Dr Madsen Pirie

If anyone had inspected the economic statistics for the UK in 1979 with the name of the country concealed, looking at growth rate, annual rate of inflation, output per head, days lost through strikes, and so on, they would have supposed they were looking at a third world country.  Britain was "the sick man of Europe," left behind since World War II and destined, it seemed, to fall further behind.

Business Secretary Vince Cable is reportedly looking to see if there is sufficient evidence to justify an action to ban the HBOS 3 named in the Banking Commission's report from serving as company directors again.  He is reportedly "outraged" by the situation.

Every child learns at some stage that a good way to divert blame is to point the finger at someone else.  Now the politicians on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards have discovered the trick.  They hope that as the lynch mob pursues the HBOS trio of Sir James Crosby, Lord Stevenson and Andy Hornby, the role played by politicians in the financial crisis will be quietly overlooked. 

3. The ASI enthusiastically supports giving goods from developing countries unrestricted access to developed world markets.  The Left should appreciate our stance in firmly and publicly supporting the one thing that can make people in poorer countries wealthier.

2. The ASI supported debt relief for third world countries.  The Left should appreciate the removal of the debt-servicing burden from the citizens of poorer countries that this would bring.

There are many reasons why most Adam Smith Institute initiatives do not find favour with the Left.  We favour a spontaneous society rather than one planned centrally according to a preconceived idea of what it should be like.  They favour equality where we seek opportunities for everyone.  Many on the Left think in terms of class struggle, where the advancement of one class can only take place at the expense of another.  We do not think in class terms, but treat people as individuals, seeking opportunities for advancement for everyone.  Despite these major differences in outlook, there

The Guardian has published many silly pieces in its time, as have other papers, but today it published a piece by Lynsey Hanley that must rank as one of the most breathtakingly silly of all time. The article claims that raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 patronizes the low-paid. Moreover it "disenfranchises 3 million people":

Sir Andrew Motion, head of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, has called for taxes that will put countryside second homes beyond the reach of all except the very rich.  His motivation is very clearly expressed.  These second homes are:

People who make a lot of money are not very popular in Britain these days.  A cult of envy fed by the Left and parts of the media led by the BBC decries "the rich," "the top one percent," and wants us to take it that the wealth of the few is gained at the expense of the many.  If we lived in a world where wealth was in fixed supply this might be plausible, but we don't.  We live in a world where wealth is created, and in which entrepreneurs who develop new products and new processes bring improvements to our lives and are rewarded accordingly.  Even so, people who become rich risk the envy

Writing in Pacific Standard magazine, Ethan Watters draws attention to the game-changing work of Joe Henrich, Steven Heine and Ara Norenzayan, and the studies they have made on the behaviour and perceptions of non-Western cultures.  For example, the 'ultimatum game' produces different results.  This is the 'game' where one player is given $100 and told to offer some of it to another player.  If the second player rejects the offer, neither receives