We need more jobs!
Unemployment is high and the economy is only just about 0% growth. This isn't an inspiring time to be unemployed. Therefore it is the government's job to make jobs, apparently.
For the retarded amongst us that means they should borrow more and then spend it to 'create jobs'. Or as I call it borrow more money to give away. After all if there is a job to be done, surely people will pay for it themselves. If they can't afford it as a person, it is highly unlikely we can afford it as a nation. If people won't pay for it themselves then it is probably because they don't really want it or it costs more than it is worth.
This doesn't always apply of course. We know that the NHS works best because everyone (officially employed) has to pay it. Old and young, rich and poor, fit and unfit. This means we all pay a little rather than some paying a fortune and others paying virtually nothing.
But generally paying public servants is very inefficient, because you can never choose to stop paying them. If my car insurance company is rubbish I can stop paying them and go to another company. If the bus service is rubbish I can stop paying them and take a train. If a public service is rubbish, then I'm stuck paying for rubbish service. There is no pressure on them to slim down when they have too many people because the money rolls in regardless of the service provided.
Anyway, I'm getting distracted. What I wanted to talk about was what I discovered when I was in California a few weeks ago.
We tend to think of the US as the place of big businesses. What we know of the USA is largely based around films, television and the chain stores that make it over here to Great Britain. Many of us go on holiday to the US (if we're blessed with some extra money) but often that is to the East Coast and more specifically; Florida.
But what I didn't realise until recently was for every Starbucks/ McDonald's/Burger King in America there is a Carl's Jr/Chilli's/independent. That is for everyone huge shopping chain that makes it across the pond, there are several smaller mid size or just totally independent restaurants that we in the United Kingdom, have never heard of.
Why is this relevant to anything? I heard you ask. Why did you start talking about the economy and now reach hamburgers? Well you'll be glad to hear I haven't lost track. My point is the reason why the USA has so many huge corporations is partly because it has so many small ones. When you have a decent size base of small companies, statistically some are bound to do really well. This is good for everyone.
But this leads me on to another point, Americans just have a different attitude to starting businesses to us. I think this is for a couple of reasons. first off, British people are far more pessimistic than Americans. I have heard it said that the difference between British people and Americans is that Americans think that they are going to live forever and British people know that they are going to die. I thought it was an exaggeration but American people genuinely do seem to avoid thinking about death at all cost. Which seems a bit odd, since that and tax are the things that are certain for all (perhaps not co-incidentally tax is the other Americans avoid at all cost).
Either way, this incredible optimism combined with a feeling that they are part of a 'pioneering' culture and a belief that anyone can make it if they work hard (potentially with the spur that you keep the money you make and you don't get lots of welfare support) means that people in the US set up businesses a lot.
In contrast we can look at the UK. In the UK we are very skeptical of anyone who says that something can be done, easily, quickly and with huge success. In fact, we are just skeptical. This has good sides to it. We are less moved by emotive speeches by politicians, so we're less likely to elect a 'Hitler' (although this is never impossible). It also means that most of us are less likely to be convinced by advertising which promises to change your life when you by a new mop, or taste a new sweet. Some will, but the majority with roll their eyes and want to slap the person back into reality.
Our heritage too is completely different. British political and economic heritage stretches all the way back to 1066. Almost a thousand years. Here it was established (or should I say confirmed) that those in the establishment lord it over those below, who work hard and are kept at the bottom of the social scale. Today of course, this is not the case, but the culture still comes from that same source. Which is why, you'll notice, that a large part of being rich and successful in Britain isn't just about being rich and successful, but also about entering the establishment.
This is why much more credence is given to established professions in Britain than to almost any other work. There is almost instant respect for Doctors, Barristers, Solicitors and accountants. This is despite the fact that (whether it is known or not I don't know) many managers earn more than all of the preiously mentioned professions. The reason being of course because a profession seems far more 'upper class' than saying I'm a manager, because there is a whiff of the nouveau about it. Like some how you could have reached a managerial position without knowing which cutlery to use in a fine restaurant, and somehow these manners are important.
As a result the British legal system is one of the finest in the world. Many of the worlds largest law firms are based here (Slaughter and May, Freshfields, Linklaters, Clifford Chance and Allen & Overy but to name the obvious). Ernst & Young and Pricewaterhouse Coopers' profits run into tens of billions of pounds, they are enormous organisations unsurprisingly based on professional services such as accountancy.
So there is no doubt that both sides have their benefits. Americans have huge businesses, the British have huge professional practises. But the thing is professional services generally services business.
In this time of recession the one thing we don't have, is enough businesses. The news largely seems to show people complaining that the government isn't providing enough jobs. But the question may be asked, at what point did the government start being responsible for jobs. Now I have to declare at this point that my money comes, indirectly from the government. Not all of it, but most of it comes from central government. So feel free to discard everything I say. But I think it is worth hearing me out.
Why wait for the government to create jobs, when each person has the freedom to create their own. Finding something that people are willing to pay you to do, then doing it has been the basis of income for the free man for years (the exception being the peasant tied to a lord and slaves).
Maybe, we need to take a little bit of our American cousins' attitude to heart and once again stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit.
The wise among us at this point will point out that the US is also down the pan right now. I would agree, but I'd also note that they seem to have developed their own dependence on government a little like us.
No doubt there are things that the government can do to help, reduce paperwork and invest in infrastructure being the main ones. But generally that isn't much else they can do without borrowing more money and essentially just making the matter worse. In reality the economy rests on the shoulders of the people, not the Prime Minister.
PS When I've got £10,000 saved I want to start a business, any other investors?
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
The EU vote raises the same question that is never explicitly asked.
Why do Labour and the Lib Dems never vote against Europe?
This was largely the question posed to me by a friend when the discussion of exiting Europe came up. I have to be honest, I had to think. If the population of the UK wants to get out of Europe, which it does (why else would a government be so scared to hold a referendum?) surely it would be easy money for Labour or the Lib Dems to cash in on this by saying they would exist Europe.
Well, the reason begins with this; no one believes in independence anymore. Confused? Let me lay it out. Power is dictated by money, whoever has the most money, has the most influence and has the spare cash to spend on financing a nice shiney military. But even without guns money gives control (more on this a little later). To get money you need a good economy.
The US has a good economy, for example, because it has low tax, highly skilled workers and a huge home market. If you don't know what I mean by a home market take this example.
Your name is Bob, you like in the US, you make a product which brushes your teeth for you. You can now sell that to the whole US population of 300 million people at $5. You make $1.5 Bn.
Your name is Francois, you like in France, you make the same product. You can now sell it to the whole of France's 65 million people for $5 which makes you only $325million.
If you want to sell else where you need translation, you need to address the change in cultures their toothpaste tubes don't fit etc etc. This all causes expense and profit margins go down.
In short, if you live in a big country or area with the same rules and regulations and culture, you make more money.
This is why the US is so rich. Everyone speaks the same language, drive on the same size roads, has similar values and so on.
Great. Lesson one, done.
Lesson two I'm going to abridge to stop this getting too big. The more money a country has the more you can get other countries to do what you want. If they don't do as you ask, sell all your investments in their country and their economy goes down the pan, people lose jobs, the leader gets kicked out, and you start the process again.
So with this in mind the leaders of the UK know that if we go it alone, we're going to get screwed with by countries like the US. So we need to get along side someone equally as big. The two obvious options at the moment is the EU and the US. Frankly I'd rather get on side with Australian, New Zealand and Canada, but whatever.
This is where the explanation comes in for Labour's and the Lib Dem's behaviour. Everyone in Parliament knows we need to choose between the EU and US... how do they decide?
Ideology.
The United States is a free market, free speech, small government, morally Christian kinda place.
Europe/the EU is 'generally' is a protectionist, socialist, big government, morally secular kinda place.
Labour is protectionist, socialist, pro-big government and morally secular
Lib Dems are big government, morally secular
The Tories are for free speech, small government, free market, and half of them are morally Christian.
Get it?
Basically this is lifes play ground and we're having to choose who our friends are. Each party is trying to pick the ones that are most like them. This is just an epic sized question of "do you hang around with the junkies, the nerds, the jocks or the Crispys?"
You're not going to spend your life on your own, so it is time to choose some friends. But be careful who you choose, "Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.” or another proverb "The righteous should choose his friends carefully, For the way of the wicked leads them astray."
Now I'm not saying Europeans are evil or good or vis-a-versa. But you will become more like your friends, whomever they may be. Whether they are good or not.
So the next time you heard about a EU treaty and who has voted on it and how. Don't look at the small picture, whether the treaty has merit or not. Look at the bigger picture of the aims of the two parties, because I'm willing to bet that there is one group of people who will vote for it no matter what it says and others who will vote against, almost everytime.
That's because the question is not about that individual treaty really, rather it is about the country you want to live in in 30 years: a socialist leaning, protectionist, big government secular one, or a free market, small government (slightly more) Christian one.
That is the question for the EU vote, and that will ALWAYS be the question for each EU vote.
This was largely the question posed to me by a friend when the discussion of exiting Europe came up. I have to be honest, I had to think. If the population of the UK wants to get out of Europe, which it does (why else would a government be so scared to hold a referendum?) surely it would be easy money for Labour or the Lib Dems to cash in on this by saying they would exist Europe.
Well, the reason begins with this; no one believes in independence anymore. Confused? Let me lay it out. Power is dictated by money, whoever has the most money, has the most influence and has the spare cash to spend on financing a nice shiney military. But even without guns money gives control (more on this a little later). To get money you need a good economy.
The US has a good economy, for example, because it has low tax, highly skilled workers and a huge home market. If you don't know what I mean by a home market take this example.
Your name is Bob, you like in the US, you make a product which brushes your teeth for you. You can now sell that to the whole US population of 300 million people at $5. You make $1.5 Bn.
Your name is Francois, you like in France, you make the same product. You can now sell it to the whole of France's 65 million people for $5 which makes you only $325million.
If you want to sell else where you need translation, you need to address the change in cultures their toothpaste tubes don't fit etc etc. This all causes expense and profit margins go down.
In short, if you live in a big country or area with the same rules and regulations and culture, you make more money.
This is why the US is so rich. Everyone speaks the same language, drive on the same size roads, has similar values and so on.
Great. Lesson one, done.
Lesson two I'm going to abridge to stop this getting too big. The more money a country has the more you can get other countries to do what you want. If they don't do as you ask, sell all your investments in their country and their economy goes down the pan, people lose jobs, the leader gets kicked out, and you start the process again.
So with this in mind the leaders of the UK know that if we go it alone, we're going to get screwed with by countries like the US. So we need to get along side someone equally as big. The two obvious options at the moment is the EU and the US. Frankly I'd rather get on side with Australian, New Zealand and Canada, but whatever.
This is where the explanation comes in for Labour's and the Lib Dem's behaviour. Everyone in Parliament knows we need to choose between the EU and US... how do they decide?
Ideology.
The United States is a free market, free speech, small government, morally Christian kinda place.
Europe/the EU is 'generally' is a protectionist, socialist, big government, morally secular kinda place.
Labour is protectionist, socialist, pro-big government and morally secular
Lib Dems are big government, morally secular
The Tories are for free speech, small government, free market, and half of them are morally Christian.
Get it?
Basically this is lifes play ground and we're having to choose who our friends are. Each party is trying to pick the ones that are most like them. This is just an epic sized question of "do you hang around with the junkies, the nerds, the jocks or the Crispys?"
You're not going to spend your life on your own, so it is time to choose some friends. But be careful who you choose, "Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.” or another proverb "The righteous should choose his friends carefully, For the way of the wicked leads them astray."
Now I'm not saying Europeans are evil or good or vis-a-versa. But you will become more like your friends, whomever they may be. Whether they are good or not.
So the next time you heard about a EU treaty and who has voted on it and how. Don't look at the small picture, whether the treaty has merit or not. Look at the bigger picture of the aims of the two parties, because I'm willing to bet that there is one group of people who will vote for it no matter what it says and others who will vote against, almost everytime.
That's because the question is not about that individual treaty really, rather it is about the country you want to live in in 30 years: a socialist leaning, protectionist, big government secular one, or a free market, small government (slightly more) Christian one.
That is the question for the EU vote, and that will ALWAYS be the question for each EU vote.
Monday, 21 December 2009
Copenhagen is falling apart, oh dear...
Copenhagen is falling/has fallen apart apparently.
Gutted.
I really thought that for a moment the world would be united in its fight against a common enemy and they humanity would reach out and join together to take a sweeping blow against this powerful foe.
Actually that is codswallop. I didn't think that at all.
But let me explain why:
Lets be honest, climate change is an interesting problem. Most interesting of course because in reality we have no idea whether is anything to do with us and arguably whether it is even happening at all.
No I know that this is heresy to most people and as a result I should be burned at the stake, ok not burned that would release more CO2, they think I'd need to be topped using organically grown cyanide. But let me explain how someone who has done little to no research can be pretty sure we have no idea:
how long have we had the ability to record the temperature of the world accurately? 10 years? 15? 20? 30? It is undoubtedly under 50 years because the first man made satellite was in space in 1957, and that wasn't checking temperatures, it was doing nothing but sending out a ping every now and again to say it had made it.
That means we have a tiny amount of time where we are actually aware of what changes are being made. This means that we have no idea what is going on at all. Imagine measuring my height changes between the ages of 15 and 18. That is three years out of a probable 75. This is more of my age than 40 years is of the earths age. But imagine the conclusions you would have if you made assumptions based on those 3 years of my life. It would mean I'd be 70ft tall by the time I'm 75, it would mean that would expect to be shaving the palms of my hands by 25.
Having a tiny amount of information about the worlds temperatures and drawing conclusions from it is tantamount to making a guess.
That is not to say that I think it isn't happening. I would be a fool to explain that we don't know anything and then draw from that that everything is fine. It just means we don't have the slightest clue.
Next is the small detail that people don't like, the worlds temperature has been falling for the last ten years. Is this conclusive? No, of course not, haven't you been listening to what I just said about short periods of time? What does it mean? Once again, we have no idea what is going on.
Then we get on to what we do know. What we do know is that every human being is liable to use what they know to help their own ends. I'm not saying everyone does do this, but this should always be taken as a possibility.
So why would the world politicians jump on to this? Well everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. It is a drug that gets you addicted and them kills you. However when this was discovered, it had already taken off and everyone was already smoking. This gave the government something wonderful. A cash cow. Every year for years more tax has been added to the cost of tobacco, and alcohol. The government doesn't even need to both justifying itself anymore. It say does it. The fact is smoking is evil and therefore should be taxed to 'help people give up'. Except the government doesn't really care if you give up, on the one hand you'll cost them more via the NHS but in the short term (which is all a present government will care about) it gives you lots of revenue.
But we in the UK have 'big government' which is a nice way of saying the government loves spending our money and thinks it does a better job of it than we do. Which is why it gives money to companies to teach 14 year old joy riders how to drive so that when they steal cars they drive them safely (I kid you not) and they offer Iraqi families £150,000 to go home because it is cheaper than them staying here and being entitled to all the benefits. Neither of these examples come from any paper I've read, they have come from people who were involved or close to those involved.
This means a couple of pence on fags (that is cigarettes not the pejorative term for homosexuals for any Americans out there) and booze just isn't going to pay the bills. Then the knight in shining armour arrives! CLIMATE CHANGE!
Hurrrrah! Now everything is evil and so everything can be taxed until we're penniless!
Everyone who does anything ever, anyone who is useful to society in anyway needs a car (unless you live in London where you can survive without one). If you leave your house anywhere outside the M25 London ring road you are going to need four wheels to get about. The government now has a licence to tax this as much as it wants.
Petrol? Tax it
Roads? Tax them
Cars? Tax them too
Cooking oil (which is carbon neutral when used in a diesel engine) Tax that too!
If people moan because you are taking away what they have worked hard to obtain, just tell them that it is for their own good! You have an excuse now. When they say they need their cars to work, tell them that they need to use more public transport. Public transport isn't a viable alternative (you know that, MP's work in London, the one place they could actually use public transport and they of course have several driven cars to take them around to where they need to go) but who cares about the fact it doesn't work, but it sounds like you have an answer and a 'good' reason for taking people's money off them.
But why stop at cars? Tax flights too! Pretty much anything you like really because at some stage everything has to be transported by something with an engine.
Am I just being cynical though? Well lets think about what actually causes global warming. Releasing CO2. Now just lowering the amount of CO2 we make surely won't make much of a difference because the same effect will be achieved just over a longer period of time. Unless all the trees absorb the lower amount of CO2 being produced... which leads me on to my point. If the gov really give a crap about it why aren't they planting trees?
This is cheap (I bet you could even rope some people into doing it for free if they really care about this stuff) and it would have much greater impact over the years because it would suck in all the CO2 which is being made, taking it straight out of the atmosphere. It would be really pretty too! There are many areas of the UK (and I'm sure every other nation) that cannot be farmed because they are inaccessible or the soil isn't of the right quality. Most of these places used to have trees on them until our ancestors cut them down for various reasons. In fact North Africa was wooded until the Romans arrived. Now if the government really cared about these sorts of things they could easily start afforesting the moors and other grounds.
It would probably increase the tourism in the area and for years to come it would act to absorb tons of CO2 every month. When successful this could be implemented over all of Europe and most of the world.
Of course the government isn't going to do this. You see, you can't tax trees. You can't fly to Denmark drink some good wine argue 'for your cause' and then come home and make money taxing businesses by planting trees and actually helping the environment. All you do is... well help the environment; and what government cares about that?
Gutted.
I really thought that for a moment the world would be united in its fight against a common enemy and they humanity would reach out and join together to take a sweeping blow against this powerful foe.
Actually that is codswallop. I didn't think that at all.
But let me explain why:
Lets be honest, climate change is an interesting problem. Most interesting of course because in reality we have no idea whether is anything to do with us and arguably whether it is even happening at all.
No I know that this is heresy to most people and as a result I should be burned at the stake, ok not burned that would release more CO2, they think I'd need to be topped using organically grown cyanide. But let me explain how someone who has done little to no research can be pretty sure we have no idea:
how long have we had the ability to record the temperature of the world accurately? 10 years? 15? 20? 30? It is undoubtedly under 50 years because the first man made satellite was in space in 1957, and that wasn't checking temperatures, it was doing nothing but sending out a ping every now and again to say it had made it.
That means we have a tiny amount of time where we are actually aware of what changes are being made. This means that we have no idea what is going on at all. Imagine measuring my height changes between the ages of 15 and 18. That is three years out of a probable 75. This is more of my age than 40 years is of the earths age. But imagine the conclusions you would have if you made assumptions based on those 3 years of my life. It would mean I'd be 70ft tall by the time I'm 75, it would mean that would expect to be shaving the palms of my hands by 25.
Having a tiny amount of information about the worlds temperatures and drawing conclusions from it is tantamount to making a guess.
That is not to say that I think it isn't happening. I would be a fool to explain that we don't know anything and then draw from that that everything is fine. It just means we don't have the slightest clue.
Next is the small detail that people don't like, the worlds temperature has been falling for the last ten years. Is this conclusive? No, of course not, haven't you been listening to what I just said about short periods of time? What does it mean? Once again, we have no idea what is going on.
Then we get on to what we do know. What we do know is that every human being is liable to use what they know to help their own ends. I'm not saying everyone does do this, but this should always be taken as a possibility.
So why would the world politicians jump on to this? Well everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. It is a drug that gets you addicted and them kills you. However when this was discovered, it had already taken off and everyone was already smoking. This gave the government something wonderful. A cash cow. Every year for years more tax has been added to the cost of tobacco, and alcohol. The government doesn't even need to both justifying itself anymore. It say does it. The fact is smoking is evil and therefore should be taxed to 'help people give up'. Except the government doesn't really care if you give up, on the one hand you'll cost them more via the NHS but in the short term (which is all a present government will care about) it gives you lots of revenue.
But we in the UK have 'big government' which is a nice way of saying the government loves spending our money and thinks it does a better job of it than we do. Which is why it gives money to companies to teach 14 year old joy riders how to drive so that when they steal cars they drive them safely (I kid you not) and they offer Iraqi families £150,000 to go home because it is cheaper than them staying here and being entitled to all the benefits. Neither of these examples come from any paper I've read, they have come from people who were involved or close to those involved.
This means a couple of pence on fags (that is cigarettes not the pejorative term for homosexuals for any Americans out there) and booze just isn't going to pay the bills. Then the knight in shining armour arrives! CLIMATE CHANGE!
Hurrrrah! Now everything is evil and so everything can be taxed until we're penniless!
Everyone who does anything ever, anyone who is useful to society in anyway needs a car (unless you live in London where you can survive without one). If you leave your house anywhere outside the M25 London ring road you are going to need four wheels to get about. The government now has a licence to tax this as much as it wants.
Petrol? Tax it
Roads? Tax them
Cars? Tax them too
Cooking oil (which is carbon neutral when used in a diesel engine) Tax that too!
If people moan because you are taking away what they have worked hard to obtain, just tell them that it is for their own good! You have an excuse now. When they say they need their cars to work, tell them that they need to use more public transport. Public transport isn't a viable alternative (you know that, MP's work in London, the one place they could actually use public transport and they of course have several driven cars to take them around to where they need to go) but who cares about the fact it doesn't work, but it sounds like you have an answer and a 'good' reason for taking people's money off them.
But why stop at cars? Tax flights too! Pretty much anything you like really because at some stage everything has to be transported by something with an engine.
Am I just being cynical though? Well lets think about what actually causes global warming. Releasing CO2. Now just lowering the amount of CO2 we make surely won't make much of a difference because the same effect will be achieved just over a longer period of time. Unless all the trees absorb the lower amount of CO2 being produced... which leads me on to my point. If the gov really give a crap about it why aren't they planting trees?
This is cheap (I bet you could even rope some people into doing it for free if they really care about this stuff) and it would have much greater impact over the years because it would suck in all the CO2 which is being made, taking it straight out of the atmosphere. It would be really pretty too! There are many areas of the UK (and I'm sure every other nation) that cannot be farmed because they are inaccessible or the soil isn't of the right quality. Most of these places used to have trees on them until our ancestors cut them down for various reasons. In fact North Africa was wooded until the Romans arrived. Now if the government really cared about these sorts of things they could easily start afforesting the moors and other grounds.
It would probably increase the tourism in the area and for years to come it would act to absorb tons of CO2 every month. When successful this could be implemented over all of Europe and most of the world.
Of course the government isn't going to do this. You see, you can't tax trees. You can't fly to Denmark drink some good wine argue 'for your cause' and then come home and make money taxing businesses by planting trees and actually helping the environment. All you do is... well help the environment; and what government cares about that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
