The Pin Factory Blog

Something to mull over. Linux shows that Hayek was right?

Highlights from the Scottish political year. 

If Chile is doing better than Venezuela and has been and is more econonimcally liberal, doesn't that show that neo-liberalism is the way to go? 

If the rich pay most of the Federal taxes, then most of the spending benefits the rich, right? No, both the taxation system and the spending are progressive. 

Great economic controversies of our time. Why is there so little sex going on? ("Speak for yourself matey" is a necessary but not sufficient answer to this question.)

Time to update the old rhyme: some are born little libertarians.

And finally, is Hillary Clinton really Honoria Glossop? The unnecessary but sufficient answer of "Yes" would explain a lot.

News this week that a key mental health unit in Surrey is to close is yet another hallmark of a disturbing reality that plagues the National Health Service.

The principle behind the NHS is that politicians motivated by a desire to win elections will have an incentive to provide good healthcare to the public at large. This glib and simplistic and view – typical of the naive school of thought that forged the UK's public sector culture – overlooks a key clash of values between politics and health.

Politics is an industry that is essentially based around popularity, while healthcare is one based around necessity. It is because of this fundamental contradiction in values that the unholy nationalisation of British health has resulted in healthcare priorities being set by ill-informed politician under pressure from a largely ignorant populace. The end result is that a government's performance in health is measured in terms of how much money is spent rather than how much suffering is alleviated. Indeed, health and education must be the only industries on earth where rising costs and falling productivity are considered signs of success.

When healthcare is run by the state and driven by a desire for headlines, it is not surprising that NHS provision of mental healthcare remains shockingly low, with minimal funding and appalling disregard for the needs of the patient.

The government would be better to measure progress in new ways, for no matter how much money they say they have spent, when a priority patient still has to wait up to 3 months to see a psychiatrist it is time to start asking how many vulnerable souls have been allowed to fade from lack of available help.

It is unlikely that any government will be able to prioritise such 'unexciting' areas whilst still keeping up the required level of media-hype to stay popular, so perhaps it is time to consider the ultimate humbling of the NHS – to acknowledge that the present model reeks of failure and that it is time to try something new.

Little Johnny said to his Aunt Betty, 'My God, you're ugly, aren't you!'
His mother overheard this and pulled Johnny into the kitchen. 'you naughty boy!' she screamed, 'How can you say to your aunt that she's ugly! You go right in and apologize to her! Tell her you're sorry!'
Little Johnny entered the living room, walked over to hus aunt and said, 'Aunt Betty, I am sorry you're so ugly.'

Just throw the book at them...

Last week the French Booksellers' Union won their court-battle. The French people will now have to pay delivery charges for Amazon orders rather than be entitled to free delivery.

This is in order to protect French bookstores from 'unfair' competition. The result surely has to be that Amazon is more expensive for the French. However, customers buy books from Amazon for many good reasons; time, effort and cost; it is one of the most efficient ways of buying books. It is hard to believe that having to pay another 5 Euros is going to drive people onto the freezing streets of France this Christmas in order to patronise their local bookshop.

French people will continue to use Amazon for convenience but pay more for the privilege; if I was a French person – and luckily I'm not – I would be quite irate at the French Booksellers' Union for this early Christmas present. I would exercise this anger by voting against them with my money and continuing to use Amazon.

Clues for the Clueless: Dogbert's Big Book of Manners (£5.69 + postage)

"Lots of things have changed in the millions of years since etiquette was invented. Microwave ovens, for example. And so it seemed like a good time to update the rules of etiquette. Of course, you could buy some other book on etiquette, and in it you might find such useful titbits as what kind of uniiform the upstairs servants should wear, or the proper way to address the Pope when you meet him in person. But if you want practical information - like what to do after you sneeze in your hand - then you have to buy this book. It's the only book that speaks to you as the unwashed heathen that you know you are. Thanks. And I'm not just saying that."

Buy it here, from the ASI bookstore. 

Good sense on the special pleading coming from Bali by the less developed nations. No, you shouldn't get special treatment for your CO2 emissions.

Netsmith knows less about Rawls than he ought to: but is the fact that people play the lottery a refutation of the "Veil of Ignorance" argument? 

Ian Dale's new political magazine: there might be something interesting to this business model you know? 

We haven't been able to stop the absurdity of the European Parliament decamping to Strasbourg every month on cost or rationality grounds: perhaps we can on environmental ? 

This may well be true but the last line tells us why it might not be useful . 

Harriet Harman's ideas on paying for sex are clearly bonkers: but are they also discriminatory ? 

And finally, not something you ever expected to see written: fun Venn Diagrams . 

Are pay-as-you-throw rubbish charges a tax, or not? This is a question that seems to be occupying the Daily Mail at the moment...

The government has been very careful not to refer to the proposed charges as taxes, preferring to term them 'incentives'. But now environment minister Joan Ruddock has apparently told MPs: "I have just been told by that technically these charges are regarded by the Treasury as a form of tax." Unfortunately, she may be right. But that's because the pay-as-you-throw scheme being trialled by the government is not really a pay-as-you-throw scheme at all.

A proper scheme could work as follows: refuse collection is privatized; people choose from a number or competing refuse collection companies; people pay according to how much refuse they have to dispose of; council tax bills are reduced accordingly. Such a system would encourage people to produce less waste, encourage more recycling, and lead to a higher quality of service (if people were not getting enough collections, for instance, they could change to a different company). With lower taxes and competing service providers, you would get better value for money too.

The government's scheme, by contrast, seems to consist of fining people who don't recycle, and (just possibly) giving a limited council tax rebate to people who do 'go green'. It's is another example of politicians getting their hands on an economically sensible idea, messing it up, and making it unpopular with the general public. And that makes it much harder for the original, better idea to be implemented.

Little Johnny watched, fascinated, as his mother gently rubbed cold cream on her face. 'Why are you rubbing cold cream on your face, Mummy? he asked.
'To make myself beautiful.' said his mother.
A few minutes later, she began removing the cream with a tissue.
'What's the matter?' asked Little Johnny. 'Giving up?'

Yes, I know, you'll have seen it too:

People in medieval times were healthier than modern Britons because
they did not suffer from cholesterol related diseases, it has been
claimed.

It's a remarkable claim, isn't it? We know that people then were shorter than we are, that there were instances of starvation, of nutritionally related diseases like ricketts, pellagra and so on, but because they weren't dying in their 70s of heart attacks they must have been healthier.

While those living in the Roman and Tudor periods faced hazards such as
the "pox and plague", it seems that their daily diet lacked foods which
could lead to heart disease.

Or perhaps it's that because they all died of disease they didn't have time to die of cholesterol? 

The research also claimed that daily exercise has decreased by at least
an average of 96 per cent since Roman and medieval times from eight
hours a day to less than 20 minutes due to increasingly sedentary lives.

Or perhaps they were all being worked to death? 

Research by Lloyds pharmacy, the chemist chain, found that the daily
diet consumed by Britons in the Roman period of fruit, fish, whole
grains, vegetables and olive oil washed down with red wine amounted to
approximately 120g of fat, 80g of protein and 600g of carbohydrates.

That is indeed a healthy (and often scrumptious) diet but the most important point is this:

Dr Henderson said: "The Roman diet was healthy provided you were wealthy enough to afford..."

Ah, that's the point of the modern world. You don't have to be wealthy to be able to enjoy this diet, it's available to all. That's what is really valuable about this liberal capitalism thing, that it brings what were previously the luxuries of the rich into the reach of everyone. And who could resist an opportunity to post this?

Economic principles being independently (re-) discovered, a la Matthew Parris this morning. Here it's the point that it isn't so much technology, nor innovation, which drives the whole system forward, it's the application of innovations and technologies.

The US Energy Bill is described as "A moment of idiocy, of real idiocy ". As the European Union suggestions reported today are very similar, perhaps we should use the same desscription? 

More climate change. A video from TED about geoengineering . Yes, we know it works, so why don't we try it out? 

The new rules on mobile phones and driving are really rather less than they seem . 

Stuck in the office this week with no work to do? A timewasting game for you. 

Tsk, tsk, welching on a bet really isn't on. Doesn't everyone know that a capitalist economy depends upon trust? 

And finally , infinite recursion, or how Windows may destroy the Universe.