tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-205229562024-02-28T10:53:45.311+00:00Balham BugleFrankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-39329757103738342002009-05-21T23:46:00.000+00:002009-05-21T23:48:53.046+00:00Politicians and journalists, put the statistic down and step away.<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>A person with a little bit of information is usually a danger to themselves and possibly society. This is particularly the case at a time when <b>something must be done</b>.<br/><br/>A good example of this is the present scandal on MPs' expenses (does it have an official name yet - "Duck-gate"). A number of people have jumped on some analysis by <a href='http://markreckons.blogspot.com/'>Mark Reckons</a>, a LibDem blogger, that seems to indicate there is a <a href='http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2009/05/mps-expenses-and-safe-seats-correlation.html'>positive correlation between the size of an MP's electoral majority and the chances that they will abuse the expenses system</a>. In essence, the more safe an MP feels, the more likely they are to be a crook.<br/><br/>This apparent correlation has led Mark and a number of other people (such as <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/18/mps-expenses-constitution-electoral-reform'>Polly Toynbee </a>and <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/18/mps-expenses-constitution-electoral-reform'>Ben Bradshaw</a>) to suggest that we move away from the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_pass_the_post'>First-Pass-The-Post </a>election system. Their reasoning is that a <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation'>PR</a> election system would lead to lower majorities for MPs', and according to this correlation, more honest MPs.<br/><br/>Now, the first problem with this is that (I think) the analysis doesn't stand up to scrunity (details of my concerns are <a href='http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2009/05/mps-expenses-and-safe-seats-correlation.html?showComment=1242939618750#c485085803594386952'>here</a>). Mark has been careful to caveat his statistical conclusions, though I don't think his caveats go far enough. The caveats, of course, have been ignored by everyone else.<br/><br/>Secondly, even if there is a correlation, it does not mean there is any real or useful link between majorities and honest MPs. A classic example is the correlation that areas with high level of policing having a high level of crime, leading to the policy conclusion that policing should be reduced as it causes crime.<br/><br/>And finally, what no-one seems to have tried to show is how PR will help, even if the correlation holds. Though there may be many reasons for PR, tackling MPs expense dodgies seems the flimsest. Consider:<br/><ul><li>While PR will change the majorities of some MPs, it needn't necessarily lead to the fall in the majorities overall. You could have some MPs, which after first and second votes, have a larger majority.</li></ul><ul><li>Some forms of PR can lead to more corruption. For instance, voters have little ability of getting rid of a hated MP in some forms of close list systems, where that MP heads the list.</li></ul><ul><li>It would seem from the evidence of the unseating of <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Hamilton_%28politician%29'>Neil Hamilton</a> in the 1997 election, and the current mass sacking of tarnished MPs, that the current system can act to get rid of sleazy MPs when the voters have the facts.</li></ul>So please, before advocating constitutional reform, can we stop and think for one moment.<br/></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-41613107469339969182009-04-16T21:32:00.000+00:002009-04-16T22:36:21.027+00:00Sorry is the hardest word, but I can do regret<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8002085.stm'>What I can't get is why Gordon says sorry so badly.</a> The secret of political apologies to so say sorry quickly and completely, to close the story down (you may also want to say sorry because you mean it, that works too). Brown's apologies are slow and grudging.<br/><br/>Gordon has waited five days before apologizing about Smeargate. By waiting and then saying sorry, he's guaranteed further damaging coverage of the story as the morning paper report his apology and analysis it. If he had said sorry straight away when McBride had resigned, the story would have been over already (assuming there's no further emails).<br/><br/>Also, his apology is so mealy mouthed.<br/><blockquote>I take full responsibility for what happened. That's why the person who was responsible went immediately.<br/></blockquote>If you take full responsibility, you take full responsibility. You can't say I take full responsibility, but in the same breath say I'm not the responsible person. And I'm sure that Gordon is "sorry for what happened", but is sorry that people in his office considered smearing people.<br/><br/><div class='zemanta-pixie'><img src='http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=39618892-3a48-8a1e-8630-ba710abd75a1' class='zemanta-pixie-img'/></div></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-83439798217830773942009-02-22T21:21:00.000+00:002009-02-22T21:23:14.621+00:00Tail wagging the migration dog<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7904393.stm'>Is the Home Office insane</a>, listening to a BNP dog whistle?<br/><br/>Jacqui Smith is proposing that skilled work must first be advertised in the Job Centre before it may be given to a migrant, so that British workers have a chance. Non-EU migrants need a master's degree before coming to the UK for skilled work; EU migrants can come as they please unless they're a <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7904393.stm'>Dutch Parliamentarian</a>. How many master-level jobs are advertised in Job Centres at the moment? How many master-level British workers look for jobs in Job Centres? Pure posturing.<br/><br/><div class='zemanta-pixie'><img src='http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=7b92d664-f712-4da7-844c-d797cc2ce234' class='zemanta-pixie-img'/></div></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-12482242446089449792008-12-01T22:29:00.000+00:002008-12-01T22:34:16.315+00:00Taking a leak<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>The Government has just sprung another leak. As reported by <a href='http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/12/leaked-email-from-harman-no-tories-or.html'>Iain Dale</a>, an email has just been leaked showing that Harriet Harman is to have a meeting with the Speaker's Office and the Serjeant at Arms to discuss the Speakers statement to MPs on Wednesday about allowing Police to search Damian Green's Parliamentary Office. Other invitees to Harman's meeting include Gus O'Donnell, Jacqui Smith and Jack Straw.<br /><br />However, apart from the irony of another leak (and the desperation of Labour's news management), the best bit about this story is Harman's office attempt to wriggle out. According to the <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7759629.stm'>BBC</a>, her spoken has said:<br /><br /><blockquote>"The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the parliamentary business and handling of issues that arise from the fact that the speaker's statement and the Queen's Speech will be happening on the same day."<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, if you are going to have a meeting about Parliamentary procedure,<br />you invite the Head of the Civil Service, the Justice Secretary and the<br />Home Secretary (as well as the Labour Chief Whip) at less than 24 hours<br />notice; they are busy people, who enjoy nothing more than talking about<br />seating arrangements.</div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-14483086606117839122008-11-29T23:06:00.000+00:002008-11-29T23:08:29.665+00:00Putting destruction in context<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>The third headline on the BBC news website was "<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7756241.stm'>Amazon deforestation accelerates</a>". The article, in doom laden tones, usually consider appropriate by the BBC for environmental stories, states that:<br/><blockquote>The destruction of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil has accelerated for the first time in four years, Brazilian officials say. Satellite images show 11,968 sq km of land was cleared in the year to July, nearly 4% higher than the year before...<br/><br/>In recent years the Brazilian government has been able to celebrate three successive falls in deforestation. But the latest estimate from the National Institute for Space Research, known as INPE, shows that this trend has come to a halt. <br/></blockquote>Now, at a time that the world seems to be falling apart, with the terror attacks in Mumbai, protests in Thailand, the end of Western capitalism, and the assault by the Met police on Parliamentary sovereignty, you would think the ordering of BBC stories is strange. But the biggest sin, is the poverty of the story.<br/><br/>The lesser error is the suggestion that one year data can signal an end of a trend. To be honest, I wouldn't be sure that three years of downward data shows there is a downward trend; but there there is no way to tell whether this year's rise was a new trend or a blip.<br/><br/>But the howler is saying the 12,000 sq km were destroyed (as opposed to trees just being cut down) without any context. How big is 12,000 sq km?<br/><br/>Using what seems to have been the international benchmark of choice when discussion Amazon destruction, 12,000 sq km is around half of Wales; that seems big. A more appropriate comparison is that 12,000 sq km is but 0.2 per cent of the total <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rain_forest'>rainforest</a> area of 5,500,000 sq km. Or put it another way, this rate of loss would have to continue for 50 years for the present rainforest to fall by 10 per cent; hardly disastrous.<br/><br/><b><em>So the bottom line of the story is there is no evidence that the slowdown of a already very slow fall in the Amazon rainforest has stopped. A good news story.</em></b> <br/></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-89714986895404037612008-10-20T19:32:00.000+00:002008-10-20T21:40:15.637+00:00BBC has only one way to skin a cat<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>Ben Bernanke has been offering some support to proposed fiscal boost in the US during is <a href='http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20081020a.htm'>Testimony to the US Representative</a>. So far so Keynesian (and so now).<br/><br/>What is the most interesting about the story is how <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7680453.stm'>the BBC reported it</a>. The headline is "<i>Bernanke supports higher spending</i>". The first paragraph was:<br/><blockquote>US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke has said more government spending may be needed to combat economic weakness.<br/></blockquote>It was if Ben was channeling Gordon Brown, in his new found love for spend, spend (after all, it helped the Japanese no end).<br/><br/>The thing is that Bernanke made no such direct comment. He did offer qualified support for a fiscal package, saying:<br/><blockquote>... consideration of a fiscal package by the Congress at this juncture [of weak economic growth] seems appropriate.<br/></blockquote>But what the BBC seem to have forgot is that a fiscal package can be a tax cut as much as a spending increase (or as Bernanke says himself, "<i>increased federal expenditure or lost revenue</i>"). The first US fiscal stimulus was a tax cut after all. The BBC could not however entertain such as ridiculous idea.<br/><br/>I admit I'm being a pedant, but there are two serious points here:<br/><ol><li>Whatever the advisability of attempting to fiscally fine-tune the economy (the consensus has been don't for around 20 years now), why do most governments consider only spending increases, which typically become permanent structural spending?</li><li>Why is the level of economic knowledge so low in the BBC, they have bought the new Brown narrative that only spending increases are somehow a worthy response. I thought it was their job to give people information about the present downturn and policy solutions?<br/></li></ol>Technorati Tags: <a class='performancingtags' href='http://technorati.com/tag/bbc' rel='tag'>bbc</a>, <a class='performancingtags' href='http://technorati.com/tag/tax' rel='tag'>tax</a></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-61584038595880624262008-05-13T19:46:00.004+00:002008-05-13T19:55:01.889+00:00Time to make allowances?<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>On 1 October last year, Alistair Darling, <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm'>commenting of the Tories proposes to reduce inheritance tax by around £3bn</a>, said:<br/><blockquote><span style='font-size: 85%;'>"Yet again, this is an example of where the Tories are making promises on tax which they can't afford to pay for,<br/></span><p> <span style='font-size: 85%;'>"[George Osborne] is making a promise he hasn't got the money to pay for. </span></p><p> <span style='font-size: 85%;'>"If you do that, you create the very instability which is the last thing the economy needs and people in this country would pay for that." </span></p></blockquote>Just over six months later, Alistair Darling, <a href='http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/speeches/statement/Speech_statement_130508.cfm'>commenting on his proposals to reduce the tax on basic tax payers by around £3bn through higher borrowing</a>, said:<br/><blockquote><span style='font-size: 85%;'>"...as I made clear at the time of the Budget it is right and sensible to allow borrowing to rise and investment to be maintained as the economy slows. <p>".... Our fiscal policy ... is designed to support stability in these uncertain economic times generated by the turbulence in world financial markets and global commodity price inflation." </p></span></blockquote>That's clear then. Unfunded tax promises are only reckless and damaging to the country's economic stability when they're from the Tories; otherwise they <i>support stability in uncertain times</i>.<span style='font-size: 85%;'><br/><br/>As an aside, Darling's tax policy has been to increase personal allowances while reducing the bottom of the top rate band. If this policy was extended to its logical conclusion, you would end up with a flat tax rate. Maybe Labour has been taking lessons from the Adam Smith Institute.</span></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-42852042545823546102007-11-14T23:00:00.001+00:002007-11-14T23:04:49.043+00:00Careless talk cost lives (Mr Livingstone)<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>It was reported by the BBC today that <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7093677.stm'>almost 300 children have been diagnosed with measles</a> in a epidemic that is sweeping through Hackney. The average yearly infection rate is between 10 and 20 cases.<br/><br/>Of course, the reason that there is a measles epidemic is that MMR vaccination rates are low in London. Rates are down ever since <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield'>Dr Andrew Wakefield</a> linked the MMR vaccine to an <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy'>increased chance of autism</a> despite the lack of an evidence supporting is claim (and the considerable amount of evidence that the MMR vaccine is safe). In an attempt to boost vaccination rates in Hackney and help reduce the number of cases of measles, the local Primary Care Trust is resorting to a mobile unit traveling around the borough. The PCT alarm at the pick up in measles is in part due to the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles#Complications'>serious complications</a>.<br/><br/>Now what is the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, doing to help his fellow Londoners. Nothing has been reported, which is strange given that in 2002, Ken was more than happy to comment about MMR. In an interview broadcast on Radio 5, <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2082344.stm'>Ken questioned the safety</a> of the MMR vaccine, saying that there is ""no way would I inflict on a child that risk". His comments, based on no evidence or obvious knowledge have supporting the fear that has led to the fewer vaccinations which has led to Hackney's epidemic. This might now be the time for Ken to say he was a prat, he was wrong and the MMR is safe.<br/></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-74267401742368283502007-10-06T21:54:00.001+00:002007-10-06T21:56:42.932+00:00First denial...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>The funniest thing about the non-snap poll is the denial coming from Labour Party ranks. If you read the comments as <a href='http://www.labourhome.org'>Labour Home</a>, you find two main themes:<br/><ul><li>Boy, were Gordon's advisers stupid, he should fire them; and</li><li>Yes, Gordon has done the right thing (phew). It will be rough for a couple of week, but people will forget about it before Christmas.</li></ul>Obviously, their going through denial - anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance still to come.<br/><br/>Firstly, who are Gordon's advisers? Ed Balls, Ed Milliband, Dougland Alexander (supposedly). Ed and Ed have been with Gordon in the Treasury for ten years (Harvard not withstanding) - his supposedly brilliance must be partly due to their advice up to now. And where Gordon's responsibility in all this. Surely, he is not a creature of his advisers and agreed with them up to now. All this "blame the adviser" reminds me of feudal England, when revolting peasants would blame the King's advisers, least they offend His Majesty's divine right to rule.<br/><br/>And secondly, will people forget before Christmas? They may if Gordon has a storming year. But if he is average, and the contest is tight with the Tories, people and as importantly the media, will remember the spin and the dithering and the lack of nerve. It plays to a impression many people already had of Gordon, and because of that it will stick.<br/></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-866800823319700912007-10-06T21:29:00.001+00:002007-10-06T21:35:39.203+00:00May we live in interesting times<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>So, what were the odds of England getting to the semi-finals of the Rugby World Cup over our arch-nemesis Australia (who needs cricket anyway); French mugging the All Blacks in Cardiff; and Gordon bottling it!<br/><br/>I did predicted on Wednesday morning that there wouldn't be a early general election (I do have witnesses), before most of the punditry went public with their doubts - before <a href='http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/'>Benedict Brogan</a>, who I think was one of the earliest print journalists, but I must admitted I did get some pointers from <a href='http://www.order-order.com/'>Guido</a>.<br/><br/>And I did think England would have more chance against Australia than any other of the Tri-Nationers. Australia always flatter to deceive in Rugby Union.<br/><br/>But even I didn't think French would conquer New Zealand. And even more unbelievable, I was cheering on the French (first time I've ever cheered the French on for anything). I do feel for the All Blacks slightly; how long before the best side in the World get their hands on the trophy again. But it does stick one up the Southern Hemisphere arrogance.<br/><br/>Come on the semis is all I can say (and the general election, confidentially predicted in 2010, because we are about to see a recession which Gordon will want to be as far away as possible before he has to face the country - Gordon, Labour's John Major without the decency).<br/></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-39467962786091178462007-09-03T20:41:00.001+00:002007-09-03T20:43:37.024+00:00Nigella is Back!!! But where's Nigella<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><div align='center'><img src='http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/images/nigellaexpress_420x190.jpg'/><br/><br/></div>Nigella Lawson has returned to our screens with <a href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/whatson/prog_parse.cgi?FILENAME=20070903/20070903_2030_4224_2579_30'>Nigella Express</a>. But who's replaced to coquettish Nigella with a smug mum. No surprise that she shops in Waitrose though. And who serves one <a href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/roastpoussinandsweet_86854.shtml'>poussin</a> a person. Just get a chicken.<br/><br/><br/><p class='poweredbyperformancing'>Powered by <a href='http://scribefire.com/'>ScribeFire</a>.</p></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-27760769128731469162007-09-03T20:20:00.001+00:002007-09-03T20:24:25.871+00:00Tories can't win here - but where's that?<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>I've just received my September issues of the Steatham Brixton & Clapham News. Life without it is hardly worth living.<br/><br/>The big news is that the Conservatives cannot win here! But where is here. Supposedly, votes last time, was 38% to Labour, 35% to Lib Dems and 15% to the Tories. But, the <i>article</i> does not say what votes these are. The two obvious one would be the last general election (Lab 47%, Lib Dems 28% and Tories 18%) or the last council election (Lab 40%, Lib Dems 29% and Tories 19%). But it isn't. So where is this mythical place?<br/><br/>PS - The Lib Dems think that the Tories should dump David Cameron because of their poor poll rating. Have that looked at how well the Ming has done!!</div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-82660464000923338102007-05-28T21:04:00.001+00:002007-05-28T21:09:00.973+00:00Springwatch returns<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><a href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/springwatch/'>Springwatch</a> returns to the BBC. I've been waiting since autumn for it to come back to our screens. Now I can watch the tumbles of barn owl, the stubbornness of a set of badgers, and the daft flirting and courtship rituals of the presenters <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Oddie'>Bill Oddie</a> and <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Humble'>Kate Humble</a>. It also allows me to discuss Kate's <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_tits'>great tits</a> with my wife.<a class='performancingtags' href='http://technorati.com/tag/springwatch' rel='tag'><br></br></a></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-88629959087614143062007-05-28T20:46:00.001+00:002007-05-28T20:56:05.156+00:00Lambeth's green wrapped money grab<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>I have just received by first letter from <a href='http://www.lambeth.gov.uk'>Lambeth Council</a> since the present lot got voted back into power last year. And it should not be too much of a surprise, it will cost me money. The Labour councillors have decided to double the cost of parking permits.<br></br><br></br>Now, a tax rise of around £50 is probably a fairly modest tax rise. I am sure their next council tax increases will be bigger. But what is particularly objectionable is that they have tried to spin it as a <i>environmentally-friendly policy</i>. To quote their letter:<br></br><dd><small><i>This policy is designed to persuade people to limit non-essential car use, and to encourage people to think how much cars pollute when they come to change their vehicle</i></small></dd><dt></dt><br></br>There is no chance that this policy will achieve these stated objectives. Lambeth's tax is levied on car ownership, not use. Once someone has decided that they need a car, they will pay the same amount irrespective of whether they drive five miles a week or five hundred. There is no new incentive to limit non-essential car use. And while Lambeth will tax cars with larger engine sizes more, the extra is trival. Parking permits will cost £80 more for the largest cars, a bit more a full tank of petrol. Compared to how much more it costs to buy and run these cars, £80 a year will make no difference to people's decisions.<br></br><br></br>The main reason for Lambeth to increase the cost of parking permits is to raise cash. Yes, there are restrictions about where the council can use this cash, and the Lambeth will be investing the money into road safety schemes. But such <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothecation'>hypothecation</a> is also just a useful piece of PR which are easy to get round. The council can just reduce or slow the growth of funding for these safety schemes from central funds, and divert the savings for their own pet projects.<br></br></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-16574706283997487142007-05-26T23:35:00.001+00:002007-09-03T20:48:15.400+00:00How the police are the biggest drugs cartel<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>In its <a href='http://www.soca.gov.uk/assessPublications/downloads/SOCAAnnualRep2006_7.pdf'>first annual report</a>, the Serious Organised Crime Agency trumpeted the seizure of 74 tonnes of cocaine. It reckons that this hefty amount is about a fifth of Europe's supply, worth £3 billion on the street. Though street values are always difficult to estimate, SOCA suggests that the seizures certainty cost the criminals who owned them at least £125 million. These figures are wrong. And it's not wrong, as in the price of cocaine is not posted in the Financial Times, so a precise estimate is difficult. Its wrong as in the seizures have probably made the the drug traffickers money.<br/><br/>The reason the SOAC figures are wrong is that they considered only the 74 tonnes they got hold of. They didn't think about the 300 tonnes left behind which is now worth more. Like any other good, with less cocaine on the market its price will increase. So, even as the drug lords suffer losses as some of their merchandise taken, they gain as what remains goes up in price. <a href='http://papers.nber.org/papers/w5713'>Research </a>suggests that for every 10% reduction in supply, the price of cocaine increases by 12%. Therefore, the best guest is that the seizures of 20% of the European supply will have benefited the criminals by £25m.<br/><p>So why, if all that drug traffickers need to do toincrease their<br/>profits is to reduce their supply, don't they do it themselves. Because<br/>they are not, whatever they may call themselves, <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel'>cartels</a>.<br/>If one supplier reduced the cocaine he sells, there's nothing to stop<br/>another stepping in to fill the gap. But the police, by seizing a chunk<br/>of the market, effectively enforce a partial cartel.<br/></p><br/><p>Seizing drugs makes no economic difference to the narcotics industry. Not unless you seize so much that their consumers can't afford the inflated prices. To do that you would need to seize more than half the supply, and that does not seem likely. Of course, that doesn't mean that taking 74 tonnes of cocaine out of circulation is a bad thing. There will be less of the stuff to go around. But whatever sums of money are banded around by the police or the <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6669019.stm'>media</a>, it's never going to be unprofitable to met a demand for an illicit drug.<br/></p></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-53134896015668530352007-05-26T17:43:00.001+00:002007-05-26T17:43:14.869+00:00Try again<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>After about a year of doing nothing with this blog, I have now hope to be somewhat more committed to this blog, especially if Lambeth Council provoke me enough.<br></br><br></br><br></br><p class='poweredbyperformancing'>Powered by <a href='http://scribefire.com/'>ScribeFire</a>.</p></div>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20522956.post-1141514195706948262006-03-04T22:14:00.000+00:002006-03-05T22:58:37.013+00:00The BBC News Online ran an article this week about the sale of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4768454.stm">counterfeit football shirts and the efforts of Umbro to stop it</a>. It followed the courageous work of George, an undercover Umbro investigator, to stop this despicable trade. To be honest George, I hope they pay to a lot for this work, because you cannot be doing it for the good of society. If there ever was anything approaching a victimless crime, counterfeiting England shirts must be close.<br /><br />Umbro paid The English Football Association £180 million for the exclusive right to produce the latest English strip. This exclusivity is allegedly being undermined by the counterfeiter, who obviously paid the FA sweet FA. The BBC reports that between 9 in 10, and 1 in 30 shirts sold in the UK are counterfeit. Now, this particular statistic should tip people off to the quality of the article. The BBC is effectively saying that counterfeit sales make up between between 3% and 90% of total sales. As counterfeit sales must be between 0% and 100%, the BBC isn't really sticking its neck out with its own estimates.<br /><br />But, beyond the BBC's precision, and back to the counterfeiters craven theft of Umbro's valuable exclusive rights to the English strip. But who loses?<br /><br />Umbro share holders? Umbro's <a href="http://www.umbroplc.com/standard_1.aspx?id=6:118&id=6:106">accounts </a>report that it made £24.6m in 2004 on an investment of around £70m; a reasonable return. And I'm sure that they paid their £180m with a fairly good idea of the scale of the counterfeiting industry.<br /><br />The FA? With the obscene riches in football today, £180m is just pocket change. What possible good could the FA do with the money. Give it to the footballers, their agents, or the rest of the huge gravy train. Most people probably think they footballers salaries should be cut by half. I'm sure that £50,000 a week should be enough to get most of them out of their beds to play for 90 minutes once a week. If the FA needs some more money, levy the clubs.<br /><br />The public? Counterfeiters give the ordinary fans the ability to keep up with the ever changing on-field fashions of heros without bankcrupting themselves.<br /><br />What all these monopolists seem not to remember, copying isn't theft. Their ability to carry on making English shirts haven't been taken away - intellectual property cannot be taken away. Governments have just created this sort of property, as they have judged that in many cases society is better off if copying is controlled. And in many cases, they're right, such as drugs and the latest Dan Brown novel. But in this case, I can see no such benefit.<br /><br />Now Umbro might want to carry on employing George. Its their profit he's helping to support. But please BBC, can be have a better crime to expose.Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17658087306188664468noreply@blogger.com0