The BBC website currently carries a headline "Apple holding more cash than USA"
They go on :
Apple now has more cash to spend than the United States government. Latest figures from the US Treasury Department show that the country has an operating cash balance of $73.7bn (£45.3bn). Apple's most recent financial results put its reserves at $76.4bn (£46.9bn).
Yes, that's right. Apple has reserves of £46.9 bn, not cash. Total reserves are an accounting estimate of the amount available to shareholders on a winding up assuming that all assets could be sold at their book value and all liabilities could be settled at par without penalty, where as cash is actual liquid holdings available now. Apple only has £8 billion cash. It has other short term instruments, but it isn't going to get its hands on anything like that amount of cash unless it winds up its entire business.
On the other hand US government could raise.some extra cash by selling a few assets, but that is neither here nor there.
The truth is that the BBC is wrong because it is too stupid to find out the facts and in any event it has no interest in honest reporting, only in making up stories.
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, 29 July 2011
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Deja vu, all over again
Two and a half years ago I posted on the subject of "curing the GDP Fetish", which was all about politicians avoiding the temptation to make their economic decisions revolve around the measure of Gross Domestic Product, and rather insightful I thought it was too.
As it turned out, so did Joseph Stiglitz and he also called it a fetish six months later, and just to prove it was no flash in the pan, so did Nicolas Sarkozy. Oh what an influential thinker I must be.
But the same logic still persists in the UK, and George Osborne should not be swayed by the fact that there has only been 0.2% growth in GDP in the last quarter.
The simple fact was that under the last government, GDP was not a measure of the value of economic activity but of money flowing in the economy. Every year the Scottish chncellor would come to the House of Commons and announce that GDP had risen by ... 3%. How did he do that? Simple, when the real economy was flat-lining he would put his foot on the economic gas pedal, and pump out some extra spending.
At first it was easy to pay for more computers in schools and more doctors, but as the trick was repeated we didn't need more of them, we just paid more for the same, hence the "NHS inflation" that ran at 8% rather than the 3% of RPI
Eventually this meant that a substantial part of government spending was simply overspending, perhaps electoral bribes, that was unneeded and more importantly, wasn't funded by taxes but by borrowing.
So what the current Chancellor needs to do is to cut spending, not by buying fewer goods and services but by paying less for the same goods and services, essentially putting us back to where we were nearly 10 years ago, and drive out the wasteful spending funded by borrowing. Sure that means that GDP will drop. But the real value of economic activity will be just the same.
As it turned out, so did Joseph Stiglitz and he also called it a fetish six months later, and just to prove it was no flash in the pan, so did Nicolas Sarkozy. Oh what an influential thinker I must be.
But the same logic still persists in the UK, and George Osborne should not be swayed by the fact that there has only been 0.2% growth in GDP in the last quarter.
The simple fact was that under the last government, GDP was not a measure of the value of economic activity but of money flowing in the economy. Every year the Scottish chncellor would come to the House of Commons and announce that GDP had risen by ... 3%. How did he do that? Simple, when the real economy was flat-lining he would put his foot on the economic gas pedal, and pump out some extra spending.
At first it was easy to pay for more computers in schools and more doctors, but as the trick was repeated we didn't need more of them, we just paid more for the same, hence the "NHS inflation" that ran at 8% rather than the 3% of RPI
Eventually this meant that a substantial part of government spending was simply overspending, perhaps electoral bribes, that was unneeded and more importantly, wasn't funded by taxes but by borrowing.
So what the current Chancellor needs to do is to cut spending, not by buying fewer goods and services but by paying less for the same goods and services, essentially putting us back to where we were nearly 10 years ago, and drive out the wasteful spending funded by borrowing. Sure that means that GDP will drop. But the real value of economic activity will be just the same.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
20/20 hindsight: a retrospective
Five scientists at The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology report the direct observation of optical precursors of heralded single photons with step- and square-modulated wave packets passing through cold atoms in this months Physical Review Letters. Using electromagnetically induced transparency and the slow-light effect, they separated the single-photon precursor, which always travels at the speed of light in vacuum, from its delayed main wave packet. In the two-level superluminal medium, their result suggests that the causality holds for a single photon, or in other words, nothing travels faster than light and you can't travel.
I have made similar observations, that led to the same conclusion, except that my observation was that lottery draws appear to be very rarely won by Chinese physics professors, which leads indirectly to the same conclusion.
I have made similar observations, that led to the same conclusion, except that my observation was that lottery draws appear to be very rarely won by Chinese physics professors, which leads indirectly to the same conclusion.
Where do I get a refund?
I am not a curmudgeon and am very willing to see my taxes used to pay for those that are too ill to support themselves, but the DWP has just released the results from the first 1.3 million tests for sickness benefit.
1% of applications were still in progress
7% were incapable of any work
36% dropped out of the application process
1% of applications were still in progress
39% were deemed to be fit for work and were moved onto jobseeker's allowance
17% were able to do some sort of work given the correct support7% were incapable of any work
36% dropped out of the application process
So that's over a third who dropped their claim before testing. and nearly two in five who weren't really ill at all, and in total less than one claim in four was actually valid.
Can I have some of my taxes back, please? Perhaps the list of those who can put their hands in their pockets first are the GPs who wrote the sick notes for the 1.1 million claimants who took the system for a ride.
All quiet on the hacking front
As soon as the Newsnight report came out implicating the Daily Mirror, suddenly the BBC went quiet on the subject of phone hacking. Suddenly, after 2 weeks of harranguing News International, there were no more inter views with A. Campbell, K. Maguire etc.
Funny that.
Funny that.
Friday, 22 July 2011
More BBC Bias
The extent to which the BBC are prepared to bend over backwards to perpetuate their onslaught on Murdoch has become quite ridiculous.
Right now they are giving top news billing to a piece of mud slinging from Tom Watson. According to the BBC, Mr Watson knows more about the phone hacking affair than anyone else, although why he should be more knowledgable than the rest of the population is unclear. What is clear is that Mr watson has been flingting more mud in the hope that he can make some stick on the Conservatives, aided by Peston and Robinson. So far he has failed.
The latest allegation is that James Murdoch told the parliamentary enquiry that he was not aware of an email detailing additional phone hacking at New International. Fair enough, it may or may not have been sent or copied to him (nobody suggests it was0, but he doesn't have to be aware of it, and it is not his fault if he isn't. Watson says that other ex-NI employees told Murdoch that there was more phone hacking. That employee probably did and Murdoch probably knew from this and other sources that there had been further phone hacking (but let us remember, not by NI employees). So Watson wants a police enquiry. Into what? Not knowing about an e-mail? That was never a crime and the police would do nothing about it. They can hardly prove that anybody is/was aware of an e-mail, even one sent to them.
So why is the BBC making such a fuss? Because it fits their biased narrative.
The issue that The Labour Party and the BBC are trying to disguise or avoid is the fact that Ken MacDonald (DPP) and Lord Goldsmith (AG) were both informed by the Met that there was a substantial evidence of wider phone hacking in 2006, but the police were instructed not to investigate any phone intercepts unless they could prove that voicemails were hacked before they had been received by the intended recipient (which hase no basis in law). Goldsmith yesterday denied restricting the scope of the police investigation, but that wasn't his job, it was MacDonald's (not a squeak from him). Goldsmith's job was to inform the PM (Blair) and the Cabinet. Did he?
Of course, if the Blair government and its law officers had acted properly, there would probably be no questions for Cameron to answer over Coulson. Meanwhile, MacDonald collects fairly handy sums from The Times for his occasional pieces on legal matters.
Why is the BBC sniffing around News International and the Conservative Party when the smell is coming from elsewhere.
Right now they are giving top news billing to a piece of mud slinging from Tom Watson. According to the BBC, Mr Watson knows more about the phone hacking affair than anyone else, although why he should be more knowledgable than the rest of the population is unclear. What is clear is that Mr watson has been flingting more mud in the hope that he can make some stick on the Conservatives, aided by Peston and Robinson. So far he has failed.
The latest allegation is that James Murdoch told the parliamentary enquiry that he was not aware of an email detailing additional phone hacking at New International. Fair enough, it may or may not have been sent or copied to him (nobody suggests it was0, but he doesn't have to be aware of it, and it is not his fault if he isn't. Watson says that other ex-NI employees told Murdoch that there was more phone hacking. That employee probably did and Murdoch probably knew from this and other sources that there had been further phone hacking (but let us remember, not by NI employees). So Watson wants a police enquiry. Into what? Not knowing about an e-mail? That was never a crime and the police would do nothing about it. They can hardly prove that anybody is/was aware of an e-mail, even one sent to them.
So why is the BBC making such a fuss? Because it fits their biased narrative.
The issue that The Labour Party and the BBC are trying to disguise or avoid is the fact that Ken MacDonald (DPP) and Lord Goldsmith (AG) were both informed by the Met that there was a substantial evidence of wider phone hacking in 2006, but the police were instructed not to investigate any phone intercepts unless they could prove that voicemails were hacked before they had been received by the intended recipient (which hase no basis in law). Goldsmith yesterday denied restricting the scope of the police investigation, but that wasn't his job, it was MacDonald's (not a squeak from him). Goldsmith's job was to inform the PM (Blair) and the Cabinet. Did he?
Of course, if the Blair government and its law officers had acted properly, there would probably be no questions for Cameron to answer over Coulson. Meanwhile, MacDonald collects fairly handy sums from The Times for his occasional pieces on legal matters.
Why is the BBC sniffing around News International and the Conservative Party when the smell is coming from elsewhere.
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Do the math(s)
Researchers from Oxford ave discovered that men taller than 5'9" are [X]% more likely to contract a cancer than men less than 5' tall. Well, duh!, that's because there [Y: Y>X*(5'9"/5')]% more cells in their bodies that might mutate.
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Why am I not surprised?
Some nebbish of a chief risk officer ata German Landesbank pocketed a cool $44 million paid into his 2 Austrian companies by a Mr Bernard E and the Bambino Trust. At the same time, the German Landesbank paid $41 million to Bernard Ecclestone and $25 million to Ecclestone family trusts by way of "commission" for the arrangement of the sale of the Landesbank's shares in F1 to CVC.
An open and shut case of graft, allegedly.
An open and shut case of graft, allegedly.
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
The geeks will inherit the earth
Some more good news on the home front. I apologise for being a day or two behind, but I am on holiday in France (more on that later), but news reaches me over the internet that Tom Pellereau has won The Apprentice. As you may be aware I am not an avid watcher of TV programmes, and do not hold a TV license (although here in France with a VPN connection to a UK based IP address I gather I might be able to watch live UK TV without a UK TV license, although I would probably need a French one).
Nevertheless, I wanted Tom to win as an example of how brains, common sense and a pleasant manner can triumph over the brash self-regarding pushiness of most of the candidates. In reality, the decision can't have been too difficult for Lord Sugar. Who do you give £250k to, a smart bloke with good ideas and large dollops of honesty and charm, or any of a dozen pushy losers with inflated egos?
I think I met Tom briefly when he was still a teenager. I have certainly met both of his sisters and have known his parents ever since his younger sistesr and my youngest daughter were the two smallest girls in their school, and they have been great friends ever since. His parents are equally charming, and Matthew and Phillippa, your son is a great credit to you.
Nevertheless, I wanted Tom to win as an example of how brains, common sense and a pleasant manner can triumph over the brash self-regarding pushiness of most of the candidates. In reality, the decision can't have been too difficult for Lord Sugar. Who do you give £250k to, a smart bloke with good ideas and large dollops of honesty and charm, or any of a dozen pushy losers with inflated egos?
I think I met Tom briefly when he was still a teenager. I have certainly met both of his sisters and have known his parents ever since his younger sistesr and my youngest daughter were the two smallest girls in their school, and they have been great friends ever since. His parents are equally charming, and Matthew and Phillippa, your son is a great credit to you.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Dick head of the Terrorist Squad
I have long despaired of the quality of the British police and their lack of ability to act in the public interest, viz:
The BBC describes the wretched woman as having been in charge of the operation that led to the death of Jean-Charles de Meneses. I wouldn't put it that way. I would put that she initiated, was in charge of and supervised the most recent public execution by the British authorities on British soil. She made the wrong decision then. Why should we believe she will do any better in future?
- ACPO's ability to access police (i.e. government) criminal records for its own financial benefit (supposedly an independent, non-governmental organisation)
- the bludgeoning to death of a newspaper seller on the streets of London
- the acceptance of bribes by police officers from journalists
- the sale of confidential information by policemen to journalists
- the incompetence inherent in the death of Jean-Charles de Meneses
The BBC describes the wretched woman as having been in charge of the operation that led to the death of Jean-Charles de Meneses. I wouldn't put it that way. I would put that she initiated, was in charge of and supervised the most recent public execution by the British authorities on British soil. She made the wrong decision then. Why should we believe she will do any better in future?
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Is this all we get?
The BBC play the useful idiot for MOD spin on the unveiling of the "Voyager", the RAF's "largest ever aircraft", as though that was something remarkable. Strip away the hype and what you have is an Airbus A330-200 with strengthened floors, wings off an A340 with 4 engine mounts so the second pair can be used for in-flight refuelling pods.
Liam Fox called the planes magnificent, but it isn't the planes, which are truly eyecatching, but the price. You can see bigger planes taking off and landing at Heathrow all the time. An A330 is nothing special, a medium to long range plane comparable to a Boeing 767, MD-11 or the new B787, but smaller than all the A340's, A380's, B777's and B747's in the world. But none of them cost even a quarter of the $1 billion per plane that we are paying for the rather ordinary RAF's planes.
The BBC website gives a nice diagram showing how the A330 is bigger than an Aor Lancaster or a Vulcan bomber, but omits to show that it is only fractionally larger than the VC-10's and Lockheed TriStars that they replace, which came to the government virtually free from the BOAC fleet. They also required strengthened floors for cargo and mountings for pods for in-flight refuelling, so no new technology there.
So yet again, why are we paying an extra $800 million for each of these planes? About £7 billion spent without any real explanation. Perhaps the governments new accounting regime will give us a clearer picture. I see an FOI request coming on.
Liam Fox called the planes magnificent, but it isn't the planes, which are truly eyecatching, but the price. You can see bigger planes taking off and landing at Heathrow all the time. An A330 is nothing special, a medium to long range plane comparable to a Boeing 767, MD-11 or the new B787, but smaller than all the A340's, A380's, B777's and B747's in the world. But none of them cost even a quarter of the $1 billion per plane that we are paying for the rather ordinary RAF's planes.
The BBC website gives a nice diagram showing how the A330 is bigger than an Aor Lancaster or a Vulcan bomber, but omits to show that it is only fractionally larger than the VC-10's and Lockheed TriStars that they replace, which came to the government virtually free from the BOAC fleet. They also required strengthened floors for cargo and mountings for pods for in-flight refuelling, so no new technology there.
So yet again, why are we paying an extra $800 million for each of these planes? About £7 billion spent without any real explanation. Perhaps the governments new accounting regime will give us a clearer picture. I see an FOI request coming on.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
A good thing
A while ago I did a video...
On Wednesday the Treasury will publish accounts drawn up on the same basis as listed companies, counting the future liabilities of the accrued pension rights for public sector workers and the future costs of private finance initiative projects. The figures are being published to coincide with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s first assessment of the long-term health of the public finances.
Hallelujah!
On Wednesday the Treasury will publish accounts drawn up on the same basis as listed companies, counting the future liabilities of the accrued pension rights for public sector workers and the future costs of private finance initiative projects. The figures are being published to coincide with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s first assessment of the long-term health of the public finances.
Hallelujah!
Friday, 8 July 2011
Divided by more than the Channel
It would be a triumph of spin, but one of the most frightening aspects of the French character is that there are people who think that if Dominique Strauss-Kahn manages to get off his US rape charges, then he can still be a front-runner in the French presidential campaign.
Now I have nothing against the man, and I reserve all judgement on his guilt or innocence in the criminal affair, but it is common ground between the parties that DS-K and the maid had a sexual encounter. That much is beyond dispute. Whilst there might be a certain amount of Gallic bravado and some who would applaud such behaviour (saluto Silvio, hi Bill), it has to be said that screwing the hotel maid is more than a tad tawdry.
Worse than that, such impetuosity is not really becoming in the Head of a State of a major nation, and particularly not one with an independent nuclear capability. Some times the alpha male needs a little bit of beta to do the right thing.
Now I have nothing against the man, and I reserve all judgement on his guilt or innocence in the criminal affair, but it is common ground between the parties that DS-K and the maid had a sexual encounter. That much is beyond dispute. Whilst there might be a certain amount of Gallic bravado and some who would applaud such behaviour (saluto Silvio, hi Bill), it has to be said that screwing the hotel maid is more than a tad tawdry.
Worse than that, such impetuosity is not really becoming in the Head of a State of a major nation, and particularly not one with an independent nuclear capability. Some times the alpha male needs a little bit of beta to do the right thing.
6 Ways to speed up your PC
For Windows XP users according to Microsoft at
http://www.microsoft.com/atwork/maintenance/speed.aspx
1. Remove spyware, and help protect your computer from viruses
2. Free up disk space
3. Speed up access to data
4. Detect and repair disk errors
5. Learn about ReadyBoost
6. Upgrade to Windows 7
Option 6 screams "screw you if you paid good money for our software"
http://www.microsoft.com/atwork/maintenance/speed.aspx
1. Remove spyware, and help protect your computer from viruses
2. Free up disk space
3. Speed up access to data
4. Detect and repair disk errors
5. Learn about ReadyBoost
6. Upgrade to Windows 7
Option 6 screams "screw you if you paid good money for our software"
Friday, 1 July 2011
Can you hear me Alex Salmond?
Billy Connolly, Sean Connery, Walter Scott, Rabbie Burns, Lord Reith, James Clerk Maxwell, Gordon Brown, Alex Salmond. Can you hear me Alex Salmond? Your boy took one hell of a beating! Your boy took one hell of a beating!'
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Happy Tau (6.28) day
Now here is a campaign of which I approve: the outdated and outmoded pi deserves to be replaced by the intrinsically more useful tau (= 2 * pi).
Why is that you ask, because pi is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle and the area is pi*(radius)^2, which is pretty straightforward.
Maybe, but the area formula (tau/2)*(radius)^2 shows us that the area of a circle is the sum of a series of infinitessimally sectors (ie. very thin triangles). The tau form of the formula is much more like all those other quadratic formulae for energy (1/2*m*v^2), distance (1/2*a*t^2), etc etc, because what is really going wrong is that pi is only half the value it needs to be. The circuumference of a circle is pi*diameter but that is 2*pi*radius, or tau*radius.
As Leonnard Euler would have told us exp(i*tau)=1, which is just too cool for words.
Why is that you ask, because pi is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle and the area is pi*(radius)^2, which is pretty straightforward.
Maybe, but the area formula (tau/2)*(radius)^2 shows us that the area of a circle is the sum of a series of infinitessimally sectors (ie. very thin triangles). The tau form of the formula is much more like all those other quadratic formulae for energy (1/2*m*v^2), distance (1/2*a*t^2), etc etc, because what is really going wrong is that pi is only half the value it needs to be. The circuumference of a circle is pi*diameter but that is 2*pi*radius, or tau*radius.
As Leonnard Euler would have told us exp(i*tau)=1, which is just too cool for words.
Monday, 27 June 2011
The economic case for HS2
Today we see the opening of the M74 extension in Glasgow built at a cost of £657m, which works out at £131m per mile or £75,000 a yard.
In July this will be trumped by the even more costly A3 tunnel at Hindhead in Surrey. A four-mile section of dual carriageway is being added, but the vast bulk of the £371m cost is concentrated on the 1.2 mile (1.9km) tunnel. It is the longest subterranean road in the UK, costing around £300m, equivalent to £170,000 per yard.
The HS2 by comparison is estimated to cost £390 billion and will have an overall length of about 300 miles. I make that £56,818 per yard, running up the spine of the country, not in some sleepy Surrey backwater or in the world capital of cocaine consumption.
In July this will be trumped by the even more costly A3 tunnel at Hindhead in Surrey. A four-mile section of dual carriageway is being added, but the vast bulk of the £371m cost is concentrated on the 1.2 mile (1.9km) tunnel. It is the longest subterranean road in the UK, costing around £300m, equivalent to £170,000 per yard.
The HS2 by comparison is estimated to cost £390 billion and will have an overall length of about 300 miles. I make that £56,818 per yard, running up the spine of the country, not in some sleepy Surrey backwater or in the world capital of cocaine consumption.
An NHS campaign I wouldn't support.
There was a debate on the radio this morning between a doctor brought in by the BBC to rubbish any thing the government does on behalf of the clinicians (Dr. Mark Porter, who chairs the consultants committee of the BMA) and a patients' advocate (Dr Mike Smith of the Patients Association).
At issue was whether the government should be closing hospitals or services in hospitals to improve clinical standards. One such service under threat of closure nearby is a paediatric cardiology unit, where there has been loud local support for the retention of the unit based in a South Coast town. It is one of eleven in the country and the government proposes to reduce the number to seven.
This is bad say the protesters. It is just government penny pinching and a closure would mean that little Jimmy would be further from home at a very traumatic time.
All very emotional stuff, but it seems to put Mum & Dad's inconvenience ahead of the youngsters chance of survival, because those willing to give this more than superficial consideration will remember the reports of excess deaths in the paediatric cardiology units at Bristol Royal Infirmary and the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.
What has the bad performance at those hospitals got to do with another unit that has not had the same number of excess deaths? To put it frankly, the hospitals that failed probably did so because the surgical teams did not have enough experience, and that was a direct result of the fact that they didn't have enough "business" to maintain a suitably experienced workforce, and the same was likely to happen elsewhere. Some procedures were carried out less frequently than once a year in some units. I wouldn't send a pet rabbit to a vet for a procedure that he carried out less than once a year. Reducing the number of specialist centres increases the volume of specialist work in each centre and gives the staff more experience.
So, Mum & Dad, I am sorry about your little one, and it will be tough if you have to travel hundreds of miles a week to visit them, or if you have to stay in a hotel to be close by when they need you, but you have to understand, this probably really is for the best.
At issue was whether the government should be closing hospitals or services in hospitals to improve clinical standards. One such service under threat of closure nearby is a paediatric cardiology unit, where there has been loud local support for the retention of the unit based in a South Coast town. It is one of eleven in the country and the government proposes to reduce the number to seven.
This is bad say the protesters. It is just government penny pinching and a closure would mean that little Jimmy would be further from home at a very traumatic time.
All very emotional stuff, but it seems to put Mum & Dad's inconvenience ahead of the youngsters chance of survival, because those willing to give this more than superficial consideration will remember the reports of excess deaths in the paediatric cardiology units at Bristol Royal Infirmary and the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.
What has the bad performance at those hospitals got to do with another unit that has not had the same number of excess deaths? To put it frankly, the hospitals that failed probably did so because the surgical teams did not have enough experience, and that was a direct result of the fact that they didn't have enough "business" to maintain a suitably experienced workforce, and the same was likely to happen elsewhere. Some procedures were carried out less frequently than once a year in some units. I wouldn't send a pet rabbit to a vet for a procedure that he carried out less than once a year. Reducing the number of specialist centres increases the volume of specialist work in each centre and gives the staff more experience.
So, Mum & Dad, I am sorry about your little one, and it will be tough if you have to travel hundreds of miles a week to visit them, or if you have to stay in a hotel to be close by when they need you, but you have to understand, this probably really is for the best.
Does more competition in the NHS save lives?
Yes it does, according to this report from the LSE. Not exactly a hotbed of free-market thinking, but here is what they conclude in their (peer-reviewed) report::
"Using AMI mortality as a quality indicator, we find that mortality fell more quickly (i.e. quality improved) for patients living in more competitive markets after the introduction of hospital competition in January 2006. Our results suggest that hospital competition in markets with fixed prices can lead to improvements in clinical quality."
"Using AMI mortality as a quality indicator, we find that mortality fell more quickly (i.e. quality improved) for patients living in more competitive markets after the introduction of hospital competition in January 2006. Our results suggest that hospital competition in markets with fixed prices can lead to improvements in clinical quality."
Thursday, 23 June 2011
2 problems solved for the price of 1 (part # 95)
Why do we pay vast amounts to keep criminals locked up when there are certain classes of convicted felon who could be dealt with much more effectively by flying them to Somalia and handing them over to a gangster who will be able to look after them until an appropriate ransom has been extracted. This has the advantage of keeping the pirates off the high seas as well as reintroducing the gangster into civilised society by negotiating his own ransom.
Just an idea, needs some fleshing out.
Just an idea, needs some fleshing out.
Monday, 20 June 2011
Evening all
Fifa vice-president Jack Warner has resigned, world football's governing body has confirmed.
"As a consequence of Mr Warner's resignation, all ethics committee procedures against him have been closed and the presumption of innocence is maintained," said a FIFA statement.
Funny that. I thought only the British police could resign and thereby walk away from an inquiry into their conduct. Perhaps he was Dixon of Dock Green after all.
"As a consequence of Mr Warner's resignation, all ethics committee procedures against him have been closed and the presumption of innocence is maintained," said a FIFA statement.
Funny that. I thought only the British police could resign and thereby walk away from an inquiry into their conduct. Perhaps he was Dixon of Dock Green after all.
2 problems for the price of 1 (a continuing series)
On the basis that the most effective time to kick your opponent is when he is down, I suggest that one of the pre-conditions for a Greek bail out is that they renounce any claims to the Elgin marbles.
Just something that we slip in as a small negotiating point and not something that they are likely or able to resist. More like a privatisation really.
Just something that we slip in as a small negotiating point and not something that they are likely or able to resist. More like a privatisation really.
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Why bother voting Conservative?
Frankly, if the government carries this measure into legislation, nobody should bother.
"Discussions have begun at the Treasury over the move which would see the axing of tax relief currently paid out on pension contributions by people who pay income tax at the higher rates of 40 per cent and 50 per cent.
The money saved could go towards cutting the budget deficit or – in what would be a more politically popular decision – be used to provide a significant increase to the value of the basic state pension."
Income tax is a tax on income. Sounds easy enough but you have to shout it really hard for some politicians to understand. If a person doesn't receive an amount of income then they shouldn't be taxed on it. If a person diverts 10% of their gross income into their employer's pension fund then they have effectively reduced their income for the year. Sure enough they have also acquired the right to a future amount of income, but that right doesn't actually crystallise until retirement and the amounts actually received are fully taxable as they arise anyway (as income geddit), so why impose any earlier tax?
"Discussions have begun at the Treasury over the move which would see the axing of tax relief currently paid out on pension contributions by people who pay income tax at the higher rates of 40 per cent and 50 per cent.
The money saved could go towards cutting the budget deficit or – in what would be a more politically popular decision – be used to provide a significant increase to the value of the basic state pension."
Income tax is a tax on income. Sounds easy enough but you have to shout it really hard for some politicians to understand. If a person doesn't receive an amount of income then they shouldn't be taxed on it. If a person diverts 10% of their gross income into their employer's pension fund then they have effectively reduced their income for the year. Sure enough they have also acquired the right to a future amount of income, but that right doesn't actually crystallise until retirement and the amounts actually received are fully taxable as they arise anyway (as income geddit), so why impose any earlier tax?
The end of Little Britain
Of all the programmes I most enjoy not watching on TV, Little Britain has always struck me as the most unpleasant, always striving for the lowest possible taste. Today's piece of good news is that this piece of ordure will be made no longer. Read the comments./ I am not alon in my thinking here.
That it was ever made at all was testament to the BBC process of thought crime morality - certain people people commit PC hate crimes against other categories of people, so we will create stereotypes of those social traits, objectify and lampoon them with vileness and vulgarity that would be hard to pass of as entertainment without the critical subtext.
Well finally the BBC has realised that repetition of the same dozen non-jokes in different circumstances does not make a sketch show, and after their US venture bombed, the show ran out of jokes and their airline skit ran out of gags before the end of the first show, so perhaps we will no longer be offered endless repeats of Little Britain as either social commentary or high comedy.
Next: Why Gervais was better as a pot of fromage frais.
That it was ever made at all was testament to the BBC process of thought crime morality - certain people people commit PC hate crimes against other categories of people, so we will create stereotypes of those social traits, objectify and lampoon them with vileness and vulgarity that would be hard to pass of as entertainment without the critical subtext.
Well finally the BBC has realised that repetition of the same dozen non-jokes in different circumstances does not make a sketch show, and after their US venture bombed, the show ran out of jokes and their airline skit ran out of gags before the end of the first show, so perhaps we will no longer be offered endless repeats of Little Britain as either social commentary or high comedy.
Next: Why Gervais was better as a pot of fromage frais.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Spending other people's money is easy.
Why does the BBC pay its executives so much? It must be for their skill, talent and judgement.
A few years ago they were lambasted for giving an £18m contract to Jonathan Ross, and the public were told that this was a contract running over several years and it was for more than Mr Ross, but it was never clear what was actually bought with that money. Now we hear that they have paid £22 million for the format of a Saturday night singing contest with judges. So that's £22 million over 2 years before they actually spend a penny on making the programme. Apparently the big idea behind this show is that the singers are behind a curtain. Obviously this doesn't work on radio because you can't see the curatin on the radio.
Now I am not much of a TV producer, but I think I could have come up with the same concept for a lot less money. Saturday night talent contest with judges? I think I have seen something like that before. Bearing mind that the TV License is in reality a tax paid into the Consolidated Fund (collected by the BBC as agent for the government and then disburse to the BBC and Channel 4 after DCMS takes a cut and the Treasury adds a large dollop of cash for licenses for the over-70's), then tax payers should expect more skill, talent and judgement from those on the government payroll.
A few years ago they were lambasted for giving an £18m contract to Jonathan Ross, and the public were told that this was a contract running over several years and it was for more than Mr Ross, but it was never clear what was actually bought with that money. Now we hear that they have paid £22 million for the format of a Saturday night singing contest with judges. So that's £22 million over 2 years before they actually spend a penny on making the programme. Apparently the big idea behind this show is that the singers are behind a curtain. Obviously this doesn't work on radio because you can't see the curatin on the radio.
Now I am not much of a TV producer, but I think I could have come up with the same concept for a lot less money. Saturday night talent contest with judges? I think I have seen something like that before. Bearing mind that the TV License is in reality a tax paid into the Consolidated Fund (collected by the BBC as agent for the government and then disburse to the BBC and Channel 4 after DCMS takes a cut and the Treasury adds a large dollop of cash for licenses for the over-70's), then tax payers should expect more skill, talent and judgement from those on the government payroll.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Something to look forward to this summer
The wailing and gnashing of teeth from overpaid and unpressured public sector workers as they tell the rest of the world why they deserve to be able to stop working 6 years earlier than the rest of the world.
Followed by the response "It's people like you and attitudes like yours that caused all the problems in Greece".
Followed by the response "It's people like you and attitudes like yours that caused all the problems in Greece".
Thursday, 16 June 2011
New (Labour) Math
Frank Dobson in Today's Guardian:
"When Labour came to power the NHS was performing 5.7 million operations. In 2009/10 the figure was 9.7 million, an increase of 58%"
Now I don't know whether the claim about the number of operations is true, but what I do know is that it isn't a 58% increase. What I also know is that 5.7 million is 58% of 9.7 million, but what that tells me is that a former Labour cabinet minister is functionally innumerate, being unable to perform the simplest of calculations.
Another reason to keep these people, with their scant grasp of reality, out of office. Machiavelli probably didn't say, "if you can't add up, you can't govern", but perhaps he should have.
"When Labour came to power the NHS was performing 5.7 million operations. In 2009/10 the figure was 9.7 million, an increase of 58%"
Now I don't know whether the claim about the number of operations is true, but what I do know is that it isn't a 58% increase. What I also know is that 5.7 million is 58% of 9.7 million, but what that tells me is that a former Labour cabinet minister is functionally innumerate, being unable to perform the simplest of calculations.
Another reason to keep these people, with their scant grasp of reality, out of office. Machiavelli probably didn't say, "if you can't add up, you can't govern", but perhaps he should have.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
So incompetent it defies belief
So the US decided to ship dollars to Iraq by the plane load as you do. Up to $2.4 billion per plane load, a total of $12 billion dollars, mostly in shrink wrapped bundles of $100 bills.
Now, why am I not surprised that $6.6 billion of that money has not been accounted for? Inquiries are under way and of course we get the usual public sector murmuring, foot shuffling, "desperate times" etc, but basically this is nothing more than grade A bumbling incompetence. Glad I am not a US tax payer.
Now, why am I not surprised that $6.6 billion of that money has not been accounted for? Inquiries are under way and of course we get the usual public sector murmuring, foot shuffling, "desperate times" etc, but basically this is nothing more than grade A bumbling incompetence. Glad I am not a US tax payer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)