another set of ideas about what needs to be done to prevent a rerun in the future.
A very different idea: let's increase the private insurance, not the public.
A very hard nosed but realistic view of Russia's problems.
And finally, is this a very good idea or could they simply not get a loan?
With confidence in the financial sector so low, it is perhaps inevitable that the world's big central banks had to step in and cut interest rates, and that the UK government intervened with more liquidity, guarantees on inter-bank lending, and the offer to recapitalize the banks by buying their shares. Most of the comment on this has been positive, but there are downsides too.
Let's remember that it is governments that got us into this problem – forcing lenders to make bad loans for social/political ends, printing money to keep the markets afloat through the dotcom crash and 9/11, and looking the other way while banks borrowed thirty times their assets. Are they really the best people to fix the problem?
The £100bn of extra liquidity that the Bank of England is pumping in, plus the interest rate cut, might indeed be enough to stop the hemorrhaging. Which is arguably fine, because the patient is critical. But it is no cure. It will produce a nasty inflation which, from past experience, will take still more time and pain to get rid of. And big government deficits, at a time when we need sound finances.
Nor is the immediate treatment exactly free. The government is going to charge the banks a fee for its guarantees. They're providing capital right enough, but it's expensive capital, which doesn't help the banks' profitability.
And now the government is becoming a big player in the banking business, owning a chunk of their shares. When can we expect this part-nationalization to end? If bank shares continue to perform poorly, it won't be able to sell; if the banks recover and their shares spring back, it won't want too.
On Monday evening I was lucky enough to hear Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, address a meeting organized by the City of London Corporation. His speech was primarily focused on the financial crisis [obviously] and its impact on both New York and London, discussing how these cities could recover.
A key point he made was that, “free trade is most important" to aid the recovery and that the actions during the Depression are in no way a provision of guidance for the future. Indeed, he clearly intimated that there was little if anything, in terms of policy, that could be learned from that period. What we could learn was that isolationism and protectionism are not intelligent courses to follow. Protecting jobs is a waste of time and money, as there is always someone who can produce things cheaper than you are currently.
Unfortunately for world trade the above warning may not be heeded by the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If the Democrats are elected in the US (in conjunction with control of both houses) then this crisis could turn into a series of crises. Reading Obama's issue pages concerned with the economy, it is fairly obvious that the competition America faces from around the world will only be fought via subsidies and renegotiated deals that imbalance trade. In the long run this will be detrimental to not only Americans (raising tax bills) but also the rest of the globe. We could see a prolonging of the current crisis in the confidence of capitalism. But to many this will be irrelevant. They will be wrapped in the cloak of moral smugness, protecting them from the harsh reality of the unintended consequences of electing the wrong person to the White House.
It was another successful Next Generation event held at the Barley Mow on Horseferry Road in Westminster. The special guest was John Whittingdale OBE MP, who is Chairman of the Select Committee for Culture Media and Sports. Mr Whittingdale spoke of how in his youth he had attended an Independent Seminar on the Open Society and had his eyes opened to the ideas of a free society. He especially remembered the speech given by Dr Robert Lefever on why there wasn’t a need for a nationalized health care system! He also illuminated the Next Generation members assembled as to his views on his remit, and how he’d been branded a ‘socialist’ due to his desire to see the BBC retained, despite wanting to see the TV licence abolished.
The next TNG is taking place on Tuesday 4th November. We are hoping to have a speaker along who may know something or other about that ‘other’ event taking place the same day! See you all then.
The BBC 
Here's an excellent 
I've just returned from the US, where I spent the last few days in Kansas City, Missouri, at the Cerner Health Conference. Cerner is one of the world's leading healthcare IT suppliers, but they also devote a lot of time and effort to 'thought leadership' and healthcare policy reform. That's why I was there. 
With confidence in the financial sector so low, it is perhaps inevitable that the world's big central banks had to step in and cut interest rates, and that the UK government intervened with more liquidity, guarantees on inter-bank lending, and the offer to recapitalize the banks by buying their shares. Most of the comment on this has been positive, but there are downsides too.
On Monday evening I was lucky enough to hear Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, address a 