Yesterday, I was astounded. This was because I was given a tea maker.
Why was I astounded by a tea maker, you may ask. Well this particular tea maker is to be set by your bedside so that in the morning when it is time for you to wake up you wake automatically to a fresh cup of tea. You don't even have to turn it on, it is on a timer so when you wake up, it does too.
So why is this amazing? I just can't believe how good the standard of living is at this point. The idea of having hot tea when you wake up is something that, years ago, would have been reserved for the landed gentry, those who could afford a gentleman's gentleman: a butler.
Now in today's Western modern world a veritable nobody of reasonable economic standing can be presented with such a gift.
This raises a couple of questions in my head. The main one being, do we all realise how blessed we are to have such a life style? Am I the only one who wakes up in the morning and thinks to myself I can't believe that I have such an astoundingly high standard of life, I cannot count my blessings if I had all day.
It also raises another question however.
Why isn't every Westerner really happy?
I guess there are a few reasons, one being that there are other big issues such as health (even if we have the best health care too). But I guess the fundamental point is what we knew already: having 'stuff' doesn't make you happy.
I guess it goes back to a fridge magnet I've seen, it said "the best things in life aren't things".
It is sort of strange that if you took a poll in the UK to see who was happy it would probably yeild the same results as in Africa or Asia or anywhere where the 'standard of living' would generally be considered lower.
The other thought is that is life so good because we work hard or because we're in so much debt we've just taken all the money the next generation is going to make and spent it on ourselves?
Strangely at this point I don't think I have an answer to that question. Still, if we are going to spend the next 70 years paying high tax with low public services at least there is this consolation; with less money and more time to focus on the things of life that really are important (God, family etc) we'll probably be a lot happier.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Monday, 24 January 2011
Is it David Cameron coming in shining armour?
The Government must solve all our problems.
It is a bit of a sliding scale, so you can understand how the government can quickly be expected to deal with everything. But as the public, I think we need to start to recognise something. The real influence in life, the real unit of community that will make a difference to the next generation is not the Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom, but rather it is the family.
What Mum and Dad say (or doesn't say) to little Timmy will have more impact on the next generation that what David Cameron says, what Jonathan Ross says, what the Kasier Chiefs say or even what the local Magistrates say.
Until then the idea that the government can sort everything out is sadly misguided. To think that just means more of our money taxed and spent on people feigning activity and action to make us all feel like 'its going to be ok, the government will sort it out with their huge pot of money'.
Such an almost emotional dependance isn't good. But maybe I'm just confused and some would say I too need to look to central government for salvation. But for many reasons least of all looking at what happened in Russia and what still goes on in China I'm going to go with "no".
Is it just me or is that basically the attitude that is adopted today by everyone. And I mean, pretty much everyone. There was a woman on the radio the other day complaining because as an alcoholic she had been given an ASBO. But that didn't make any difference she claimed. She was banned from drinking in pubs but she could still drink at home and then go outside and cause problems.
What sort of attitude is that? It is almost like complaining because she hasn't been locked up and sent to prison. Oh, they haven't totally stopped me doing what I want, so there is no point trying to give me a nudge into the right direction.
This is prevalent in other areas too. If too many people get knifed, then the answer must be in legislation making a the sentences higher for people carrying a knife.
Look people the government making the sentence higher for carrying a knife will have no impact at all. What will, parents sitting their children down and saying to them in a loving tone "I love you very much, but if you ever carry a knife I'll break your fingers", ok not literally that, but you get the picture.
As a result we have to pay high taxes so that each time society fails to do something properly the government can 'look' like it is doing something.
As a lawyer we see this all the time. The mortgage repossession pre-action protocol. What effect did it have? Well, not much. Maybe some extra paper work for the banks, a bit more paper work for the lawyers (so basically higher fees for everyone) and some extra work for the government.
Each time they have to run around, pretend the law has changed, or in some other way spend some money to make everyone feel better, because after all that is what the government does, it solves every problem and controls everyone, except of course, we all know it doesn't.
Sadly criminal behaviour is more controlled better by one sentence of a Mum or Dad than a several sentences from a Criminal Court.
Banning things also rarely solves a problem, after all, an air rifle is less dangerous in the hands of someone responsible than a brick (availble from all local builders merchants) in the hands of someone who isn't.
We're starting to see this in the economy too. Governments must make some program to get people back on their feet and in their next job. Great idea I'll grant you, but do you really think that the government, if it had a way of getting more people into jobs wouldn't have done it already?
Getting people in jobs is a gold mine for a government, it means people love you and your tax revenue goes up. Everyone's a winner! So why do people believe that a government wouldn't do it if there really was a way to make it happen.
Looking around the world we can see that the US has the best growth most of the time. This isn't down to government initiatives, it is down to letting people keep the money they earn and not taxing it all away, ironically to pay for silly initatives that make the public feel like its all going to be ok, now that there is a minister being paid to think up some scheme.
Paying people for what they do and not paying them much for what they don't is the best back to work scheme the world has every known. Sadly well intentioned programmes tend to just be misused by companies to get free labour and then fire the person at the end. Valuable experience? Maybe, but these aren't usually law jobs, or accountancy where experience is useful, they are jobs where being competant and commited is more valuable than experience.
Government does have a purpose, and a very important one, don't get me wrong.
With a good road network, business prospers. So directing investment is part of the job. Likewise the government should act as a moral compass when it comes to new laws. Should murderers be jailed? Should certain drugs be illegal? Should there be a television campaign to tell people about the risks of smoking and promiscuous sex?
Sadly criminal behaviour is more controlled better by one sentence of a Mum or Dad than a several sentences from a Criminal Court.
Banning things also rarely solves a problem, after all, an air rifle is less dangerous in the hands of someone responsible than a brick (availble from all local builders merchants) in the hands of someone who isn't.
We're starting to see this in the economy too. Governments must make some program to get people back on their feet and in their next job. Great idea I'll grant you, but do you really think that the government, if it had a way of getting more people into jobs wouldn't have done it already?
Getting people in jobs is a gold mine for a government, it means people love you and your tax revenue goes up. Everyone's a winner! So why do people believe that a government wouldn't do it if there really was a way to make it happen.
Looking around the world we can see that the US has the best growth most of the time. This isn't down to government initiatives, it is down to letting people keep the money they earn and not taxing it all away, ironically to pay for silly initatives that make the public feel like its all going to be ok, now that there is a minister being paid to think up some scheme.
Paying people for what they do and not paying them much for what they don't is the best back to work scheme the world has every known. Sadly well intentioned programmes tend to just be misused by companies to get free labour and then fire the person at the end. Valuable experience? Maybe, but these aren't usually law jobs, or accountancy where experience is useful, they are jobs where being competant and commited is more valuable than experience.
Government does have a purpose, and a very important one, don't get me wrong.
With a good road network, business prospers. So directing investment is part of the job. Likewise the government should act as a moral compass when it comes to new laws. Should murderers be jailed? Should certain drugs be illegal? Should there be a television campaign to tell people about the risks of smoking and promiscuous sex?
It is a bit of a sliding scale, so you can understand how the government can quickly be expected to deal with everything. But as the public, I think we need to start to recognise something. The real influence in life, the real unit of community that will make a difference to the next generation is not the Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom, but rather it is the family.
What Mum and Dad say (or doesn't say) to little Timmy will have more impact on the next generation that what David Cameron says, what Jonathan Ross says, what the Kasier Chiefs say or even what the local Magistrates say.
Until then the idea that the government can sort everything out is sadly misguided. To think that just means more of our money taxed and spent on people feigning activity and action to make us all feel like 'its going to be ok, the government will sort it out with their huge pot of money'.
Such an almost emotional dependance isn't good. But maybe I'm just confused and some would say I too need to look to central government for salvation. But for many reasons least of all looking at what happened in Russia and what still goes on in China I'm going to go with "no".
Thursday, 3 December 2009
New York, New York!
I am thinking I should fly to New York with British Airways. After all they are the best airline in the world, and since they are losing money I may not get too many chances to use them again. First class maybe? It would be a nice way to arrive at the beginning of a new chapter living on the other side of the pond.
Now I'm pretty patriotic, so why am I talking about moving state-side. Well this comes with the news that the newly appointed economic minister for the EU is French. Why then is this a reason for me to consider a flat (or should I say apartment) in Manhattan. Well, the new economic minister of the EU is French, this means that the UK is quite possibly screwed.
The problem with this is rooted the the differences between the French and British economy. They are completely different. The French economy is based on government protectionism, a strong leaning towards socialism and of course the desire to strike every five minutes. The French don't seem particularly bothered that their economy is accepted a stagnant. But they why would you when you can stay up until 6 in the morning on warm nights in the South of France sipping an espresso watching the moon light reflect off the sea...
Where was I? Oh yes. So essentially the French economy is stagnant and the government protects it as best as it can from competition from other nations (eg CAP). As a friend of mine from Notts once said 'if you want to get on the good side of French people rememeber how to say "I love to strike".
In contrast the UK has a completely different work ethic. In the provinces, sure, life is quite laid back, you go to work at your customer telephone helpline from 9 until 5 and then you come home and enjoy your life. But that isn't the case in London. London is the free market on cocaine (sometimes literally). If you live in London the next deal/case/contract is your next breath, if you miss it you're going to die. I would say in London people eat and sleep work but that would be misleading, it would imply that they get to sleep occasionally. In London once you've worked for a week with 4 hours of sleep each night to close a contract, you don't finish and then sleep for the next two days, you hit the clubs with your fellow workers and stay awake for another 24 hours, just for the fun of it.
As a result London wages are substantially higher than everywhere else in the UK. Deservedly so too. But the real heart of London, the beating heart of the UK economy is finance. Without it would would have a deficit so big we'd be... well the United States (jk). We don't make anything in the UK after all. We don't do cars (not outside of F1 racing anyway). We don't make ships. We don't make most of the things with a high value, we just make money. This works very well for us and as a result we are the country of finance. We have two rivals (New York and Hong Kong) but we are on the top of the pile. Well, we are right now.
But now we are going to have a man making our regulations who was brought up in a French economy. This will mean that he will want strong regulation for more stability and less profit.
The thing is 'less profit' rings in a bank managers ears like the trumpet of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. It will cause any bank directors hairs to stand on end. They will have a shiver down their spine like the coldest ice and then after being planted on the spot for 10 minutes without a single movement they will reach for their phones call their board and tell them they are moving to New York or Hong Kong, or hades, whichever one has the lowest income tax.
This the French won't care about because they have no banks to lose anyway. Britain on the the other hand have a lot to lose.
So what can be done. Well what should have happened in the first place is that the democratically elected representatives of the British people should have done what they are mean to and represent the people! This would mean that we wouldn't have the Lisbon Treaty in the first place and we wouldn't have to care about Michel Barnier or Sarkozy or anyone else for that matter. But then 'politicians do know best' don't they?
Anyway, I'm focusing too much on the past, to the future!
What is going to happen now? Well thankfully regardless of what the EU thinks it is going to do if it tries to over regulate then the UK hopefully will have the 'stones' to tell them that we've not going to agree to have our country sent back to the stone age. The EU likes making these noises about how they are going to make us suffer but realistically we have a Tory government coming up who would love to have some good ammunition to shoot at the Euro-philes. Europe isn't so stupid as to provide it for them.
Anything damaging to the UK in the next few years will be equally damaging to Europe.
So maybe I won't have to move to New York, maybe there is still hope that I can live in the UK and it won't fall apart in the immediate future, still it does make you wonder what berk thought that two countries were going to get on economically when one is as red as you can be without calling each other comrade and the other is as blue as you can be without calling each other 'dude'.
Now I'm pretty patriotic, so why am I talking about moving state-side. Well this comes with the news that the newly appointed economic minister for the EU is French. Why then is this a reason for me to consider a flat (or should I say apartment) in Manhattan. Well, the new economic minister of the EU is French, this means that the UK is quite possibly screwed.
The problem with this is rooted the the differences between the French and British economy. They are completely different. The French economy is based on government protectionism, a strong leaning towards socialism and of course the desire to strike every five minutes. The French don't seem particularly bothered that their economy is accepted a stagnant. But they why would you when you can stay up until 6 in the morning on warm nights in the South of France sipping an espresso watching the moon light reflect off the sea...
Where was I? Oh yes. So essentially the French economy is stagnant and the government protects it as best as it can from competition from other nations (eg CAP). As a friend of mine from Notts once said 'if you want to get on the good side of French people rememeber how to say "I love to strike".
In contrast the UK has a completely different work ethic. In the provinces, sure, life is quite laid back, you go to work at your customer telephone helpline from 9 until 5 and then you come home and enjoy your life. But that isn't the case in London. London is the free market on cocaine (sometimes literally). If you live in London the next deal/case/contract is your next breath, if you miss it you're going to die. I would say in London people eat and sleep work but that would be misleading, it would imply that they get to sleep occasionally. In London once you've worked for a week with 4 hours of sleep each night to close a contract, you don't finish and then sleep for the next two days, you hit the clubs with your fellow workers and stay awake for another 24 hours, just for the fun of it.
As a result London wages are substantially higher than everywhere else in the UK. Deservedly so too. But the real heart of London, the beating heart of the UK economy is finance. Without it would would have a deficit so big we'd be... well the United States (jk). We don't make anything in the UK after all. We don't do cars (not outside of F1 racing anyway). We don't make ships. We don't make most of the things with a high value, we just make money. This works very well for us and as a result we are the country of finance. We have two rivals (New York and Hong Kong) but we are on the top of the pile. Well, we are right now.
But now we are going to have a man making our regulations who was brought up in a French economy. This will mean that he will want strong regulation for more stability and less profit.
The thing is 'less profit' rings in a bank managers ears like the trumpet of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. It will cause any bank directors hairs to stand on end. They will have a shiver down their spine like the coldest ice and then after being planted on the spot for 10 minutes without a single movement they will reach for their phones call their board and tell them they are moving to New York or Hong Kong, or hades, whichever one has the lowest income tax.
This the French won't care about because they have no banks to lose anyway. Britain on the the other hand have a lot to lose.
So what can be done. Well what should have happened in the first place is that the democratically elected representatives of the British people should have done what they are mean to and represent the people! This would mean that we wouldn't have the Lisbon Treaty in the first place and we wouldn't have to care about Michel Barnier or Sarkozy or anyone else for that matter. But then 'politicians do know best' don't they?
Anyway, I'm focusing too much on the past, to the future!
What is going to happen now? Well thankfully regardless of what the EU thinks it is going to do if it tries to over regulate then the UK hopefully will have the 'stones' to tell them that we've not going to agree to have our country sent back to the stone age. The EU likes making these noises about how they are going to make us suffer but realistically we have a Tory government coming up who would love to have some good ammunition to shoot at the Euro-philes. Europe isn't so stupid as to provide it for them.
Anything damaging to the UK in the next few years will be equally damaging to Europe.
So maybe I won't have to move to New York, maybe there is still hope that I can live in the UK and it won't fall apart in the immediate future, still it does make you wonder what berk thought that two countries were going to get on economically when one is as red as you can be without calling each other comrade and the other is as blue as you can be without calling each other 'dude'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
