The Pin Factory Blog

The young trainee was greatly impressed by the doctor's swift diagnoses as she accompanied him on his house calls. 

"Your trouble is too much alcohol," he told the first patient. "Give it up, and you'll be fine."

At the next house, he told the patient: "Your trouble is too much chocolate. Give it up, and you'll be fine."

The trainee asked the older doctor how he did it. "Simple," he replied. "I just pretend to drop my stethoscope, and as I stoop down to retrieve it, I have a look under the bed. If there are empty bottles there, I know they're drinking too much. If there are food wrappers, I know they're eating too much. You try it."

So at the third house, the trainee examined the patient, dropped he stethoscope, looked under the bed, and pronounced: "Your trouble is too much religion. Give it up and you'll be fine."

"How did you make such a strange diagnosis?" asked the older doctor as they left the house.

"Well," said the trainee. "I dropped my stethoscope as you said. And under the bed was the parish priest!"

4. "Rich people should not  be able to buy better healthcare and education"

Rich people buy better versions of most things. They buy smarter cars, better houses, higher quality music systems and more expensive food and clothes. This is one reason why people want to earn more – wealth brings better goods and services and more choices, too.

Some claim that education and health are different, and that we should all have the same quality, with no-one able to buy better. Few say this about other essentials such as food, or urge a state monopoly of food production, with no-one allowed to buy better than whatever standard supply the state was able to deliver.

When people are allowed to buy better things, more money enters the market, and what starts as a luxury for the rich gradually becomes affordable to most buyers. Today's common flat screen colour TVs were previously affordable only by the wealthy. In many markets product improvement and innovation start at the top end – It is often where producers earn greater rewards – and work downwards.

If people are allowed to buy better health and education, this brings more money into health and education. It also allows the state to divert the money it would have spent on meeting their needs toward those less able to provide for themselves, and to give them access to better services.

Some feel that equality of opportunity is fairer, but nature knows no such equality, equipping some people with more intelligence, better looks, or more caring parents. Similarly in health the accident of inheritance puts some at an advantage over others. What we can seek, rather than an unobtainable equality, is a society in which everyone has access to an education which can develop their potential, and a healthcare system which will provide essential treatment for those who need it.

We're constantly being told that reducing CO2 emissions would be a form of insurance against global warming. This, unfortunately, rather misunderstands the concept of insurance. True insurance would be investigating geo-engineering.

Another report (this time the US Treasury) confirming the fact that the workers bear the brunt of the corporate income tax. Time to abolish it, don't you agree? 

Jim Callaghan never actually said it anyway, but perhaps the correct reaction to the sub-prime problems is "Crisis, what crisis?". 

Understanding the Jeremy Clarkson bank account furore: it really isn't what you're reading in the newspapers.

One simple and obvious method of reforming the welfare system. Pity no one will ever try it. 

So just why are American newspapers losing readers? Might it be because they don't offer what their putative customers want? (Heaven forfend that it might be because they think journalism is a profession rather than a craft.) 

And finally, Bill Gates' last day at the office and freedom and liberty are built on gay hobbit porn.  

America seems to be drifting back in history in a sort of time machine. The backlash against admittedly rather limited free market reforms by George W. Bush, exerted by the status quo left, is gaining momentum. If the polls in the run up for the presidential elections are correct, the 'ownership society' could soon be hit by a severe blow. If one of the Democratic hopefuls gets elected, Santayana’s rule is unlikely to be escaped: those who ignore historic failures are prone to repeat them. Such is the case with the old whore of universal health coverage, favoured vigorously by Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and only haphazardly rejected by Barack Obama.

Remember, this is a policy introduced in Britain in 1908 at a time when socialist movements were surging through Europe. Leading Democrats are advocating this concept hundred years late. Is this what Americans get from the collapse of the Soviet Union? The current concept seems even more collectivist than the collapsed HillaryCare of 1993, which nearly derailed her husband's presidency.

Compulsory and comprehensive health insurance for everyone is expensive and would likely deepen the financial crisis in health care even further. It is also inadequate in times when Americans are in perfect control of up to 50% of their health risks, which renders comprehensive insurance obsolete. What is really needed is catastrophic, no-frills health insurance for everyone. That's the kind of safety net the late 19th century European reformers had in mind. And it would be much cheaper and therefore more affordable for consumers.

However, in the freest country in the world compulsion is unlikely to work. Look at car insurance: Despite being compulsory up to 15% of drivers in the US – depending of the state, but higher in the West – don’t care about car insurance. Ironically that is about the same percentage of 'free riders' in the yet not compulsory US health system!

5. "Prices of essential goods should be controlled so that the poor can afford them."

Price caps are one of those things that sound fine in theory but are disastrous in practice. Prices are signals which tell about supply and demand, like the markings on a thermometer tell about temperature. And just as you can't control temperature by bunging up a thermometer, you can't control supply or demand by fixing prices.

When the price rises for scarce goods, it tells people to consume less and maybe switch to alternatives. It tells others to produce more of them because there are profits to be made. The combination of less consumption and greater production acts to redress the scarcity. But it only works if prices can send their signals. If they are fixed by law to shield poorer people from their effects, there is no disincentive to consume, nor any reason to switch to alternatives. Nor is there any incentive for producers to bring more of the goods to market.

If the price of bread is fixed because of rising prices in a shortage, there is no incentive for people to turn to alternatives like other grains or potatoes. Nor is there any incentive for farmers to bring more wheat to market, or for foreign merchants to bring in their wheat to take advantage of the greater returns. There is no signal telling farmers they could profit by planting more wheat next year.

All that happens when prices are fixed by law is that the supply dries up, usually because no-one can make money by selling at the fixed price. Then the state steps in again to ration the scarce goods "fairly", and passes new laws to stop black market dealing in them. We see this happen for bread, fuel, and rented accommodation. Ultimately, the outcome is clear: if you fix the price, you only succeed in choking off the supply and making the shortage even worse.

What's the difference between an oral thermometer and a rectal thermometer?

The taste

One idea which pops up a lot these days is that the government should be motivated by 'quality of life' in its policymaking, and not just economics. Some even say that gross national happiness should be the aim, rather than gross domestic product.

Well, it’s a nice idea, but why do people always think a higher quality of life requires more government? In their recent report for the Conservatives, Zac Goldsmith and John Gummer even suggested that our 'quality of life' would be improved by compulsory parking fees at supermarkets. Hardly.

The thing is, quality of life means very different things to different people. The one common theme, however, must surely be the freedom to pursue your own idea of happiness – and that means less government, not more!

My quality of life would be much higher if only the taxman didn't steal so much of my income, for instance. If I was ill, I would be much happier knowing I could choose which hospital or doctor I went to. If I had children, I would be happier knowing I could choose their school.

As a Londoner, however, the biggest changes to my quality of life would probably come about if the trains were deregulated and the tube privatized, and I could get into work more easily. Of course, if only central London wasn't ringed by hideous tower blocks (built by the government), and if only our land-use planning system wasn't so restrictive, I might just be able to live closer to the office.

Policies aimed at making us freer and wealthier increase our choices, and give us a better opportunity to pursue our own idea of a good life. Whatever government does, that should be the aim.

And he's back! The NHS Blog Doctor that is, and with a very scary quote from a Professor of Paediatrics:

You know, if I were suddenly taken ill, I would be terrified to be admitted to a British NHS Hospital.

As ever, Douglas Adams has an explanation for why the system is the way it is:

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

It's at least possible that the numbers on the amount of tropical forest being cut down are wrong. At the very best the statistics seem very confused.

Geothermal energy seems like something for nothing. But as a mining engineer points out, that's something you only get very rarely. 

There are payday loans and Payday loans, but the logic is the same in each case. 

The WalMart model really was different, right from the very beginning. It started with logistics. 

And finally , time travel with the aid of your wi-fi router. Really, no, it's possible. 

"Economic growth imposes a hectic form of life, producing overwork, stress, nervous depression, cardiovascular disease and, according to some, even the development of cancer."

– from Histoire du XXe siècle, a three-volume set of texts memorized by French students preparing for university entrance exams.

Hap-tip to Stefan Theil in Foreign Policy magazine. 

6. "Nuclear power is uniquely dangerous and should be banned."

Most forms of energy production are dangerous. The number of deaths or serious injuries caused by the generation of nuclear power is very limited, even including those caused in the Soviet state-sector Chernobyl disaster. The numbers which result from other power sources are documented.

Coal mining, for example, kills several hundred each year throughout the world in mining accidents. It kills thousands of miners from lung diseases. It kills hundreds of thousands from its acidic and polluted smoke. Oil and gas kill their numbers in fires and explosions, and from suffocation. Hydro-electric power claims its victims as dams burst upon villages. The generation of electricity kills by the air-pollution which power stations cause, however they are fired. If solar power, wind power or wave power ever could be developed to supply a sizable fraction of the needs of an advanced economy, no doubt they, too, would claim their victims in various ways. Remember: wind power is not pollution free. It takes energy and materials to make and install those windmills.

Nuclear power may not be 100 percent safe. It is not, however, uniquely dangerous, and is safer than many of its rivals. It offers a relatively clean, cheap, and safe source of power. It is, in the form now being used, a renewable source. The new reactors use fuel more efficiently and are safer, and new and more secure methods of waste disposal and storage are continually being developed.

It would take many, many mishaps for nuclear power even to approach the coal industry in terms of damage to life and health. And nuclear power could never have the environmental impact caused by the burning of coal, especially of the dirty coal which is easier for developing countries to afford. Fusion power is probably the best future possibility, if it can be done, but until then nuclear power is a relatively clean and safe option.