What self-serving nonsense from Brendan Barber in today's Times.
Public services are not "the glue that holds civilised society together"; that glue comes from shared values and enlightened self-interest.
Although useful in moderation, too much that passes for public service is in fact a glue that binds the people in servitude to the state, that clogs the efficient working of the free market and which serves no productive purpose.
Mr Barber also seeks to justify the gross inefficiency in many public services by saying: "They are inevitably labour intensive." No they are not - more efficient working practices could be implemented if it were not for union intransigence and a willingness of this socialist government to kowtow to its union bosses in the hope of buying a few more votes.
The state should not employ more than 10-15% of the population (it currently employs somewhere between 25-30%) - and state employees should have the same retirement age as workers in the private sector. There is also no reason why new recruits should not go into a funded pension scheme rather than an unfunded one.
In short, too many public sector workers tend to end up being overpaid, under-worked and a burden on a free society (with little or no idea of life in the real world of productive private enterprise). The less of them the better.
Blessings for a smaller, more efficient state.
Father Ignatius Brown
Friday, 31 July 2009
Don't let emotion cloud your judgement on housing
Surveys of one don't prove anything (they tend to suffer survivor’s bias). There will always be winners and losers in the property market, whichever way it goes - and not everyone would be able to afford to buy even if prices fell another 25%.
Whether you are a bull or a bear is irrelevant - individual predictions don't make the market. The market merely reflects the aggregate of thousands of individual buying and selling decisions.
Some people try to play the market but most buy or sell not for speculation but because they are trying to make a rational long term decision about where to live and how to pay for that accommodation (rent or buy). For some it is a good time to buy - for others a good time to sell and rent.
Whether the market goes up or down won't be because of just one factor (so everyone saying 3.5X earnings is putting too much store by one variable that might have been historically relevant but might not be a primary driver in current circumstances).
Prices are determined by physical supply and financial demand – both factors depends on a number of variables including interest rates, savings rates, rental values, earnings, employment, loan availability and the "relative affordability" of renting and buying – plus desire (the least rational element).
With interest rates and savings rates low it might make sense for some people, particularly those with sizeable deposits, to leverage their capital to buy in tepid market and hold for the long term. But it doesn’t necessarily make sense for everyone – no matter how strong the desire.
So don’t get hung up on the direction of the market when deciding whether to buy, sell or rent – focus instead on what you can afford long term, only then are you likely to be happy and financially secure.
Blessings for a happy home,
Father Ignatius Brown
Whether you are a bull or a bear is irrelevant - individual predictions don't make the market. The market merely reflects the aggregate of thousands of individual buying and selling decisions.
Some people try to play the market but most buy or sell not for speculation but because they are trying to make a rational long term decision about where to live and how to pay for that accommodation (rent or buy). For some it is a good time to buy - for others a good time to sell and rent.
Whether the market goes up or down won't be because of just one factor (so everyone saying 3.5X earnings is putting too much store by one variable that might have been historically relevant but might not be a primary driver in current circumstances).
Prices are determined by physical supply and financial demand – both factors depends on a number of variables including interest rates, savings rates, rental values, earnings, employment, loan availability and the "relative affordability" of renting and buying – plus desire (the least rational element).
With interest rates and savings rates low it might make sense for some people, particularly those with sizeable deposits, to leverage their capital to buy in tepid market and hold for the long term. But it doesn’t necessarily make sense for everyone – no matter how strong the desire.
So don’t get hung up on the direction of the market when deciding whether to buy, sell or rent – focus instead on what you can afford long term, only then are you likely to be happy and financially secure.
Blessings for a happy home,
Father Ignatius Brown
Thursday, 30 July 2009
A vision of a networked, superhighway nation
In my blog "Where now for the economy" I said that if the government is going to spend money on infrastructure it should only be on four-lane highways running east/west across the UK to link places like Norwich with say Liverpool via Peterborough, Leeds and Birmingham.
James C got in touch to ask if I was being tongue in cheek - to which the answer is no, I am absolutely serious. In fact, to expand on the point, I would love to see a four-lane super-highway running from London, up the line of the A12 to Ipswich then on to Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth round to Norwich, across to Peterborough (crossing a three lane highway linking Kings Lynn with Cambridge along the route of the A10) then on to Leicester, Stoke on Trent and through to Liverpool - possibly even on to Anglesey.
Harwich should also be linked via an expanded and straightened A14 (M14-S) to Cambridge, Northampton, Kettering, Rugby and Birmingham and the M6.
We should dig a road tunnel linking the new M10 and Kings Lynn with Skegness and then on by motorway to Grimsby and Hull - with another motorway from Skegness to Lincoln, Sheffield and Manchester.
We should turn the A140 Ipswich to Norwich road into a three lane highway. And the same with the A17 from Kings Lynn to Newark and on to Mansfield. Etc Etc Etc.
We should build a new M100 linking Portsmouth and Southampton via Winchester, Newbury and Oxford with Northampton, the Midlands and the new M14-S.
We need faster, bigger, straighter roads to free trade in the country and to link the poorer regions - to generate growth. We need to be able to cruise at 90-100MPH in broad lanes (penalising only the bad drivers who hog lanes, cut people up, fail to indicate or otherwise drive dangerously). In short we need our A and M road network to feel more like the Autobahn than some provincial dirt track!
It should only take me half an hour to get from Norwich to Ipswich, or Kings Lynn to Peterborough not the hour to hour and a half on our current sub-standard roads.
Thank you for asking James (no apologies for repeating myself here as well as in response to your post) - blessings for faster, safer roads.
Father Ignatius Brown.
PS: Naturally all towns and villages along these routes should be by-passed and there should be no roundabouts, traffic lights or other junctions to slow the traffic down.
Yes, it would cost a lot of money but it would employ masses of people and deliver huge and lasting economic benefit to the whole country (not to mention reduced pollution, congestion, frustration and dependency on the socialist network of inefficient public transport).
James C got in touch to ask if I was being tongue in cheek - to which the answer is no, I am absolutely serious. In fact, to expand on the point, I would love to see a four-lane super-highway running from London, up the line of the A12 to Ipswich then on to Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth round to Norwich, across to Peterborough (crossing a three lane highway linking Kings Lynn with Cambridge along the route of the A10) then on to Leicester, Stoke on Trent and through to Liverpool - possibly even on to Anglesey.
Harwich should also be linked via an expanded and straightened A14 (M14-S) to Cambridge, Northampton, Kettering, Rugby and Birmingham and the M6.
We should dig a road tunnel linking the new M10 and Kings Lynn with Skegness and then on by motorway to Grimsby and Hull - with another motorway from Skegness to Lincoln, Sheffield and Manchester.
We should turn the A140 Ipswich to Norwich road into a three lane highway. And the same with the A17 from Kings Lynn to Newark and on to Mansfield. Etc Etc Etc.
We should build a new M100 linking Portsmouth and Southampton via Winchester, Newbury and Oxford with Northampton, the Midlands and the new M14-S.
We need faster, bigger, straighter roads to free trade in the country and to link the poorer regions - to generate growth. We need to be able to cruise at 90-100MPH in broad lanes (penalising only the bad drivers who hog lanes, cut people up, fail to indicate or otherwise drive dangerously). In short we need our A and M road network to feel more like the Autobahn than some provincial dirt track!
It should only take me half an hour to get from Norwich to Ipswich, or Kings Lynn to Peterborough not the hour to hour and a half on our current sub-standard roads.
Thank you for asking James (no apologies for repeating myself here as well as in response to your post) - blessings for faster, safer roads.
Father Ignatius Brown.
PS: Naturally all towns and villages along these routes should be by-passed and there should be no roundabouts, traffic lights or other junctions to slow the traffic down.
Yes, it would cost a lot of money but it would employ masses of people and deliver huge and lasting economic benefit to the whole country (not to mention reduced pollution, congestion, frustration and dependency on the socialist network of inefficient public transport).
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Expensive soft jobs
According to the Telegraph, the government is proposing creating thousands of "soft jobs".
Aside from whether this is a sensible use of public money (since when have governments been good at allocating funds to productive jobs?) there is a question around the cost.
The Telegraph says that the first 47,000 will cost £300,000,000. Now by my calculations that means each job will cost £63,000. Can this be right?
Since when have dance assistants cost this much? I can only presume it takes account of the need to fund their generous public sector pensions.
Surely it would be better to cut employment and business taxes so that the private sector can create real, economically productive jobs?
Apparently most of these soft jobs are being created in Scotland and the North East - i.e. Labour heartlands. So it might just be a cynical attempt to buy votes with the party base (we look after your youth, you vote for us - since the youth normally can't be bothered).
If they really wanted to "invest" public money they should use it to build super-fast motorways ACROSS the country - say from Harwich/Felixstowe to Liverpool, and Newcastle to Carlisle.
Norwich is only about 40 miles from Ipswich - it should only take half an hour of steady driving, instead it takes the best part of an hour and a half.
The best way to help the economy, maintain employment, redistribute wealth from the super rich to the working poor, and improve the life opportunities of the masses is to build bigger, faster, longer roads connecting the regions.
The state can't create long term wealth by employing people to be pole dancers or whatever it is that ministers plan for these "soft jobs".
Aside from whether this is a sensible use of public money (since when have governments been good at allocating funds to productive jobs?) there is a question around the cost.
The Telegraph says that the first 47,000 will cost £300,000,000. Now by my calculations that means each job will cost £63,000. Can this be right?
Since when have dance assistants cost this much? I can only presume it takes account of the need to fund their generous public sector pensions.
Surely it would be better to cut employment and business taxes so that the private sector can create real, economically productive jobs?
Apparently most of these soft jobs are being created in Scotland and the North East - i.e. Labour heartlands. So it might just be a cynical attempt to buy votes with the party base (we look after your youth, you vote for us - since the youth normally can't be bothered).
If they really wanted to "invest" public money they should use it to build super-fast motorways ACROSS the country - say from Harwich/Felixstowe to Liverpool, and Newcastle to Carlisle.
Norwich is only about 40 miles from Ipswich - it should only take half an hour of steady driving, instead it takes the best part of an hour and a half.
The best way to help the economy, maintain employment, redistribute wealth from the super rich to the working poor, and improve the life opportunities of the masses is to build bigger, faster, longer roads connecting the regions.
The state can't create long term wealth by employing people to be pole dancers or whatever it is that ministers plan for these "soft jobs".
Monday, 27 July 2009
A junkyard of memories and dream
Boris Johnson, writing in today's Telegraph, likens our tendency for hoarding junk to the incarceration rituals of the Pharaohs.
However, he fails to identify one major factor that drives people to hoard: that is the deep rooted longing that some dusty old possession might actually turn out to be valuable.
Every so often the press feed this delusion, by printing a story about some hard-up pensioner who suddenly finds that their Max Bygraves collection is worth more than their pension and heads for the sun on the proceeds.
Those old comics, battered teddies, picture disc 45s and other supposedly rare paraphernalia clutter the corners of our lives because we hope they might one day buy our ticket out of mediocrity. We don't bother saving money; we simply save the things we buy with that money. We are in effect "long" on junk. We can’t believe that what we spent our hard earned money on might in fact be worthless.
Sadly the "collectibles" industry easily manipulates our consumerist/hoarding instincts. It produces masses of "limited edition" tat (normally with an accompanying booklet extolling the beauty of said tat) – and tells us that a model run of 1,000,000 makes this latest charmless bit of kitsch a must have "heirloom".
The message is clear - you may be a troll but you can buy yourself and your family both history and heritage in one neat package (paid for with a monthly direct debit).
This delusion also helps fuel the enthusiasm for car boot sales: a strange phenomenon where people buy and sell each other’s junk in the hope of leaving with something more valuable than the stuff they had when they arrived. Aside from failing to factor in the transaction costs (time and money spent), these people should know that efficient market theory suggests that its highly unlikely that they will ever strike gold (or that they are just as likely to sell some hidden gem for peanuts as they are to buy it) – but that doesn’t stop thousands of hopefuls trying every week.
The only answer is to tax the storage space by volume: the money raised could probably pay off the national debt. People should also be encouraged to hold quarterly clear-outs, since charity shops can now claim gift-aid tax relief on the value of physical donations (not just on cash donations).
Blessings for de-cluttered life,
Father Ignatius Brown
PS: I used to pride myself on being able to fit my worldly possessions into the back of a Mini – but now I would need a mobile library for my books alone.
However, he fails to identify one major factor that drives people to hoard: that is the deep rooted longing that some dusty old possession might actually turn out to be valuable.
Every so often the press feed this delusion, by printing a story about some hard-up pensioner who suddenly finds that their Max Bygraves collection is worth more than their pension and heads for the sun on the proceeds.
Those old comics, battered teddies, picture disc 45s and other supposedly rare paraphernalia clutter the corners of our lives because we hope they might one day buy our ticket out of mediocrity. We don't bother saving money; we simply save the things we buy with that money. We are in effect "long" on junk. We can’t believe that what we spent our hard earned money on might in fact be worthless.
Sadly the "collectibles" industry easily manipulates our consumerist/hoarding instincts. It produces masses of "limited edition" tat (normally with an accompanying booklet extolling the beauty of said tat) – and tells us that a model run of 1,000,000 makes this latest charmless bit of kitsch a must have "heirloom".
The message is clear - you may be a troll but you can buy yourself and your family both history and heritage in one neat package (paid for with a monthly direct debit).
This delusion also helps fuel the enthusiasm for car boot sales: a strange phenomenon where people buy and sell each other’s junk in the hope of leaving with something more valuable than the stuff they had when they arrived. Aside from failing to factor in the transaction costs (time and money spent), these people should know that efficient market theory suggests that its highly unlikely that they will ever strike gold (or that they are just as likely to sell some hidden gem for peanuts as they are to buy it) – but that doesn’t stop thousands of hopefuls trying every week.
The only answer is to tax the storage space by volume: the money raised could probably pay off the national debt. People should also be encouraged to hold quarterly clear-outs, since charity shops can now claim gift-aid tax relief on the value of physical donations (not just on cash donations).
Blessings for de-cluttered life,
Father Ignatius Brown
PS: I used to pride myself on being able to fit my worldly possessions into the back of a Mini – but now I would need a mobile library for my books alone.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Government non-jobs are a drain on our economy
Elsewhere on today's Daily Telegraph site, Edmund Conway has an interesting article on the need for a retrenchment in household spending habits. But as one poster, Sparky, observed: "not everyone will get it."
Here's my response:
Sparky - your comment about the surveyors illuminates a common problem.
A while ago I went to a business event that appeared to be a great networking opportunity for local private businesses but turned out to be dominated by public sector workers all chatting about what a wonderful job they were doing and how stressful it was.
They arrived at 9am for 9.30 coffee and pastries - listened to a couple of speakers - adjourned for more coffee - then another couple of speakers - then a lavish buffet lunch - then a couple of speakers then afternoon tea and cakes - then home at 3pm.
It cost me £55 for the event (money badly spent) but all the bureaucrats (who pushed off early rather than returning to the office to do some work as I had to) charged it the taxpayer.
The whole event was also payed for by the taxpayer via some regional "business regeneration" quango but the only businesses to benefit were the caterers.
The only other people who had to cough up money (as they choked on the hypocrisy of the quango-rats) were the 30 or so private business delegates - the people in real jobs creating real wealth.
Out of 250 delegates - a total of 220 were government employees on a jolly and produced nothing of substance in those six hours out of the office. What is more I doubt anyone noticed their absence. They could have all been sacked there and then and public services would probably have improved.
Blessings for a smaller, leaner, meaner government and an end to quangos.
Father Ignatius Brown
Here's my response:
Sparky - your comment about the surveyors illuminates a common problem.
A while ago I went to a business event that appeared to be a great networking opportunity for local private businesses but turned out to be dominated by public sector workers all chatting about what a wonderful job they were doing and how stressful it was.
They arrived at 9am for 9.30 coffee and pastries - listened to a couple of speakers - adjourned for more coffee - then another couple of speakers - then a lavish buffet lunch - then a couple of speakers then afternoon tea and cakes - then home at 3pm.
It cost me £55 for the event (money badly spent) but all the bureaucrats (who pushed off early rather than returning to the office to do some work as I had to) charged it the taxpayer.
The whole event was also payed for by the taxpayer via some regional "business regeneration" quango but the only businesses to benefit were the caterers.
The only other people who had to cough up money (as they choked on the hypocrisy of the quango-rats) were the 30 or so private business delegates - the people in real jobs creating real wealth.
Out of 250 delegates - a total of 220 were government employees on a jolly and produced nothing of substance in those six hours out of the office. What is more I doubt anyone noticed their absence. They could have all been sacked there and then and public services would probably have improved.
Blessings for a smaller, leaner, meaner government and an end to quangos.
Father Ignatius Brown
Where now for the economy?
An interesting discussion on the Daily Telegraph site drew a particularly striking response from Mr David Goldsby to which I replied:
Thank you Mr David Goldsby for your interesting post - and no I won't dismiss it as a joke - for once I think I understand what you are saying, it seems to make sense and I tend to agree with you. Certainly cutting government spending and slashing taxes (income/business and employment taxes) seems the only way to put fuel back into the economy.
If they want to spend money on infrastructure it should only be on four-lane highways running east/west across the UK to link places like Norwich with say Liverpool via Peterborough, Leeds and Birmingham.
Road building is the fastest way to redistribute wealth (through mass employment) and it also helps raise social mobility (the car is the great democratiser and should be celebrated for the freedom it brings to the masses). It also reduces costs to business and time wasted in slow journeys (the speed limit by the way should be RAISED to at least 80 and 90-100 on good stretches of road such as the M40 - speed is not the road safety issue - bad driving is).
Blessings for a faster, freer, cheaper world.
Father Ignatius Brown
Thank you Mr David Goldsby for your interesting post - and no I won't dismiss it as a joke - for once I think I understand what you are saying, it seems to make sense and I tend to agree with you. Certainly cutting government spending and slashing taxes (income/business and employment taxes) seems the only way to put fuel back into the economy.
If they want to spend money on infrastructure it should only be on four-lane highways running east/west across the UK to link places like Norwich with say Liverpool via Peterborough, Leeds and Birmingham.
Road building is the fastest way to redistribute wealth (through mass employment) and it also helps raise social mobility (the car is the great democratiser and should be celebrated for the freedom it brings to the masses). It also reduces costs to business and time wasted in slow journeys (the speed limit by the way should be RAISED to at least 80 and 90-100 on good stretches of road such as the M40 - speed is not the road safety issue - bad driving is).
Blessings for a faster, freer, cheaper world.
Father Ignatius Brown
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Bad news and good news on H1N1 Flu virus
Well the bad news is that in its latest "Swine Flu Planning Assumptions", the UK Government now estimates that in the "Worst Case Scenario" the number of deaths from Swine Flu could be 10-times the number of deaths from seasonal flu - so possibly some 60,000 compared with a more normal 6,000 - 10,000.
Although Stalin had a point when he apparently said: "One death is a tragedy but a million deaths is just a statistic", anything like 60,000 deaths will seem more tragic than normal because so many of them are likely to be healthy young people - a consequence of the 5-14-year old age group apparently being most susceptible to the virus.
However, picking up on points made in two previous blogs here and here, it appears we can be grateful that this strain still seems to have a similar mortality rate to seasonal flu. No, that is not a typo. As I mentioned before the actual death count is not solely a reflection of the mortality rate - but the combination of the mortality rate with the infection rate. Normal seasonal flu tends to be a low infection/low mortality (LILM) strain - so somewhere in the region of 10% of the population catch it and 0.1% [OF THOSE INFECTED] die.
The problem with Swine Flu is that is appears to have a much higher infection (attack) rate. In fact, the latest figures from the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency suggest that some 30% of the population could catch the H1N1 virus by September (that is before the peak flu season) and that some 60% of the population could eventually be infected. So even while the virus continues to have a mortality rate similar to that of season flu - about 0.1 - 0.35% the fact that is has a HI rate or even VHI rate could lead to a significant increase in actual deaths.
The headline figure of 63,000 deaths is basically 60-million x 30% x 0.35%. I would stress however (unlike much of the press) that the Health Protection Agency makes it clear that:
"There are a number of parameters each taken at their ‘reasonable worst case’ value. Taken together they represent a relatively unlikely scenario; they should therefore not be taken as a prediction of how the pandemic will develop."
Please remember that last point when reading the scare stories in the press - yes it may be worse than normal flu in terms of actual deaths but it is currently unlikely to be anything like the worst case scenario. We continue to pray that the mortality rate stays low and that any mutations in the virus do not increase its virulence.
Blessings and sleep well.
Father Ignatius Brown
Although Stalin had a point when he apparently said: "One death is a tragedy but a million deaths is just a statistic", anything like 60,000 deaths will seem more tragic than normal because so many of them are likely to be healthy young people - a consequence of the 5-14-year old age group apparently being most susceptible to the virus.
However, picking up on points made in two previous blogs here and here, it appears we can be grateful that this strain still seems to have a similar mortality rate to seasonal flu. No, that is not a typo. As I mentioned before the actual death count is not solely a reflection of the mortality rate - but the combination of the mortality rate with the infection rate. Normal seasonal flu tends to be a low infection/low mortality (LILM) strain - so somewhere in the region of 10% of the population catch it and 0.1% [OF THOSE INFECTED] die.
The problem with Swine Flu is that is appears to have a much higher infection (attack) rate. In fact, the latest figures from the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency suggest that some 30% of the population could catch the H1N1 virus by September (that is before the peak flu season) and that some 60% of the population could eventually be infected. So even while the virus continues to have a mortality rate similar to that of season flu - about 0.1 - 0.35% the fact that is has a HI rate or even VHI rate could lead to a significant increase in actual deaths.
The headline figure of 63,000 deaths is basically 60-million x 30% x 0.35%. I would stress however (unlike much of the press) that the Health Protection Agency makes it clear that:
"There are a number of parameters each taken at their ‘reasonable worst case’ value. Taken together they represent a relatively unlikely scenario; they should therefore not be taken as a prediction of how the pandemic will develop."
Please remember that last point when reading the scare stories in the press - yes it may be worse than normal flu in terms of actual deaths but it is currently unlikely to be anything like the worst case scenario. We continue to pray that the mortality rate stays low and that any mutations in the virus do not increase its virulence.
Blessings and sleep well.
Father Ignatius Brown
Welcome along...
...to our newest follower and my apologies for not writing more sooner - been a bit busy. Will try to do better over the coming months - but I prefer to write only when I have something worth saying - so silence might just mean a complete absence of fresh ideas.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Cheaper food is an illusion
A recent posting in response to an article on the Daily Telegraph made the claim that food price inflation was a myth because the retailers were "practically giving it away."
Food retailers love people like that - people who think that because the price paid is less, the food is better value - it's not necessarily so - the cheapness can be an illusion - how else do you square the price reduction with the retailer's increased margins.
One of the ways they can do this is by reducing portion sizes and increasing the use of cheaper ingredients - fillers. For instance compare two tubs of coleslaw (disgusting stuff but never mind) - one is cheaper than the other - look carefully and you will see that one probably has more mayo in it or is a smaller pack (so that the £/KG is actually more).
By reducing pack sizes they can make something look more affordable - but as a result people pay considerably more if they continue to use the same amount.
Look at Parmesan cheese - you can buy a 'cheap' pack of shavings for under a pound or a large slice for £12 - but the £/KG is far lower on the large slice on the more processed and packaged shavings - sometimes half as much.
I regularly buy a bag of oats for adding to my morning cereal (Nana's recommendation) - I keep it in a small Kilner Jar. Normally I have to spoon out one serving from the bag before it will fit in the jar but recently it has fitted with room to spare - so I guess they have reduced the pack size by some 30 grams but I am sure they have not reduced the price!
Always read the label
Blessings
Father Ignatius Brown
Food retailers love people like that - people who think that because the price paid is less, the food is better value - it's not necessarily so - the cheapness can be an illusion - how else do you square the price reduction with the retailer's increased margins.
One of the ways they can do this is by reducing portion sizes and increasing the use of cheaper ingredients - fillers. For instance compare two tubs of coleslaw (disgusting stuff but never mind) - one is cheaper than the other - look carefully and you will see that one probably has more mayo in it or is a smaller pack (so that the £/KG is actually more).
By reducing pack sizes they can make something look more affordable - but as a result people pay considerably more if they continue to use the same amount.
Look at Parmesan cheese - you can buy a 'cheap' pack of shavings for under a pound or a large slice for £12 - but the £/KG is far lower on the large slice on the more processed and packaged shavings - sometimes half as much.
I regularly buy a bag of oats for adding to my morning cereal (Nana's recommendation) - I keep it in a small Kilner Jar. Normally I have to spoon out one serving from the bag before it will fit in the jar but recently it has fitted with room to spare - so I guess they have reduced the pack size by some 30 grams but I am sure they have not reduced the price!
Always read the label
Blessings
Father Ignatius Brown
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
More on that recession
Further to my earlier article about the The Times poll asking whether the recession is over, one respondent berrated me for moaning and made light of the second car issue. Here is why I think they were wrong:
The difference between a positive and a negative change in GDP can come down to the overall level of discretionary spending in the economy - growth happens at the margins.
Whether you like them or not (or value the work they do), the people I am talking to are barometers for the wider economy and employ a large number of other people both directly through their businesses and indirectly through their discretionary spending.
I only have one very small car (and it's over 10 years old) so my spending on it is minimal. The two friends I mentioned both ran Mercs as their first and second cars. In both cases the second car was a high-performance sporty number on which they spent vast sums in annual maintenance (including the private valet who drove out weekly to give them a clean - his business is now suffering).
I get my hair cut twice a year (whether I need it or not). The women I know in the marketing agencies used to get their hair done once a week (and have flowers and fruit delivered to their offices) - they are now looking at growing their hair "fashionably long" (the flowers and fruit are gone - bad news for the local grocers).
They are the sort of people who used to eat out two or three times a week - not something to be admired but they and their kind keep the local watering holes in business (some are now closing because such people are now eating at home more often).
They are the sort of people who run (used to run) second homes and employ cleaners (now on reduced hours). They are the sort of people who once had cash to burn but are now looking, in one case, at a large tax refund because of loss of earnings.
They represent the 20% of people who pay 80% of the taxes - when they earn less the tax burden on the rest rises.
I am prepared to admit that I can only comment on a small sample of people but they are the ones with the potential to spend or save a lot - the decisions they make have ramifications for the wider economy. I think you will find that GDP continued to shrink in Q2 and I would not put money on it growing in Q3.
Don't let personal prejudice cloud your views. For once the phrase "this time it is different" is closer to the truth than many imagine - but different in a worse way than many hope.
Blessings for a more open mind.
Father Ignatius Brown
The difference between a positive and a negative change in GDP can come down to the overall level of discretionary spending in the economy - growth happens at the margins.
Whether you like them or not (or value the work they do), the people I am talking to are barometers for the wider economy and employ a large number of other people both directly through their businesses and indirectly through their discretionary spending.
I only have one very small car (and it's over 10 years old) so my spending on it is minimal. The two friends I mentioned both ran Mercs as their first and second cars. In both cases the second car was a high-performance sporty number on which they spent vast sums in annual maintenance (including the private valet who drove out weekly to give them a clean - his business is now suffering).
I get my hair cut twice a year (whether I need it or not). The women I know in the marketing agencies used to get their hair done once a week (and have flowers and fruit delivered to their offices) - they are now looking at growing their hair "fashionably long" (the flowers and fruit are gone - bad news for the local grocers).
They are the sort of people who used to eat out two or three times a week - not something to be admired but they and their kind keep the local watering holes in business (some are now closing because such people are now eating at home more often).
They are the sort of people who run (used to run) second homes and employ cleaners (now on reduced hours). They are the sort of people who once had cash to burn but are now looking, in one case, at a large tax refund because of loss of earnings.
They represent the 20% of people who pay 80% of the taxes - when they earn less the tax burden on the rest rises.
I am prepared to admit that I can only comment on a small sample of people but they are the ones with the potential to spend or save a lot - the decisions they make have ramifications for the wider economy. I think you will find that GDP continued to shrink in Q2 and I would not put money on it growing in Q3.
Don't let personal prejudice cloud your views. For once the phrase "this time it is different" is closer to the truth than many imagine - but different in a worse way than many hope.
Blessings for a more open mind.
Father Ignatius Brown
Is the recession over?
The Times is running a poll today on whether the recession is over. I don't know but I don't think so. Here's why:
Talking to three friends who run recruitment consultancies covering different sectors of the economy (financial services, marketing and industrial) and they all say the same thing: "It's getting worse."
Not only are companies shedding jobs but they are also cutting back on what they pay those they keep, by reducing working hours, reducing bonuses, reducing over-time, reducing perks and even deferring a percentage of monthly salaries to pay as a "13th" month if the firm survives. Vacancies are continuing to fall as companies close due to lack of orders. As a result two of the three friends mentioned have got rid of their second cars.
Talking to a number of other friends who all work in advertising and marketing agencies and the message is the same: "It is getting worse."
Not only are firms cutting back on the marketing spend but they are also doing more work in-house (apparently those left in the marketing departments after recent cuts are seeing their workload double as they take on stuff from those leaving and stop contracting out work to agencies - this is to preserve cash in the business).
The number of clients coming to me with money, housing and employment worries has increased since the spring bounce - many worried that their savings are being destroyed while at the same time being priced out of housing and taxed to oblivion.
I hate to sound pessimistic but I don't see any signs of this downturn bottoming out, let alone the start of a healthy recovery, this side of winter.
Prayers for those in distress.
Father Ignatius Brown.
Talking to three friends who run recruitment consultancies covering different sectors of the economy (financial services, marketing and industrial) and they all say the same thing: "It's getting worse."
Not only are companies shedding jobs but they are also cutting back on what they pay those they keep, by reducing working hours, reducing bonuses, reducing over-time, reducing perks and even deferring a percentage of monthly salaries to pay as a "13th" month if the firm survives. Vacancies are continuing to fall as companies close due to lack of orders. As a result two of the three friends mentioned have got rid of their second cars.
Talking to a number of other friends who all work in advertising and marketing agencies and the message is the same: "It is getting worse."
Not only are firms cutting back on the marketing spend but they are also doing more work in-house (apparently those left in the marketing departments after recent cuts are seeing their workload double as they take on stuff from those leaving and stop contracting out work to agencies - this is to preserve cash in the business).
The number of clients coming to me with money, housing and employment worries has increased since the spring bounce - many worried that their savings are being destroyed while at the same time being priced out of housing and taxed to oblivion.
I hate to sound pessimistic but I don't see any signs of this downturn bottoming out, let alone the start of a healthy recovery, this side of winter.
Prayers for those in distress.
Father Ignatius Brown.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Scrappage scheme success is a delusion
Today the car industry is apparently cheering the success of the scrappage scheme (despite figures showing that international firms have benefited the most). Worse still the socialists think they have hit on a winner.
Yet, to my mind, they have simply taken more tax from the hard working savers and given it to consumer-junkies who are willing to load up on even more debt and scrap perfectly good cars just so they can get a flash set of new wheels. Great - that's social justice for you.
Furthermore, as the Germans are finding out, these schemes merely cannibalise future car sales (people who probably would have sold an old car next year simply scrap it this year). There will be a limited number of cars over 10 years old worth £2000 or less and when they are gone the downward trend in car sales will resume. So the socialists are merely handing out palliatives to put off the pain of essential adjustment until after the next election - call it vote buying if you want.
Meanwhile the supply of old cars worth less than £2000 is dramatically cut so denying the poor the opportunity to buy their personal transport and leaving them reliant on the wholly inadequate public transport network. The car is the great democratiser, giving the poor the same access to travel as the rich. Once again the socialists reward the rich and feckless and betray the poor and thrifty.
Blessings
Father Ignatius Brown
www.father-ignatius-brown.com
Yet, to my mind, they have simply taken more tax from the hard working savers and given it to consumer-junkies who are willing to load up on even more debt and scrap perfectly good cars just so they can get a flash set of new wheels. Great - that's social justice for you.
Furthermore, as the Germans are finding out, these schemes merely cannibalise future car sales (people who probably would have sold an old car next year simply scrap it this year). There will be a limited number of cars over 10 years old worth £2000 or less and when they are gone the downward trend in car sales will resume. So the socialists are merely handing out palliatives to put off the pain of essential adjustment until after the next election - call it vote buying if you want.
Meanwhile the supply of old cars worth less than £2000 is dramatically cut so denying the poor the opportunity to buy their personal transport and leaving them reliant on the wholly inadequate public transport network. The car is the great democratiser, giving the poor the same access to travel as the rich. Once again the socialists reward the rich and feckless and betray the poor and thrifty.
Blessings
Father Ignatius Brown
www.father-ignatius-brown.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
