The Filter^

The House Prices Gamble

Back in April I spoke about the dangers of predicting the housing market. Half a year on, this article suggests that selling a house in July seems to have been a good move. It'll be interesting to see if this fall is anything more substantial than the typical post-summer slump, but its nice when a gamble pays off.

As i've said before, an exposure to risk calculation is a good thing, so I was disappointed that the bill to allow casino's to expand in the UK has been derailed. As it stands, its very easy to join a casino, and so this bill is nowhere near being radical - but if people want to build even more they should be allowed to do so. At the ASI, Xander Stephenson highlights a debate on John Stuart Mill: Roy Hattersley say's Mill would've approved, whilst in the letters page of the Guardian Madsen Pirie responds.

A couple of years ago whilst grappling with risk vs uncertainty I wrote an essay called Why I Like to Gamble. I still do.

Sheer Ignorance

“Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.”

- Donald Rumsfeld February 12, 2002

Rumsfeld's statement is a well-worded explanation of "sheer ignorance", a concept that divides Austrian Economists from their mainstream counterparts. Neoclassical theorists believe all ignorance is subject to probability calculation. Austrians believe that some ignorance is actionable, others not.

Nick Schandler has written an excellent 3 page paper discussing how ignorance affects decision making.

Download sheer_ignorance.pdf

John Peel's Festive 50s

http://www.rocklist.net/festive50.htm.

John Peel, 1939-2004.

Hattie Ajderian: NHS

Tread carefully, blogs are not easy territory for new candidates.

-Advice for Hattie Ajderian from Tom Watson MP.

The Labour candidate for Bath seems to be worryingly ill informed about the NHS. From her blog:

Have to take elder daughter to have two teeth out today prior to having a brace fitted. Poor Jen. Much TLC will be called for. Making some soup for her! At least her dental care is free. The cost of medical treatment comes home to you when you have to take a pet to the vet. One rabbit with sore eyes? All sorted out, but £70! Help! Thank heavens for NHS when it comes to humans.

Since when was the NHS free? Last I saw it cost £67 billion and rising fast. Oh - do you mean free at the point of use??

A £70 vet bill is expensive but you obviously think it was worth it, indeed the cost of medical treatment really does come home when you have to pay for it at once. Thank heavens for Gordon Brown to introduce countless stealth taxes so that we can't keep track on the actual amount we're spending, and in doing to fool idiots into thinking we're getting it for free!

Hattie Ajderian: Fair Trade

It would have been nice to have kept this debate somewhat private, as I have no intention of causing unecessary damage to someone's political career. However when a prospective MP posts an offensively naive article on free trade, and then deletes your reasoned comment.... this is the only way to counteract the original article.

What is the role of children in fair trade? Hattie describes a recent talk she gave to Yr 6, clearly she sees children as an important means to help development. I disagree. Fair Trade is a rather odd notion, since surely any trade that is voluntarily made is fair? If we buy our chocolate based on a combination of taste and price, the "best" chocolate producers will be rewarded, and can expand. This is the market. If we value other things, like the wages of the workers who produced the chocolate, we could end up being counter-productive by initiating an artificial wage floor, which create unemployment and misdirected resources. The idea that the reason third world farmers are poor, is because we do not fully consider the wide impact of our consumption choices seems somewhat wrong.
Rather, the largest barrier to development in this instance is the trade restrictions that prevent developing farmers from gaining access to lucrative markets such as the EU. So who prevents free trade? To offer pay or working conditions above the level that a free-maket would generate, someone has to pay for it. Labour policy is to use subsidy and protection to make domestic industry better off, and necessarily this harms foreign producers. The problem with trade, is UK policy that restricts it and favours the jobs of Englishman over the jobs of Bolivians.

If I had a child that attended this talk, I'd have been deeply angered that a group of young children were being lectured on the problems of trade by a Labour candidate, or any politician for that matter. It is up to children to buy whatever chocolate bar they like the taste of, and to not worry about the poverty in developing countries. By trading with poorer countries, they are helping them. It is the most beautiful thing we can do, and we do it without even noticing. We should not insinuate that poverty has anything to do with the action of children.

Rather, politicians are on the side of the domestic producers and multi-national corporations that benefit from restricted trade. Since they are the ones voting on policy it is entirely clear that if Hattie wants to trade out of poverty then the first place to look is in the mirror. If elected in Bath, it will be her decisions that directly consign millions to poverty, and so she should divert her energy into pursuading fellow politicians that trade is beautiful.

Of course, as Hattie says:

As for hypocrisy, you don't know what my views are, you're assuming.

Sadly, if you do not present your views it is entirely valid for me to make the assumption that they correspond to your chosen political party. If not, I await your correction.

I welcome your response so this issue can be discussed further.

UK Political Weblogs

A blog is a vehicle, and therefore is not good or bad in itself. Politicians that blog are therefore providing no great service by default, rather it is up to them to provide a blog that performs a service, and is useful.

Following pressure from Tim Ireland, a blossoming number of UK politicians have their own presence on the internet, and people jumping on the bandwagon could be confused into thinking we're heralding a new era of e-democracy. Wrong. Unlike The Ideal Government Project, where geniune policy is being generated, most politicians weblogs are notable in their mediocrity. Filter^ readers are aware of Tom Watson MP, whose recent, sporadic posts offer little new. His job is not to post news before the BBC or Guardian, it's to help his constituents. Shaun Woodward is leading the way in utilising the rich potential of an accessable medium, and if it weren't for the Spectator controversy the good intentions of Boris Johnson might have born more fruit.

Would we be heralding a new era of e-plumbing if members of that profession began blogging their thoughts on the US election? Politicians: lets have a bit more substance, and when challenged, try not to ignore the debate.

The Internet 2.0

This internet is made for people.
The next generation will be made for your computers.

At a recent conference in San Francisco, organised by Tim O'Reilly, the future of the internet was plotted. (Note: plotted, not planned.)

It seems to concentrate on the networking of Wi-Fi, global posiiton system (GPS) and radio frequency identification tages (RFID) to integrate platforms. In a USA Today article:

"The big change is going to be when the Internet follows you, not you trying to follow the Internet," says Motorola CEO Ed Zander. "It's just there. Your life is just affected the way it's affected today by the lights in a room."

For example you've got a plane to catch and there's a car crash on the road to the airport. You're notified by email immediately, which searches mapquest and offers an alternative route. It also lists later flights which you can select. In doing so, the tickets are automatically purchased, the hire car at the other end re-booked and emails sent to the missus to tell her what's going on. Or footie practice is postponed, and since you're home computer's diary is connected to the feed you're immediately notified and told what movies are playing instead. You select one, the tickets are automatically purchased and directions to the cinema is automatically sent to your in-car navigation device. At the cinema, you watch a film where rampant technology means robots take over the planet.

Check out the search engine Snap, which emerged at the conference.

Also, whilst on the subject of the internet I recently bought two large canvasses from eBay (another Big Red Little Red??) and paid via an e-check. On arrival, one canvass had been torn but we didn't have postal insurance. I emailed the person who sold it to me, who has refunded the money for that canvas, and told me to keep it since it wasn't worth me posting it back. Whether the market mechanism (and the need for reputation) has constrained us into good behaviour, or if merely the market serves as a place where our innate goodness can function without being exploited.... it truly is remarkable.

A guide to Liverpool for the truly penitent

Firstly, an apology to those not interested in the Spectator controversy, but the pure hypocrasy of this Guardian article has really infuriated me.

he [Boris Johnson] may need some tips about that great city.

An echo of sectarian divisions can still be heard in football, so try not to confuse the two teams... Liverpool are the Catholic team and play in red at Anfield.... Everton are the Protestant team and play in blue at Goodison Park.

In Glasgow, religion defines football. In Liverpool, football is religion. Families are split between reds and blues, and there is scant religious animosity above the level of football rivalry. When Mo Johnston moved between the two Glasgow clubs the controversy was religion. When Nick B*rmby moved from Everton to Liverpool whilst the anger was religious, it was pure football. From an article on Toffeeweb explaining the religious history of Everton:

There appears to be little real evidence to suggest any strong relationship between support of Everton and adherence to either the Catholic or Protestant faiths. Parental family ties appear to have been much stronger, with many current Evertonians citing fathers or grandfathers (of either religion) who were true blue, through and through.

On an individual basis, it must have been comforting for some to draw a parallel between allegiance to the club, and faith in God. But on a larger perspective, it seems that many families united by their religious origins include both true blues and other misguided souls who are seduced by the red devils from hell, aka Liverpool FC.

A Liverpool fan is probably more likely to be a Catholic than an Evertonian, but to report it in the way that the Guardian has is not only innacurate, it tries to doctor a religious problem in Merseyside that doesn't exist. Indeed it generalises to such an extent that it paints an innacurate stereotype on the people of Liverpool. Which is exactly what The Spectator did, and exactly what this article was written to mock. Hypocrites all.

Having also read through how the Liverpool Echo have reported Boris' trip, I'm left on the side of the buffoon. Ignorance is not a crime, and he's apologised for the part of the article I disagreed with. The media circus wasn't his fault, and he had the balls to appear on radio and discuss the issue. He's also not hollow, and refuses to retract the gist of the piece, even when confronted by some very emotive pressure. Also, The Spectator has a circulation of 7 from the main WH Smith in town: by moving to America I affected the readership by over 10%!

Boris Johnson's statement

From his website:

So it struck me that a large part of the crowd was in a sense rebelling against an imposed sentiment; and that made me think about a leader on the difficulties of the culture of sentimentality in modern Britain. No doubt I shall be strongly criticized for saying this, but I still believe that the underlying point of that editorial was serious, and was worth pondering.....

I repeat that in so far as the leader made a serious point about
risk and sentimentality, and the culture of blame, I stick by it. In so far as it imposed an outdated stereotype on the whole of Liverpool, and thereby caused offence, I sincerely apologise.

No admission over the actual author, mind. The worst thing about this is the swarms of people who've defended a point Boris admits that the Spectator was wrong to make.

UK, Buy Seinfeld, NOW!!!

The BBC never gave Seinfeld a chance. Generally scheduled to be shown at 11 p.m. or later, I remember sitting up waiting for the finally two episodes to be shown, only to be informed that BBC2 was to show snooker highlights instead...Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps, on the other hand, was handed prime comedy slots series after series.

It always surprises me that a nation that created, and now still enjoys, the Simpsons and Seinfeld can votes for a leader like Bush. Anyway, you can buy the first three seasons of Seinfeld on DVD! Buy it here.