The stars howled in the void. We don't think of stars howling - but what do we know?
How often have you yearned to be hugged? Don't you think the stars feel the same way? Only a few million years ago they were close to their family, when the universe was young - but then they were hurled away, destined to go further and further from their brothers and sisters.
Only the gravitational death of a black hole brings them together again - but who wants to be that close.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Financial crisis - poor vs rich
If the economy is going well, my understanding is that the rich do pretty well, and the poor can get jobs and survive ok; the middle earners get pay rises, maybe move up a car class, or something.
If the economy "tanks" as they call it, what happens?
Pretty sad when you think about it:
Poor people lose jobs, have to cut back on everything;
middle earners have to tighten their belts, but are ok if they keep their jobs;
rich people get to buy up stuff on the cheap - houses, businesses, whatever.
A recession is actually good for those with money - they can pick and choose their employees, their assets, and generally bargain hunt. Everyone else is in trouble and cutting back.
Doesn't seem very fair. In times of crisis perhaps the rich could be persuaded to give back some of the money they made off the backs of the poor and average earners, to keep those people in jobs and keep the economy moving...
But, as I've thought many times before - where does it say life is fair?
If the economy "tanks" as they call it, what happens?
Pretty sad when you think about it:
Poor people lose jobs, have to cut back on everything;
middle earners have to tighten their belts, but are ok if they keep their jobs;
rich people get to buy up stuff on the cheap - houses, businesses, whatever.
A recession is actually good for those with money - they can pick and choose their employees, their assets, and generally bargain hunt. Everyone else is in trouble and cutting back.
Doesn't seem very fair. In times of crisis perhaps the rich could be persuaded to give back some of the money they made off the backs of the poor and average earners, to keep those people in jobs and keep the economy moving...
But, as I've thought many times before - where does it say life is fair?
Friday, July 22, 2011
Average
Here's the difference in temperature averages between where I grew up (Southend on Sea, Essex, UK) and here (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada):
Lowest low average: Southend = 4 degrees C in February; Ottawa = -14 degrees C in January
Highest high average: Southend = 21 degrees C in August; Ottawa = 26 degrees C in July.
Southend difference: 17 degrees C. Ottawa: 40 degrees C.
Crikey.
Info from here and here (with pretty graphs).
Lowest low average: Southend = 4 degrees C in February; Ottawa = -14 degrees C in January
Highest high average: Southend = 21 degrees C in August; Ottawa = 26 degrees C in July.
Southend difference: 17 degrees C. Ottawa: 40 degrees C.
Crikey.
Info from here and here (with pretty graphs).
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Work - wages
Pretty interesting stats on CBC today - here.
The poor-rich gap is widening. The trickle-down effect is clearly not trickling enough down.
I wonder what an equitable society might look like - without leading to the grinding poverty of communism.
Wages capped at 5x minimum wage? After all, an hour of work is an hour of work. Forget the training and expense that goes into doing the job - though allowances could be made for those. Say university tuition costs - loan repayments could be taken from the employer rather than the employee, directly, and then fed into a fund so that future generations wouldn't have to take on the debt at all.
From that arises the question - how would you get people to do the boring pointless jobs? And what incentive would there be to work hard, to get "ahead"? Depends if you think people get ahead tend to do it on the backs of the hard work of others I suppose!
We might not have so excellent football teams - or go back to the *national* teams being the best, with local talent leading to the rise or fall of any club, rather than international owners paying millions. Would that be a bad thing?
One thing that is clear to me is that, to some extent, the very rich just lock up money that would otherwise cause huge inflation. Say all the money in the country (UK, Canada, doesn't matter) was distributed equally - each person got an equal portion.
What would happen to the price of milk? Bread?
Those prices would rise because everyone would have more currency. In a short enough time, some people would become very rich, and most would stay poor.
Perhaps we need to zap! public and private debt, impose very high death duties and gift taxes, and cap all wages to something "reasonable" (which could easily be done by tax - 95% tax on all income above $60,000, say).
I don't know. I need to read up on why communism failed (just corruption? Surely a fair price for bread is, er, fair!). But I know that getting money simply through having money is just crazy - and unjust.
Perhaps some yearly redistribution of wealth - based on relatives, averages, percentages rather than numbers. The richest 50% will have their income reduced while the poorest 50% will have theirs increased. Not to promote laziness through state hand outs - there would need to be a counter for that.
The poor-rich gap is widening. The trickle-down effect is clearly not trickling enough down.
I wonder what an equitable society might look like - without leading to the grinding poverty of communism.
Wages capped at 5x minimum wage? After all, an hour of work is an hour of work. Forget the training and expense that goes into doing the job - though allowances could be made for those. Say university tuition costs - loan repayments could be taken from the employer rather than the employee, directly, and then fed into a fund so that future generations wouldn't have to take on the debt at all.
From that arises the question - how would you get people to do the boring pointless jobs? And what incentive would there be to work hard, to get "ahead"? Depends if you think people get ahead tend to do it on the backs of the hard work of others I suppose!
We might not have so excellent football teams - or go back to the *national* teams being the best, with local talent leading to the rise or fall of any club, rather than international owners paying millions. Would that be a bad thing?
One thing that is clear to me is that, to some extent, the very rich just lock up money that would otherwise cause huge inflation. Say all the money in the country (UK, Canada, doesn't matter) was distributed equally - each person got an equal portion.
What would happen to the price of milk? Bread?
Those prices would rise because everyone would have more currency. In a short enough time, some people would become very rich, and most would stay poor.
Perhaps we need to zap! public and private debt, impose very high death duties and gift taxes, and cap all wages to something "reasonable" (which could easily be done by tax - 95% tax on all income above $60,000, say).
I don't know. I need to read up on why communism failed (just corruption? Surely a fair price for bread is, er, fair!). But I know that getting money simply through having money is just crazy - and unjust.
Perhaps some yearly redistribution of wealth - based on relatives, averages, percentages rather than numbers. The richest 50% will have their income reduced while the poorest 50% will have theirs increased. Not to promote laziness through state hand outs - there would need to be a counter for that.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Society is a funny construct
Just look at all the stuff we spend our time doing.
Over the last few hundred years, we've become less and less involved with producing real things. From making thread by hand to a spinning jenny to vast machines - first powered by water, then by electricity - and likewise from doing this manufacturing in every home, to outside the town, to certain regions within a country... to the other side of the world entirely.
Think about that. Each time we've been able to do more, it's become "more expensive". It's completely backward logic.
The same is true with food - from a person farming on their own, then with horses or oxen, to mechanised tractors capable of doing more work in an hour than a man could in a day, a week, a year.
It's true - the relative cost of food has come down. In the West, our expenditure on food is something like 10% of our income, rather than 30%.
But what, then, do we do? Unemployment is high because the machines have taken the work (this is a cry from down the ages - there were protests and violent opposition to the industrial revolution), and some suggest we work for the machines rather than them working for us.
There is so much "supporting" work now - providing a service for someone, several steps removed from a real thing. Or the "real thing" of the work being done taking a back seat to the administration - for example, this story relates that the Canadian Cancer Society spends just 22% of the money is raises on research into cancer.
Making 78% spent on marketing, administration, IT, etc, etc.
I could envisage a much more sensible society, where the Important Things in life are taken care of first (Food, Water, Housing, Heating; Education; Healthcare; Environmental Preservation) - after that, go for broke.
But surely, every last child should be fed, warm, and healthy before we go on holiday, or buy that 60" TV?
(I'm not suggesting I'm a saint that donates all my money to food banks; I feel strongly that the government should be able to provide these things to all, perhaps in exchange for labour or something. I also know that such programmes have historically led to abuse and misuse of funds).
I guess the issue is that we're a funny, ingenious, self-absorbed, clever bunch, and this seems to be a way that works - most people are safe, fed, educated. Over time we in the West can only hope that those parts, at least, of what we currently enjoy can spread to all.
I do feel that pushing a far higher proportion of people into spending at least a few years of their life growing food would be beneficial. As an alternative to university, perhaps - small scale agriculture, animal husbandry (which is a funny term if ever I saw one!), and the like.
I just don't understand the point of working in an office, except as a means to earn money to pay for the things that would be much better earned by growing/making them onesself.
The frustration, of course, is the cost of land. We are slaves (yes, I do mean that seriously - we have a choice but so very very few people are aware there are options other than to get a desk job, these days) to our mortgages, loans, credit cards; and mostly to our habits.
Me included. Move to the country, write books, grow food. Easy. Except I'm doing a desk job, saving up to buy a piece of land and figuring out how on earth I'll support myself if I really *do* stop with the office job.
It's a conundrum. And I don't want help in the form of a business loan, a commitment to something I cannot control.
Freedom... elusive, but very desirable. My freedom - different from your freedom, no doubt.
Could I make a country based on my ideals? Say - yes, UK/France/Canada, your system works - for you. I want to take this piece of land and live a different way - no hospitals, no taxes, no mandatory insurance. Just some books, a wood stove, some chickens...
I feel that a country should support its population. That we should live happy lives enabled by that country, rather than despite it.
Over the last few hundred years, we've become less and less involved with producing real things. From making thread by hand to a spinning jenny to vast machines - first powered by water, then by electricity - and likewise from doing this manufacturing in every home, to outside the town, to certain regions within a country... to the other side of the world entirely.
Think about that. Each time we've been able to do more, it's become "more expensive". It's completely backward logic.
The same is true with food - from a person farming on their own, then with horses or oxen, to mechanised tractors capable of doing more work in an hour than a man could in a day, a week, a year.
It's true - the relative cost of food has come down. In the West, our expenditure on food is something like 10% of our income, rather than 30%.
But what, then, do we do? Unemployment is high because the machines have taken the work (this is a cry from down the ages - there were protests and violent opposition to the industrial revolution), and some suggest we work for the machines rather than them working for us.
There is so much "supporting" work now - providing a service for someone, several steps removed from a real thing. Or the "real thing" of the work being done taking a back seat to the administration - for example, this story relates that the Canadian Cancer Society spends just 22% of the money is raises on research into cancer.
Making 78% spent on marketing, administration, IT, etc, etc.
I could envisage a much more sensible society, where the Important Things in life are taken care of first (Food, Water, Housing, Heating; Education; Healthcare; Environmental Preservation) - after that, go for broke.
But surely, every last child should be fed, warm, and healthy before we go on holiday, or buy that 60" TV?
(I'm not suggesting I'm a saint that donates all my money to food banks; I feel strongly that the government should be able to provide these things to all, perhaps in exchange for labour or something. I also know that such programmes have historically led to abuse and misuse of funds).
I guess the issue is that we're a funny, ingenious, self-absorbed, clever bunch, and this seems to be a way that works - most people are safe, fed, educated. Over time we in the West can only hope that those parts, at least, of what we currently enjoy can spread to all.
I do feel that pushing a far higher proportion of people into spending at least a few years of their life growing food would be beneficial. As an alternative to university, perhaps - small scale agriculture, animal husbandry (which is a funny term if ever I saw one!), and the like.
I just don't understand the point of working in an office, except as a means to earn money to pay for the things that would be much better earned by growing/making them onesself.
The frustration, of course, is the cost of land. We are slaves (yes, I do mean that seriously - we have a choice but so very very few people are aware there are options other than to get a desk job, these days) to our mortgages, loans, credit cards; and mostly to our habits.
Me included. Move to the country, write books, grow food. Easy. Except I'm doing a desk job, saving up to buy a piece of land and figuring out how on earth I'll support myself if I really *do* stop with the office job.
It's a conundrum. And I don't want help in the form of a business loan, a commitment to something I cannot control.
Freedom... elusive, but very desirable. My freedom - different from your freedom, no doubt.
Could I make a country based on my ideals? Say - yes, UK/France/Canada, your system works - for you. I want to take this piece of land and live a different way - no hospitals, no taxes, no mandatory insurance. Just some books, a wood stove, some chickens...
I feel that a country should support its population. That we should live happy lives enabled by that country, rather than despite it.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Norm
Every eccentric needs a norm from which to deviate.
Perhaps Greece won't pass the new austerity measures in their parliament? Or perhaps Greek people will begin to pay their taxes.
What should be the norm - and who should be allowed to deviate?
I was pretty interested by the coverage of the LGB Pride event in Toronto this last week - where the mayor (who is fairly blunt, conservative and not a "friend" of the Gay community) was booed for not having the "courage" to show up.
So.. er, the gay community doesn't want to tolerate people who don't think the community is the best thing since sliced bread?
Live and let live.. norms, eccentrics, gays, straights, whatever. Who cares - we're all individuals anyway!
Perhaps Greece won't pass the new austerity measures in their parliament? Or perhaps Greek people will begin to pay their taxes.
What should be the norm - and who should be allowed to deviate?
I was pretty interested by the coverage of the LGB Pride event in Toronto this last week - where the mayor (who is fairly blunt, conservative and not a "friend" of the Gay community) was booed for not having the "courage" to show up.
So.. er, the gay community doesn't want to tolerate people who don't think the community is the best thing since sliced bread?
Live and let live.. norms, eccentrics, gays, straights, whatever. Who cares - we're all individuals anyway!
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Greece, Euro
It's a funny thing, having feet on two continents. I read the BBC news most days, as well as a quick look on the CBC.
This whole thing with Greece.. it's a question of fairness, isn't it? Who has caused Greece to go so catastrophically under water - and why, rather like a drunk being forcefed whisky, are the Major European Powers trying to get Greece to take on more and more debt?
Self interest, obviously. And that's sad. It seems to me that Germany and France's governments are trying really hard to make sure their banks, that lent irresponsibly and caused Greece's problems (in part - the Greeks are of course partially to blame as well, but the banks should have measured the risk more carefully), are protected.
The banks are commercial entities. They are companies. Structures, legal entities - not people. The people running the banks were greedy/sheep and eventually turned out to be lemmings... except that their respective governments don't want them to actually die.
Perhaps, rather than foist further unrepayable debts onto the Greek people, the sovereign governments should buy the current debts from their own banks and write them off (in exchange for a stake in the banks in question).
Effect: Greek debt is smaller and more plausible - and so recovery more likely. The banks in question are less exposed to dodgy debt. The governments have more leverage with their banks.
Everyone wants to get their money back but the problem is that money didn't exist in the first place.
This whole thing with Greece.. it's a question of fairness, isn't it? Who has caused Greece to go so catastrophically under water - and why, rather like a drunk being forcefed whisky, are the Major European Powers trying to get Greece to take on more and more debt?
Self interest, obviously. And that's sad. It seems to me that Germany and France's governments are trying really hard to make sure their banks, that lent irresponsibly and caused Greece's problems (in part - the Greeks are of course partially to blame as well, but the banks should have measured the risk more carefully), are protected.
The banks are commercial entities. They are companies. Structures, legal entities - not people. The people running the banks were greedy/sheep and eventually turned out to be lemmings... except that their respective governments don't want them to actually die.
Perhaps, rather than foist further unrepayable debts onto the Greek people, the sovereign governments should buy the current debts from their own banks and write them off (in exchange for a stake in the banks in question).
Effect: Greek debt is smaller and more plausible - and so recovery more likely. The banks in question are less exposed to dodgy debt. The governments have more leverage with their banks.
Everyone wants to get their money back but the problem is that money didn't exist in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)