We can't all live by taking in each others' washing There's an old jokule, vaguely traced back to Mark Twain, that the people of the Isles of Scilly used to eke out a living by taking in each others' washing. Yes, another economic thigh slapper: but the really weird thing is that for all of us seven billion humans in aggregate, we do really do that. This is something that makes …
I hope this isn't a shift to a more lightweight site, For me, The Reg is one of the few *must read* sites that provides some substance to the weeks news, both in tech matters and in the other more general newsy items on which it touches occasionally, Worstall's column being one of the things that provided me with some interesting and thought provoking reading over Sunday Breakfast. I know I wont be alone when I say that some among the readership here will miss the depth and intelligence of such articles
The uncertain future of the Lancashire dusk is......
Flogging the time and skills of my excellent network (or perhaps network of excellent) Central European programmers. Ruby on Rails and similar a specialty. We've got our first couple of contracts and I'm not difficult to find (timworstallATgmail.com gets to me) if that's something you're looking for.
:-)
Oh Nooooo! :( Wish you were joking, it's the first I'd heard of this, I love Tim's stuff. I knew economics was what largely shaped our recent behaviour as a species, but he can really bring out the subtle nuances - do we know where he'll be writing in future? ...I would like to continue to follow his work
Damn. There was me hoping he'd tackle the topical matter of the Chairman's state visit. How it does or doesn't make sense for China to lead big investments in the UK, when we're supposed to be the world's financial capital and good at raising private capital (er, no pun intended).
That way I as commentard could've bemoaned Osborne providing financial support to a mature industry (nuclear power - which I support and would be prepared to invest in if they were raising capital from investors) yet dragging its feet so horribly over supporting the fledgling industry that is this country's best potential: namely, clean and reliable tidal power.
Agreed. Obviously his articles were very popular, judging by the number of comments they'd usually gather. I imagine he's probably in demand to write for others who may be willing to pay more.
Perhaps his last article should have been the economics of the decision (whether his, the Reg's or mutual) that led to this being his last article!
I, like many of my fellow commentards, really have enjoyed my weekly economics lecture and subsequent debate. I'm going to miss this. I can honestly say that this mental activity has been a real boon, regularly causing me to question my assumptions and making my world-view more nuanced and detailed.
Thanks for making me think Tim, maybe I'll catch you on your own blog (hope there are commentards with whom I can have a mass debate)
Like many other people here, I have very much enjoyed Tim's columns. I won't pretend to have understood every last word and I haven't always agreed with what I did understand, but then that's part of the fun of a vigorous and intelligent debate. Overall, I've found the series to be both educational and challenging, so I just wanted to say thanks and that I'll miss these articles in future.
A strange descision by El Reg - but I gather that there's been a change at the top. I think that Lewis Page has got the push too.
A pity, both, and I'll value The Register less without their articles and so will "consume" less of it.
Without Tim though, there won't be anyone to explain to them how this consumer preference stuff works...
"Lewis still appears as 'Editor' on the contact page."
I was reporting info from Tim's blog last week, and suported by a comment from (someone using the same name as) another Reg colomist that "Lewis & Bob were the only staff casualties". Was then noted that they hadn't updated the editorial page yet.
'Spose time will tell...
This post has been deleted by its author
The way that freelancing works is rather similar to, say, courtiers (or Cabinets). One particular editor will have certain people that they prefer to use. Another will have others. And when that editor changes then who among the various entourages gets used also changes.
Nothing wrong with such a system: it's how an editor advances their vision of what a site should be.
And everyone in the game knows exactly what the game is.
Absolutely no complaints from me, I've thoroughly enjoyed my time doing these columns. And it's not everyone who is able to say they've had an entire years' worth of well paid work that they've thoroughly enjoyed doing.
And it is of course you ladies and gentlemen that have made it all so enjoyable. It's thoroughly refreshing to write for an intelligent and inquisitive crowd. This is one of the very few places I've ever written where "commentard" isn't in fact the correct word to use. Yet we use it anyway, eh?
Thank you.
A real shame to see you go Tim, I've really enjoyed your articles. Guess I'll have to start following your blog now, it was easier for me to have the articles distilled and produced on schedule.
I hope you advised the new elite of El Reg to get economists with contrary views to write some articles - you could get to dish out some of the commentard magic in the other direction.
> Nothing wrong with such a system: it's how an editor advances their vision of what a site should be.
Indeed, the world turns and things change. It remains to be seen as to whether the new editorial vision will strike a chord with the readership though. I've got form on ditching publications that change into things that I no longer care for. Time will tell but early indications are unsettling, will maintain a monitoring position pending further manifestations of the new editorial will.
Agreed. The confirmation that Lewis is going as well makes me fear this site will be undergoing some rather large changes, and since I really like the site currently odds are high that the changes will make the site worse than better (at least for me, maybe they want to chase a larger demographic so what's worse for me isn't necessarily worse for The Register's finances)
I used to regularly read The Inquirer in the late 90s / early 00s and was only an occasional reader of The Register, until changes at The Inquirer caused me to ditch it and become a regular here.
If this place sucks after the inevitable changes the new editorial staff makes, anyone have any recommendations on where I might go to get a similar blend and technical / interesting articles with a bit of a satirical bite? Anyone know where Lewis might be going - another internet site or is he moving onto a different career path?
That would actually make a good column of this type. Jean Tirole and dual facing markets and all that. Often that would be the genesis of one of these. A comment, some pondering (as I did while trotting the dog around the Portuguese countryside just now) and then a few notes....and then I find I'm late for the pub but the article has been filed a week early. The subs loved that.
I shall be on time for the pub today though.
It seems that, while it's important to remember that things people pay for are very, very likely to have positive value, and that pretty much all our gadgets and services are from other people, we should not forget a huge value stream we tap in to: That new people are born every day.
At, say, a million bucks a pop, that means a million new people are a trillion smackers added to the balance sheet. Life, itself, is pretty valuable, moola-wise.
A shame to lose someone as good at explaining things most people either never think about or in actuality only ever half-listened to at school, with the predictable consequences.
As regards the article, you are right, but that doesn't really mean we value insurance over food, because we simply import the food. Of course, we have to do that because due to the insurance workers earning so much they can 'consume' all the land for second homes, the farmers can't equal the cost of food from overseas as the very land is too expensive. Especially since the land has a mortgage and so the farmers are paying lots to the financial people.
The issue is that some people get massive residual incomes - being able to sell your time once and get millions for it years later kind of breaks things.
"As regards the article, you are right, but that doesn't really mean we value insurance over food, because we simply import the food. Of course, we have to do that because due to the insurance workers earning so much they can 'consume' all the land for second homes, the farmers can't equal the cost of food from overseas as the very land is too expensive. Especially since the land has a mortgage and so the farmers are paying lots to the financial people."
We spend less on food than insurance, but the elasticity of demand for food is lower. If the price halved, or doubled, we wouldn't eat twice, or half as much, we'd eat roughly the same. We might switch to cheaper types of food, but if food were more expensive we'd spend more on it, sacrificing other things. I'm not saying it's a Giffen good, we would still consume slightly less (probably), but we should consider our definition of value to be in terms of our demand elasticity, rather than the amount spent on something.
"the elasticity of demand for food is lower. If the price halved, or doubled, we wouldn't eat twice, or half as much, we'd eat roughly the same"
Unfortunately the daft pillocks with their nudge theory are trying to do just this with sugar. However I have about 100sq metres I can devote to beet cultivation.
"If the price of one specific type of food went up, we would buy substitutes instead. It is only if the price of all food increased that demand would be inelastic."
Of course, but all that is saying is that we don't value beef, or lamb, or kumquats, all that highly individually. Which is true. Elasticity of demand can only be considered with respect to an ever-changing basket of prices.
>The issue is that some people get massive residual incomes - being able to sell your time once and get millions for it years later kind of breaks things.
The people earning millions years later are probably the outliers, the extreme beneficiaries of systems (copyright, patents, IP) that are intended to fairly reward more people more modestly. The greater rewards can also offset the risk an individual assumes by investing their own time in an endeavour. A would-be inventor might spend months in her shed, but it isn't guaranteed that her tinkering will result in a working prototype, let alone a commercially-viable product.
Of course, real life will skew the principle.
>There is also this:
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/
Forbes is an absolute pain in the bollocks. It really doesn't get along with my privacy plugins. Something in the Adblock Edge, NoScript, Flashblock or Ghostery setups means that 90% of the time, links to Forbes simply don't open.
So I keep up with your articles the old-fashioned way. By looking at the homepage from time to time.
Wealth has long since ceased to be the accumulation of past generations of labour. That is the whole point.
Wealth is low entropy organization. It used to be made by 'renewable' energy assisted by man's intellect, and sometimes constructed with human energy, but it hasn't been since the start of the industrial revolution.
Wealth now is artificially assisted energy storage. Either to create an artefact like a house or a computer, where stability and organisation is the main goal, or to create food where energy content is the goal.
Today, with robots displacing the lower two thirds of the labour market already, the huge mistakes being made by those who cling to Marxists interpretations of the economy, are the most real and present danger to the West. When Marx wrote his polemic, vast quantities of low skilled labour ran the productive economy and it dominated the nascent service sector.
Today Robots do what Marx's 'labour' did, and we are all capitalists now. If you own a dishwasher, vacuum cleaner or a tumble drier or washing machine, you are using capital to displace labour in your home.
And that has taken us to a point of crisis: Fundamentally the wealth we utilise and consume (depending on whether its fixed asset or consumable) can be, and is, created by a vanishingly small number of humans, and rather a lot of energy. The rest of the human beings are totally and utterly unneeded and unnecessary in that process of production.
The only humans still needed are those that design and program the robots, and handle the bureaucracy of capitalism.
BOFH is not a joke. we, the IT crowd, actually control the new world.
And do you know? I think if we exercised our power and controlled it properly, we would do a better job than politicians and economists...
And the first thing we need to do is to understand that there is, except in the case of IT professionals, no relationship between material worth to society and income.
Just because someone is utterly useless and unproductive doesn't mean they don't (or indeed do) deserve an income of any given level.
The presumed goal of advanced roboticisation of society is to eliminate work as the primary occupation of human beings, The leisured society.
This ought to be a highly desired and desirable state, but both Left and Right are raising their hands in (faux) horror at the spectre of high structural 'unemployment'.
And yet the answers are all there. To increase the personal wealth of everybody means letting capital displace labour, and generate as much wealth for as little energy input as possible, and if that means people staying at home or playing football in the park instead of rushing mindlessly round the M25 trying to sell more crap to each other than anyone needs, so be it.
Then the job of the 'new socialist' becomes working out how much of that wealth should be distributed to the idle, not very rich.
We should not denigrate 'benefits culture' - we should celebrate it. WE should extend it to everyone. A Universal pension to anyone who can prove they were born in this country (and absolutely nothing to those who were not) would ensure a guilt free life of idle pleasure for all.
Toss in loss of income to those who have more than two children, and you limit populations levels naturally.
Run the whole lot off about 50 nuclear power plants, and you have a golden age within reach, and we could then start to concentrate not on keeping peoples physical wants satisfied, but exploring the reason why even with so much stuff, people are still amazingly miserable.
"The presumed goal of advanced roboticisation of society is to eliminate work as the primary occupation of human beings, The leisured society."
Well, I think "work" is a four letter word meaning, "What you do for others." And, so far as I can see, that's roughly how the universe defines it.
Eliminating "work" does not seem a worthy goal.
Consider this goal: To raise the value of humans compared to the things around them.
That sure looks like what the industrial revolution is doing, goal or not. And this rising value of humans has caused all sorts of problems when attitudes about the value of humans have lagged reality.
"The presumed goal of advanced roboticisation of society is to eliminate work as the primary occupation of human beings, The leisured society."
I think the goal of automation/roboticisation is more to do with business owners reducing or eliminating human labour costs and unreliability. The idea that humans then have lots of leisure time is incorrect, as there wouldn't be any wages for them to do anything with that time, and the government benefits would never be enough as the governments would be in the pocket of the business owners wanting their taxes low so they can keep all the income locked in an 'ice cap' of stored but unused wealth that they can show off to their less wealthy (but still shockingly obscenely rich) peers.
Sorry to see you leave El Reg Tim. I'll try and keep an eye on your blog.
"I think the goal of automation/roboticisation is more to do with business owners reducing or eliminating human labour costs and unreliability. The idea that humans then have lots of leisure time is incorrect, as there wouldn't be any wages for them to do anything with that time, and the government benefits would never be enough as the governments would be in the pocket of the business owners wanting their taxes low so they can keep all the income locked in an 'ice cap' of stored but unused wealth that they can show off to their less wealthy (but still shockingly obscenely rich) peers."
The only problem with that model is, who buys the stuff the business owners are making, if almost everyone is poor? I'm not saying they don't want to go in that direction, I'm saying that it isn't sustainable even in a mild sense, over a decade or so.
"The only problem with that model is, who buys the stuff the business owners are making, if almost everyone is poor? I'm not saying they don't want to go in that direction, I'm saying that it isn't sustainable even in a mild sense, over a decade or so."
Unless they realize this, close the gates, and just trade amongst themselves. IOW, they change their models to sustain only their peers and leave the destitute savages to their own devices. A closed economy only comprising those who don't have to ask the price if they want to buy something.
"The only problem with that model is, who buys the stuff the business owners are making, if almost everyone is poor?..."
"Unless they realize this, close the gates, and just trade amongst themselves."
This danger has already come and gone for various economies, with a tried and tested solution: pay people to buy your shit.
This might, depending on whether you're a country, corporation or individual, be dressed up as equalization payments between regions, foreign investment into countries with lots of customers, or that 0% deal on your sofa - it's just pumping money back up the hill so that it can keep flowing.
@AC
Unless they realize this, close the gates, and just trade amongst themselves. IOW, they change their models to sustain only their peers and leave the destitute savages to their own devices.
I don't see how that could ever work. We'd still need to feed ourselves (we, the savages) etc so we'd still end up with role based specialisatiosn requiring a means of exchange and a means to store product of labour beyond its sell by date. Money, in essence.
So sure, they'd own all the dollars, but we'd have no choice but use a new currency, which would rather invalidate the game. What the tipping point is, I can't say, but I have faith that capitalism will self correct before we ever get there.
"The only problem with that model is, who buys the stuff the business owners are making, if almost everyone is poor? I'm not saying they don't want to go in that direction, I'm saying that it isn't sustainable even in a mild sense, over a decade or so."
While it is not sustainable in the macro sense, there is no point for any individual business where employing a person is a better decision than employing a machine that can do the same work for less cost. This logic continues to apply even as the size of the market shrinks.
@Novex
I think the goal of automation/roboticisation is more to do with business owners reducing or eliminating human labour costs and unreliability.
Agreed mostly, but I'd go further than that. It is also to eliminate polticial risk.
If I start a small business and need additional effort to expand, I could hire someone. I agree with them that I will pay them £x per hour and they agree they will work for that. Then the government comes along and decides I must pay them £x + y, and that they must not work for anyone for less than that.
Later the government comes back and decides I must also set up a pension for my newly more expensive than envisaged staffer. And then decides I'll have to give them pay rises at an accelerated rate until we hit the governments desired target per hour for people to earn. As a business owner you know this is salami slicing, but what you don't knwo is how big the salami is or how thick the next slice will need be.
Now, I'm not suggesting that minimum wage is a bad thing or that it destroys opportunities for the low skilled, though I do accept it *might* be the case. What I do suggest it does, however, is lead to reduced new opportunities because business owners will seek to hold off hiring an employee until they simly cannot do all the work themselves. And that is where increased automation and robotisation come in to play, as it holds off the first employee and keeps down the number you need, there by giving rise to more predictable costs.
In theory robotisation should also be more reliable, as you never know when people will get ill/die/quit, whereas the robot should have a relatively predictable service life, and the automation software will have an upgrade path visible out for 5-10 years.
Thank you itzman, maybe you could have a column or two? I have been thinking idly along similar lines in recent months, but drawing parallels to system theory and ecosystems*.
I strongly support your general gist and your raising of the subject, though you cover so much ground that it is inevitable that I can nitpick individual points:
When Bertrand Russell penned 'The Case for the Leisure Society', he wasn't equating leisure with idleness. Rather, he suggested that if we all only worked say twenty hours a week for food and shelter, we wouold choose more active leisure activioties (gardening, playing musical instruments, walking) and less passive (slump in front of a DVD-boxset with bottle of scotch)
>I think if we [The IT-Crowd, system administrators etc] exercised our power and controlled it properly, we would do a better job than politicians and economists...
Maybe. But in past times, scientists have thought similar things. Of course, if we all had more leisure time, IT experts might choose to read more history and philosophy, and financial experts and politicians might educate themselves about technology and systems. The electorate, with morew free time, would also take a more informed and active role in politics, too.
*All mature ecosystems dissipate more energy than immature ecosystems. There has always seemed to me to be an economic lesson there, but i can't quite articulate it.
@itzman: An interesting point of view that gets at the crux, and problem, with anyone writing about economics.
The interactions of the human world have become so complicated, so amount of guessing is going to achieve anything. It requires a solid foundation of mathematical modelling to describe and predict the outcomes of human behaviour - and it is not easy.
But what it does give us, is some clarity to the changes of the last 50 years, and a method to disentangle the politics fuelled media rhetoric, and the actually system causes.
For example, the concept of inflation (where $1 today is worth less tomorrow) is predicated on the pre-industrial notion of scarcity of resource. E.g. gold is rare, so perhaps we can use it for coins. Trees are plentiful they are cheap (say).
Therefore, everytime a new object is manufactured it is a summation of all the market conditions that measure "scarcity". The governments print money to make sure that banks can lend, and this action adds "friction" to the generation or products. This "friction" term is present anytime it costs some money, do carry out something in the virtual world, that does not have a corresponding physical effect.
So here we are in 2015, with the *astonishing* distribution of computer technology and we have economics based upon the trading of cattle at a medieval market.
Back to inzman's point . The modern economic activity has a prevailing deflationary trend when one considers the "work" done by computers. Any (and all) industries that can exploit the exponential increase in computing (with exponential price decrease), will separate from all those that do NOT -UNLESS coupled by the "friction" term I brought in earlier.
Therefore, software is in the category, and we introduce the concept of the "profit threshold" (How many widgets do you have to sell to break even). And this is where the problem is. There are significant proportions of the economy that are *weakly* correlated with others, leading to the huge inequities around the globe.
I encourage everyone to try and look around their local economy for signs of "tech" vs "no-tech" and recognise the human interactions that have become modulated. MacDonalds, Starbucks and Walmart are successful precisely because they have mechanisms, standard tools and acquired capital capacity, to start a small venture of unprofitably and grow to profit.
If you are a lone trader it might take you years. The corporation allows the aggregation of process knowledge and capital accrual, that individuals cannot. The rules are literally written to forbid this, since a corporation can have a dedicated purpose to deduct expenses against - your "living" costs are just that.
I will agree with Tim on one thing about the "hierarchy of needs", it is the personal tolerance of how one decides to spend ones $$$. And that is highly dependent on your local environment, and I suspect the cause of much of the worlds problems...
All the best Tim, I hope you get to use MathML for some precision, in your other work...:-)
P.
Thanks itman for that - I hate to say it - I am sure I'll be in a minority - but I found your comment was much easier to read and follow than anything Tim has written here. I'm not sure I fully agree but I'm getting so philosophical these days I cannot make my mind up.
Having said that I have enjoyed reading TIm's articles here over the year and challenging my preconceptions and wish him well.
Those who enjoyed Tim's article, and itzman's reply might enjoy Adrian Hon's "A History of the Future in 100 Objects". It is, of course, optimistic fiction. But it is an enjoyable read (particularly for anyone familiar with the British Museum/BBC "A History of the World in 100 Objects"). It certainly caused me to seriously look into the research on universal basic income for the first time.
I give my friend blackberries I've picked, and take his apples. So we both have some of each delicious fruit. So far, so good (and true in real life).
But gathering the blackberries is hard work, and leaves my hands pretty-well shredded. Blackberries are relatively small, so picking them takes time, and of course those brambles, and the nettles that usually accompany them, fight back. Whereas apples have no thorns nor stings, and are so big that you have a decent bagful for a couple of minutes work.
My friend, being richer than I am, has an apple tree in his garden, and so gets to do the plum job (sorry about that - neither of us has enough plums to trade). That's capital.
If it's any consolation, Nick, I have both an apple and a plum tree in my garden, both of which produce buckets of fruit, and yet I still gather blackberries and rip my hands to shreds.
My friends get to enjoy jams and jellies, and I even buy the jars myself and rarely get them returned.
I'm not sure whether I'm a pluted bloatocrat or a peasant...
"I'm not sure whether I'm a pluted bloatocrat or a peasant"
With land prices in the UK what they are, and the concentration on cities, we have reached the stage that only the well off can afford to behave like pre-industrial agricultural labourers at weekends. Just as only the well off can play at operating narrow boats on canals and driving horse carts and steam locomotives.
These are all low-productivity occupations that give a sense of achievement, which have to be offset by some high-productivity activigty somewhere else.
Ain't necessarily so, I know people outside of mainstream society who live on boats and attendees at the annual horse drawn festival are also, I gather (never attended myself but a couple of friends go regularly), not exactly rinking stinking rich, just alternative way of life types. I guess if you are willing to adopt an alternative lifestyle then there are possibilities that don't come with the mainstream.
Neil, of course I was speaking only of a micro-economy, which seemed somehow relevant. In the real world we have specialisation of labour, and so long as I'm not destitute I can buy all these fruits for no more effort than having to traipse round the shops and carry them home. All the hard work is done by people with specialist skills and equipment.
Actually that's a kind-of measurable effect. There are still blackberries around, but it's been a few weeks since I picked any: they're a pale shadow of peak season. Yet when I was genuinely destitute in 2003 I was still gathering them - the last dregs of the season - into late November.
p.s. I don't cook (or eat) jams and jellies, but I've made a delicious chutney from some of those blackberries. Where's the El Reg icon for nomnomnom?
Surely real value is anything (product or service) that a country (or individual) can make money from. Raw value would be the things like food, minerals, aggregates, fuels, etc, that a country can make money from?
I personally think that in our modern society a better term to have used would be 'can we all live by making each other coffee?' The answer I think is not without some kind of acceptance of a benefits system by right, regardless of work done. But in that direction lies communism, which we know isn't a workable solution. Maybe benefits could be given based on the output of people improving themselves, by training and then academic study, or creative output? Could we be a society of authors and painters selling and/or giving each other our created works?
>Never in the history of web journalism has so much empty crap been served dressed up as fake intellectual mumbo jumbo
Even if that's true, what is the harm? Nobody here would jump off a cliff just because "Mr Worstall told me to!" and his points are often debated and disputed here. If we believe him to be wrong, or has overlooked something, then we can make a counter argument.
Sometimes people who believe themselves to be fighting an ideology will appear to be ideologues themselves... this is always danger, so a bit of grown up discussion is generally a Good Idea.
For the record, I don't agree with much of Worstall says, but I think it is healthy to re-examine the things he attacks to test their sturdiness or otherwise.
"Even if that's true, what is the harm?"
The harm is that if vacuous bullshit is allowed to be published, then a number of uncritical airheads will assume it is correct and uncritically follow it. You have the risk of the unthinking fool who automatically believes whatever hair-brained theory is planted in his mind by the latest brain-washing collective (aka "Think Tank"). And when those unthinking fools are members of our political or financial elites, then disaster looms.
Personally I blame much of modern societies ills, and the failure of much of the western economy on the specious extremist bollox promulgated by so called "Think Tanks" of both sides. My view is members of such brain-washing syndicates should be metaphorically lined against a wall and shot. I don't care if they are right or left wing: by daring to put themselves into such self-elevated positions of unelected authority they no longer deserve to be part of society, and should be removed from it.
"It could just be that censorship is an over reaction to the quality of either my logic or journalism....."
Not when that "logic or journalism" is actually a fake veneer for specious vacuous emanations from a brainwashing collective whose only desire is self-promulgation and self-enhancement. "Thinktanks" should be eliminated from society as what they propose is divisive, destructive, distortional and often non-democratic.
..whose only desire is self-promulgation and self-enhancement
I think the greater danger of this sort of thing is the cult of celebrity that infests our culture. Anything that makes you think is good, anything that diverts you from thinking is bad. If you don't have the capacity for critical thinking and aren't comfortable with having your views challenged then you are part of the problem.
If so, we can look to some rather drastic changes that will undoubtedly drive all of us who like to be challenged away from this site rather quickly.
One thing I really liked about The Register is the wide variation of slant to the articles. Every news source has some sort of slant to it, those who think their preferred news source is unbiased have merely self selected one whose slant matches their own. You would have articles reporting the latest global warming studies and measurements that warn of a warming Earth and dire consequences if things don't change, alongside Lewis' article reporting something that appears to show the opposite, or casting doubt on such studies. Lewis received a lot of criticism, but some of us learned something from both sides of the debate, and were at least entertained by the closed minded people like x 7 who believe they know the truth and anyone who disagrees is being misled.
Obviously he disagrees quite strongly with Tim's libertarian philosophy, and while I share that to some extent I certainly didn't agree with everything he said, nor his interpretation of certain things in the field of Economics (having a father with a PhD in Economics meant I learned a lot about it whether I liked it or not) I read Andrew Orlowski's rants against the 'freetard' economy that supported the RIAA and MPAA's every position even though I disagreed with much of it, and learned from that. Even though I am an iPhone owner, I didn't bristle at the constant sneering at Apple, after all they sneered at Microsoft, Google and other IT leaders - that's on their masthead after all. Even when the "peak Apple" thing got a bit old I played along, and had a good laugh when Apple proved it had nowhere near peaked yet and they were forced to abandon that (or shelve it until the time next they think Apple has peaked)
I worry that The Register's new editorial staff is going to water down the site in order to expand the audience. Less sarcasm, less "biting the hand that feeds IT", fewer controversial articles and instead taking a more 'neutral' approach that avoids turning off people like x 7 who don't like to be challenged in their world view. While that would certainly expand their potential audience, it would make this site like any other, and they'd lose the dedicated band of commentards who make this place what it is. Because that's the real reason I spend so much time here. I can read an article about something random and in the comments find an explanation of something the article was confused about from someone knowledgeable in the field. Actual astronomers or rocket scientists in some cases. Try and find that in the comment section on 99.9% of other internet sites.
While I'm not ready to give up yet until I see what changes they make, I'm thinking my days here may be numbered. If this site is no longer unique, why should I visit it over anywhere else? If the signal to noise ratio of the comments declines to what's typical on the internet, or the comment sections become virtual wastelands with almost no one commenting, what will be the point of coming here for regurgitated press releases I can get anywhere? Hope my fears are unfounded.
Your columns are excellent and are pitched just right for an audience that is interested in this and has a bit of experience.
Also appreciated by my daughter who is doing economics A level and applying to university to do economics.
My guess is that the push is to be more IT focussed rather than expand the magazine aspects of the weekend topics.
This is a mistake as the Register was building a powerful brand 'more than just IT' and as we know from Top Gear, this sort of branding that reaches across many demographics is very valuable, very difficult to build and very easy to destroy.
Economics at university these days. Lots and lots of mathematics to feed the macro models. Got to be done but that's the very boring part of the subject. There will be lots of mandatory courses in all that stuff. For enjoyment, tell her she might want to sample, as her electives, bits of political economy, micro theory, public choice, anyone who is teaching Mancur Olson and so on. Even a light introduction to Marx can be fun (but don't go the whole hog and actually believe it).
And there will be lots of statistics. But make sure that you understand the underlying concepts, not just the manipulations. Because much fun (for an odd value of "fun") can be had by reading the various pressure group reports and seeing how they've ignored those basic concepts in constructing their numbers for public consumption.
In this context, being hilarious is infinitely more important than being technically correct in every little detail. You've been wonderful.
Besides, the Universe is hilariously random. Someone might be half-joking and yet ultimately prove to be correct. That's the way things work out.
Cheers.
> vacuous bullshit
Unfair allegation in this case, Tim's articles always lead to a healthy debate and that's a good thing.
> You have the risk of the unthinking fool who automatically believes whatever hair-brained theory is planted in his mind
Yes, but we can all be guilty of that on occasions if something we read chimes with our own particular prejudices. Challenging and stimulating articles serve to counter that.
Are you basically saying that people are stupid sheep and that anyone voicing an opinion should shut the fuck up for fear of influencing them?
As a society we debate things, different opinions are heard, views are broadened (hopefully) and we progress. If we didn't have this process we'd never have progressed from the horror that is strictly religious belief. You are confusing positive, informed debate (which we tend to get here) with closed systems that only serve to preach. The key is to try to maintain an open and inquisitive mind, to question what you are told.
The harm is that if vacuous bullshit is allowed to be published, then a number of uncritical airheads will assume it is correct and uncritically follow it.
And yet, here you are, posting these comments. And El Reg is allowing them to be published.
My view is members of such brain-washing syndicates should be metaphorically lined against a wall and shot.
And once you've disenfranchised those people for no other crimes than speaking their minds collectively, and believing something other than you do, where then will you target your unbridled aggression?
I'm not going to argue with you about the value of Worstall's pieces here -- not because I agree with you, but because you've shown yourself to be unreceptive to differences of opinion.
But differences of opinion aside, "vacuous bullshit" has always been allowed to be published*, and a small fraction of the populace has always believed what they read uncritically. This has yet to destroy the world.
* cf the original product of Gutenberg, et al.
The trouble is that a government with the power to suppress superstition and fanaticism might not choose to stop there. If there were a way for it to be ensured that the power of censorship would always be employed wisely and constructively, then we could employ it. As it is, though, we know of no such technique, and thus fear a positive feedback loop that will lead to tyranny.
Another answer to fools being misled is more and better education.
"x7: also possibly a fan of old school suzuki 2 strokes?"
no, but I always fancied a GT750, what finally put me off the the inability to get them round corners, and the shiny disk brakes. Ever tried riding one? Interesting in the Chinese sense. 0-60 in 3 seconds, 60-0 in three minutes
fastest 2-stroke I ever had was a tuned bored out MZ TS250/5 with high compression head, thin head gasket, reed valve and flat-topped piston. Could usually outrun most Jap 2-stokes (even the triples) up to around 350cc. After it seized at 90 while I was overtaking a petrol tanker I switched to 4-strokes
Got out of 2 strokes as soon as I passed my test, although I did have an MTX125 as a winter hack one year. Mucho kudos to you for the tuned MZ, respect is due. Sounds like a larf and a half.
> seized at 90 while I was overtaking a petrol tanker
One of my long standing (suffering?) mates had a YZ425 back in the day, basically a competition 2 stroke machine with enough stuff to make it (barely) legal. It couldn't get more than 20 miles out of town without seizing up, also suffered from shit brakes and got through kick start levers quicker than it got through petrol.
I just missed out on the glory days of the crazy Japanese 2 strokes. They were already attaining classic status when I was getting into bikes. Being a kawasaki man at the time I'd have gone for the h3 750 triple if I could have afforded one but then, given that they were known as the widowmaker, I'd probably not have been around to write this. Too much power in a flexi-frame coupled with youthful exuberance would have been a hazardous combination.
Anyhow, bit off topic but way more fun than economics.
x7
The harm is that if vacuous bullshit is allowed to be published, then a number of uncritical airheads will assume it is correct and uncritically follow it.
In that case Sir, I give you The Guardian - where any comment deviating from their frankly barmy faux consensus is deleted before the ink is dry. The result is that there is no debate, just a self reinforcing reality distortion field which all but defines the term confirmation bias.
El Reg has always allowed extensive debate around many issues, which has been one of its strengths. While I don't universally agree with Tim's arguments, they are usually well constructed and considered - there's a bunch of facts & permises, a claim,a nd attempts to persuade. That you disagree with the conclusions does not signify a lack of critical thinking on Tim's part.
There are very few other sites on the internet with El Regs level of detail and range of articles that allow such open debate. Tim attracted a wide following and is leaving some massive boots to fill. Good luck for the future Tim, and thanks for some great explanations.
On the subject of the swelling of the Insurance sector, Apart from the ever spiraling cost of premiums generally - it should be remembered that successive Governments have increased the insurance burden, both for Business (going back to Public liability changes in the 80's, and on the individual, such as Income Protection Insurance - again a "product" greatly increased by 80's Conservative Govt: legislation - which removed help with some components of mortgage payments from some benefit claims. It is no surprise to me that finance has grown, and not only in terms of banking and monitory supply terms.
It is sad that we import so much that we consume in the UK, the problem isn't helped by ludicrous housing costs that inflate the level earnings needed by citizens to a point where some goods are seen as overpriced. London faces a crisis in years to come as those considered to be "lower orders" by many with *money* are pushed out of further and further - Who then will sweep the streets and empty the bins.... or serve the morning latte so loved by the over paid city professionals? To finance ever spiraling UK housing costs, the level of remuneration required by employees factors in to make UK manufacturing simply too expensive - a ludicrous situation, not helped by an out of touch political class who simply have no concept of the financial pressures on those whom they were allegedly elected to serve (all too often it seems thew other way around) and who earn far less than those in power would consider it viable for themselves to survive on.
Even here in my fairly rural location, housing costs are far above what many earn in an area that is a mix of Petro Chem and Power Generation industry and tourism, it simply isn't sustainable. Rural call centres and city based financial institutions do not make for a well balanced economy, and at some point this will cause some major social issues, Foodbanks are just a symptom of a badly unbalanced economy that is breeding resentment and anger amongst the citizenry, presided over by a political class that is both deceitful and morally bankrupt.
We are all in *it* together? I think they lost two letters from the start of "it"
Actually I believe the biggest change in law/insurance happened in the 90s when after a lot of campaigning by the Law Society on behalf of solicitors, solicitors were allowed to work on a "no cure, no fee basis".
At the time I worked in marine insurance recovery. We were not solicitors so could work "no cure no fee". Our costs and fees were low, we were good at what we did and succesful, and the solicitors hated that.
Even worse was we frequently had to deal with solicitors and took the useless overpaid idiots to the cleaners regularly. We just made them look stupid.
As a work colleague said to me at the time "it'll be like the US in a few years with every solicitor chasing ambulances and no one taking any personal responsibilty anymore. Everyone will sue for everything and that will drive premiums through the roof"
Prophetic words indeed.
I'm not convinced of this statement. Initially there may be labour. But after that an autonomous process. Can apply to a Robot Factory, automated oil well or burning forest and then scattering seed of something that doesn't need replanted every year. Or totally automated agriculture.
Surely many things will be the product of less and less labour, tending toward zero?
Sorry to see you go, Tim.
"I'm not convinced of this statement. Initially there may be labour. But after that an autonomous process. Can apply to a Robot Factory, automated oil well or burning forest and then scattering seed of something that doesn't need replanted every year. Or totally automated agriculture.
Surely many things will be the product of less and less labour, tending toward zero?"
That's not the point. It's not that everything is the product of labour, it's that the resulting money can only go to people. I have a robot vacuum cleaner that does work for me, but I don't pay it, so the money in that transaction went to the iRobot company. If a landscaper comes with a turf cutting machine, the machine doesn't get paid, the landscaper does.
The automation just alters the distribution of which people get paid, not the fact that, in the end, only people are paid. (To deal with things like Apple's cash pile, we can either pretend that companies are people, or state that the company is owned by its shareholders, who own that wealth.) Now, if we start allowing robots to own things and buy things, then we get a different scenario, but all we've really done there is expend our definition of 'people'.
Who built the Robot factory? If robots, who built them (and so on) what you end up with is a very shrewd investment of time and effort on the part of the guy who built the robots who built the factory that built everything. One assumes he owns it all, and therefore is getting a huge amount of money for it. He still put the effort in initially. He's just much smarter than the guy who goes and does everything himself - a better tool was designed and used, that's all.
>If you accept Worstall's logic, burglary is just as valuable as manufacturing or finance.
Well, burglary creates work for locksmiths, glaziers, burglar-alarm installers and police officers. There isn't any moral determinism in these systems; arms manufacturers, tobacco growers and slavers are all a part of the economic system.
The burglar enriches themselves by inconveniencing others. A salesman who sells a low quality product enriches themselves by inconveniencing their customer. A company sells a frustrating and buggy OS to enrich themselves by inconveniencing their users.
So, we put locks on our doors. We educate ourselves and learn that a pricier but more durable product is actually better value*. We learn to use a different OS, or just accept that life isn't perfect.
*“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play
Damn shame the great editor in the sky has give you the boot Tim, I've really enjoyed being educated on a Sunday morning. I still think macro-economics is 9 parts guesswork and 1 part science but at least I now see some of the reasons why the BoE and friends make some of the decisions they do.
It's down to wants and needs. Wanters are supplied by those who have the time and energy and resources to produce answers to their desires. Thus are created needers. They must be supplied...and so on.
Consumers have differing time scales and we are all individually mortal [as well] and so value is created. It's no surprise that "Money is Time".
Automation may provide all to survive at increasing levels of Maslow's Heirarchy but consumers' needs for complexity shall add new levels to be satisfied [even changing normal as has been known but this has happened through fashion alone throughout time]. Golden Ages belong to those who are dormant or immortal.
Personally, I look forward to 3d machines that can make anything through improving
and freely available software - a true information age. However, I couldn't begin to predict the wants and needs of future consumers.
If you restrict the definition of consumers to only include humans you have to build in things like propensity to argue, minorities, laws etcetera.
Bon voyage Tim - I only discovered that you are a prolific blogger today.
"Personally, I look forward to 3d machines that can make anything through improving and freely available software - a true information age. However, I couldn't begin to predict the wants and needs of future consumers."
The catch is that 3D Printers are useless without source materials with which to produce the goods. Whoever can corner that market will be in considerable control. Then there's the matter of food, which at least at this juncture can't be "printed" by a machine and especially again without source materials.
You know, do this for me and I'll do that for you?
I do this quite a bit (hence the A/C). I've just finished rebuilding a motorcycle engine for a friend. He supplied all the parts, I, the labour to do the job. He's going to re-decorate my upstairs rooms in return.
I will supply all the paint etc. No cash will change hands so what can the Taxman do?
I hope it is nowt.
"Barter isn't taxable, no"
yes it is: VAT applies, see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-part-exchanges-barters-and-set-offs
And if the bartered items are part of your normal trade then you also have to declare them as income on your tax return
See the example of the two female police officers, both with young children. Very sensibly, they put their heads together, and arranged their shifts so that one could care for the other's children whilst the other was at work.
The taxman got involved.
On a wider note about barter, you could probably do worse than listen to this ten part ( 15 minutes per episode) series "Promises, Promises: A History of Debt" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054zdp6/episodes/player
You should note that if I want one of your pears, but I only have a live chicken, sorting out change might be tricky (or at least messy and noisy!). Think of a few more examples, and you'll appreciate that debt arose hand-in-hand with bartering.
I used to write for them occasionally. Matt Seaton used to like prodding the commenters occasionally with a neoliberal style pointy stick. He moved on from CiF and he same changing of the guard of the freelances happened. His successor was less keen on that prodding with the pointy stick....
I'm really sorry to hear that you're leaving us, Tim. I've learnt more about the economic system we have from reading your articles and the comments thereto than from just about anything else. And like others here, I enjoyed having my views challenged and being made to think, and occasionally realising I was wrong. Al the best!
Esme (off to find and bookmark Tim's website)
Some reasons are shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs, including observation that the hierarchy and cultural references are not valid.
Other reasons are due to more recent Psychological research which shows that a lot of 'common sense' and intuitive ideas about Psychology are unreliable or plain wrong because the brain is not some linear machine, so can do seemingly weird things
e.g. Pavlovian ideas of reward and punishment are not reliable for even lower animals, and even more unreliable for humans; this reveals some business motivation ideas, including trendy variants, as useless and even destructive.
e.g. Better positive and negative emotional perception can cause significant, tipping-point gains, but "positive thinking" is destructive.
e.g. If people are too busy, it mentally damages them, so wrecks productivity, because of what the human brain actually does when /not/ seemingly busy; that includes education and social media busyness too!
There are also newer business biases and models growing in use which will be even harder for tired old economics ideas (including neo-classical) to model and I don't mean cloud.
I have very much enjoyed your columns. I even watched your economic presentation The Register sponsored.
Your words are insightful and provoke thought. I will be less for not reading your words.
You helped me understand that "rare earth" matter, wasn't, along with clearer explanations of economic theory than some of my prior Economics professors could muster up.
I do hope you continue on in a similar capacity, ideally here.
Thank you, Mr. Worstall.
First, let's figure out the point of Mark Twain's joke. The problem the people of Sicily would have had was that they would only have very clean clothes, and none of their other needs would be met.
A parallel might be a country with a thriving domestic economy, but no exports whatever. And it's not in the tropics, so its citizens have a problem meeting their vitamin C requirements - presumably they satisfy them from lettuce, cabbage, or some other vegetable that has some - because they have no foreign exchange with which to import oranges.
Now let's look at how badly Marx got things wrong. At bottom, exchanges of goods and services between humans certainly do involve human labor at every step. But does all the value come solely from human labor?
Capital in some of its forms is simply labor at a remove in time. But land suitable for growing crops - and the rain and sunlight those crops need - were not produced by human labor. (Well, the land may have been cleared of trees to allow crops to be planted there.) Natural resources exist, and are, as the name indicates, products of nature.
Nature, though, has no need of our money - though expenditures of effort and resources to take care of the natural world may be helpful at times. So the economic implications of this are complicated, although it has been used as a justification for everything from socialism to tithing.
That efficiency thing that Tim's kept mentioning has a lot to do with the fact that we spend relatively little on food. Selective breeding has given is more productive varieties of plant and animal. Artificial fertilisers have artificially increased the fertility of the ground. Mechanisation has reduced the need for labour. Chemicals have improved the health of both plant and animal crops.
On the other hand financial services seem to be costing us more. Why? There have been technical inputs which should increase efficiency there, just as in farming.
I suspect the reason is similar to why bank robbers rob banks - it's where the money is. Ultimately it's the money men who largely decide prices (including screwing the farmers) because they can. It's not surprising if they receive an increasing share of it. When we discuss adding value I think we often confuse it with adding cost. The actual value of the added cost can be extremely dubious.
You obviously haven't been paying attention, as you attempt to brainwash someone to your viewpoint (the goal) you must review your techniques (the means).
Because you question the ways, it encourages questions of the hows.
Reviewing the hows leads to questioning of the whys.
Brainwashing works both ways.
What most people see as Capitalism is in fact Corporatism
What most people see as Socialism is in fact Statism
Both isms abhor any kind of free market of ideas because it is only through the free promotion and destruction of those ideas can any truthfulness emerge.
Why do you want to supress the truth, do you have something to hide ?
This post has been deleted by its author
You should not lower yourself to the commentard level, entering this abyss, madness and bad faith lays
Good that you go out at the top, like I said above one encore would be nice (two would over egg).
It has been interesting to see your point of view mature over time (you probably don't see this yet) but it has been more interesting reading some of the well put points of the comentariat in response.
You will be sadly missed by the hardcore but we got over the loss of the moderatorix (which frankly was a much bigger loss)
A bigger brighter future awaits you, go forth and..do stuff.
Best Regards
I'm not joking.
When Tokyo real estate went up, they were doing very well and traveled the world, e.g. PEI to visit Anne of Green Gables. Real money that could be spent. When Tokyo real estate went down, they stopped.
I'll bet that the same thing happened with the crazy Dutch tulips circa 1600s.
It's a dangerous myth that this sort of asset appreciation isn't real genuine spendable money.
There are two ways to convert an appreciating asset into money: you can sell it, or you can borrow against it. If you sell it the over-valuation problem passes on to the person who bought it; if you borrow against it the over-valuation problem passes on to the banking system. Since often the person who bought the over-valued asset did so with borrowed money, the problem ends up in the banking system.
So the end cost of feeling wealthy because you have over-valued assets is that you feel squeezed by the taxation process required to recapitalise the banking system - unless, of course, your Government decides that it should recapitalise the banks by cutting government services that people actually have difficulty living without, rather than by sticking up taxes.
It is remarkably politically unpopular to forbid buying over-valued assets with borrowed money, even by trivial changes like requiring the valuation of a property for a mortgage to be no more than the minimum amount that a comparable property has sold for over a period going back in time by the term of the mortgage.
If you follow the money, as it splits and weaves through generations of transactions, it eventually all passes through taxes. So you can claim it's ultimately 100% taxes within about ten generations (roughly) of transactions.
Flawed logic.
It's about 200% taxes after 20 generations (roughly) of transactions.
It's 100% chocolate bars after about 750 generations (very roughly) of transactions.
Once you allow N generations of transactions, you can make any claim you want.
I had this figured out when I was 16. Geesh.
Just this weekend, I posted a link to Tim's Register article into a discussion among members of a Canadian political party who were arguing about "what is money?". Tim and El Reg to the rescue, essentially. I will miss the informative and thoughtful articles about the "dismal science." So long, and thanks for all the fish.
'in the modern world the insurance sector ... is larger than the agriculture sector by some way. We therefore appear to value insurance more than food at this level of wealth. '
The size of a business sector does not relate to the value of its products. Let's rewrite this sentence with one minor change.
'in the modern world the potato sector ... is larger than the caviar sector by some way. We therefore appear to value potatoes more than caviar at this level of wealth. '
would like to add to the chorus of lamentation at the Worstall departure. It's one of the columns that makes the Reg worth visiting
Well, duh, everyone wants financial products for everything, including agriculture.
Say 2% of the population works in agriculture. Well, there are a lot more car owners than farmers and car insurance is mandated by law. And that's just car insurance.
People getting phones on contract depend on the financial instruments the phone companies use behind the scenes. Farmers selling their wares on the futures market (which as Tim pointed out previously is not inherently evil) depend on the financial industry. Farmers getting loans for capital or livestock and seed depend on the financial industry.
Goddamn it! You are killing the only column in The Register that actually arouses passion (although Andrew Orowski sometimes succeeds). I still can't decide whether I love Tim Worstall or loathe him. I can't even decide whether I agree with him or not but you can be damned sure if I read 2 articles in a week on this soon-to-become-tawdry news organ, they are his.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
