The Pin Factory Blog

More selections of those old Tory posters mentioned above (or, erm, below, given the reverse order of blogs....). Here and here. There's some thought that the immediacy, the force, of the messages has declined over the years.

Here's the numbers on one country that has successfully dealt with climate change, emissions and keeping the lights on. Alternatively, here's what happens when you go nuclear.  

More on Ms. Abbess, that story that Tim W noted above (umm, below?).

One of the seriously important questions. As long as we're not insisting that all should be exactly equal, well then, how much inequality is too much? 

The essential difference between libertarians and the rest: libertarians do not invest government with higher moral status. 

The figures are in: private schooling really is cheaper than government provided. 

And finally, if you think tax rates are too low, you can always voluntarily pay more. (As a public service to Guardianistas, here in the UK make your cheques payable to "The Accountant" and post them to 2 Horse Guards Road, London).

I must say, I think this is an absolutely marvellous advance. We pay for the BBC, after all, so we really shouldn't have any of that elitist nonsense about a factual reality or anything. No, news should be presented to show the world as "you" believe it to be, not as some impartial reporter of the facts would have it.

That, at least, was the view of one Jo Abbess, a climate activist (and a remarkably confused one at that, a little googling reveals that she worries about both global warming and Peak Oil: mutually exclusive concerns one might think. Bless.) who, as this correspondence shows, did indeed manage to have a BBC news report changed to reflect her views. We mustn't actually talk of static temperatures, or even worse, of 1998 being the hottest so far (and thus since then we've had cooling) because that might make people think that the world has, umm, not been warming and might even have been cooling since 1998. Can't let the proles know the truth now, can we?

As Lubos points out, when the crazed loons start threatening mass email campaigns, it's often easier just to give in, as this BBC journo did. Which I think is really rather fabulous, it's going to be so much fun. No, really: now we know that for the BBC Einstein was right. Everything is indeed relative, so it is simply weight of numbers, who complains the loudest, which will decide how the news is reported, how facts are portrayed.

A small bank of a few hundred committed emailers could bring great truth and clarity to the news, if you think about it the right way. Perhaps the insistence that all references to the Chancellor be replaced with the "Banned Badger" might not work, but those which insist that the Lisbon Treaty is the EU Constitution would pass muster: for of course it is. Insisting upon the insertion of the word "ruinous" in front of all mentions of current taxation levels similarly seems fair. All discussions of the education system would benefit from a "some say that a pure voucher system would solve all current problems" and certain readers will know where "monocular Scot" should be inserted.

Given that we already know the BBC gives in to the threat of a few polite emails, well, why not make hay?

Or might we find that the BBC's willingness to accomodate opinions only goes one way, left, green and statist?

Sweden is often depicted as a Social Democratic paradise. However, her welfare state has achieved less and cost more than most believed. The point is that wealth distribution and flat income have not significantly changed after Sweden expanded her welfare programmes during the 1950s and 1960s, when workers enjoyed lower taxes and worked more hours. Yet what has changed dramatically is the effect of social engineering on immigration, basically creating welfare dependency and preventing integration.

Integration worked well in the first decades after the war with immigrant employment rates 20 percent above the Swedish average. By contrast it is now 30 percent below that average with only half of non-EU immigrants holding jobs. The combination of a highly regulated labour market and lavish welfare payments is keeping immigrants out of jobs. The comparison with the US with much less welfare arrangements is striking:

Given the high barriers to entry, many immigrants in Europe no longer start accumulating essential language and labour market skills. This is in stark contrast with the situation across the Atlantic. For example, in 2000, Iranians in the U.S. had a family income that was 42 percent above the U.S. average. The income of Iranian immigrants in Sweden, however, was 39 percent below the country’s average.

Even more worrying is the nexus between unemployment and successful integration of immigrants. Countries such as Australia and the U.S. that reward hard work and entrepreneurship are doing much better with integration than welfare obsessed Europe. Welfare dependency has a detrimental effect on immigrant communities, because immigrants tend to regard their lower standing as a result of discrimination and racism thus fuelling social tensions. This is not the Liberation from want that was intended ‘Social Europe’ was intended to achieve.

85. "Curbs on budget airlines are needed to protect the environment."

Budget air flights emit a tiny fraction of the CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' that are put out from all sources.  They are insignificant compared to the emissions of agriculture, road transport and power generation.  The problem is that these make very difficult targets for NGOs to pick upon because we cannot do without those big three, whereas they feel free to call budget air flights an unnecessary luxury.

NGO spokespersons usually gloss over the minor contribution of budget airlines to total pollution by describing the emissions from air transport as the "fastest growing" source.  If this is true it is only because they start from such a low base.  Even at the highest estimates for the growth of air traffic by the mid-century, analysts calculate their contribution might rise from 1.5 percent of the total to about 3 percent.

In fact budget airlines generally emit less per passenger than the established airlines.  This is because they typically fly with a higher load capacity, flying more people for the same fuel.  Even without the punitive taxes demanded by eco-lobbyists, airline passengers already pay very high taxes which in many cases cost more than the ticket itself does.

Budget airlines have made air travel no longer an exotic prerogative of the rich, but have made it accessible to ordinary people, with all of the opportunities this presents.  Critics deride 'holidays in the sun,' but neglect to point out the opportunities people now have to visit and explore foreign cities and to experience for a time the cultures of other nations.  The more that people know about other peoples and places, the more rich their own life is likely to be.

The responsible way forward is not to make air travel once again something only the rich can afford, but to develop the technologies that can make it cleaner and more efficient.

Nigel Lawson's new book on global warming gets a great couple of write ups. The biggest concern is probably that what the science and the scientists are saying seems not to be what the politicians are listening to.

It's only April and already we have a contender for oddest remark of the year. 

Tracking Zimbabwe's politics through popular music. 

Yes, it's all in WoN. No, really, even the economics of wine. 

Quite: how come everybody blames any of the problems of the past few decades on capitalism unhindered, free markets and laissez faire? We might have had freer markets, less hindrance, but certainly not laissez faire: it's been a mixed economy all along. 

Doesn't matter if you don't know what a Dunning Resolution is: help draft a new one. 

And finally, what the modern tax system is really like. 

I have to admit that I did something of a double take when I saw this from George Soros:

Regulators have abandoned their duty by letting markets regulate themselves. It's because a market fundamentalist ideology has come to dominate the behaviour of market participants and market regulatorsover the past 25 years ... and the idea that markets are best left to their own devices became policy.

Well, yes, I certainly do believe that markets regulate themselves to a great extent: although that doesn't mean that there should never be any regulation at all, of course. The interesting arguments are always about what regulation, by whom, and who benefits?

The double take comes from the fact that it was of course the same George Soros who showed us quite how expensive bad regulation could be all those years ago:

His heavy bets against sterling helped force it out of the European exchange rate mechanism in 1992, netting himself an estimated $1bn profit that Black Wednesday.

That profit being a transfer from us taxpayers of course. Now no, of course I don't blame him, nor even begrudge him his profit: it was a cheap price for the education of the political classes that it will always be markets that determine prices, not those politicians.

It's just odd to see a man who has become so rich by arbitrage, the very process itself being the exploitation of inefficiencies caused by the lack of deep and liquid markets, insisting that markets should be curbed, more regulation enacted in order to make them less efficient....oh, wait a minute.

It's not become that hard to make a profit with a hedge fund, surely?

84. "We must bring in tougher laws and sentences against drug dealers and users."

We tried that. We already know it does not work. Each new dramatic case, each tragic death, each new set of statistics brings on the tabloid editorials. More laws, tougher laws, better enforcement. We tried this last time and the time before. Anyone who suggests that we might try a different approach meets a hail of press vilification, with tearfully bereaved parents demanding that the evil men who led Johnny or Jill astray be locked up, or perhaps executed.

Narcotics are evil, and sensible people should not go down that road. However, they are out there, and young people will be exposed to them. To some their very illegality adds the spice of defiance, giving them an allure that conceals some of their tawdriness.

By criminalizing them we turn them into a profitable industry. Because there are risks of criminal penalties, the price is high, and the rewards of dealing are raised. This leads to a steady supply. Because illegality increases the price, some people turn to crime to fund their habit. Violent street crime and burglary are heavily reinforced by the drug trade, as is embezzlement and fraud. Desperate people take desperate measures.

Police crackdowns sometimes temporarily curtail the supply, raising the price and the profitability of the trade even further. The different solution is to make drugs freely available to be consumed on the premises at high street clinics in towns and cities. They could be under medical supervision, and users might have to agree to medical assessment and perhaps have to view information videos about the health hazards which addicts face. No-one would want to consume recreational drugs like Ecstasy, cocaine or cannabis under such conditions, but these might be legalized generally.

Such a policy would break the link between narcotics and crime, guarantee the safe quality of drugs, and bring their addiction within manageable limits.