Another Blow Against Death by Banality

The BBC reports (with the usual if somewhat tepid bias) that the US Senate has had it's "Net Neutrality" bill killed off.

The bill aimed to stop ISPs from acting as online gatekeepers controlling the content flowing through their pipes.

Let's look at this again through individualist eyes and highlight the key words to see where it failed:

The bill aimed to stop ISPs from acting as online gatekeepers controlling the content flowing through their pipes.

"You know that thing you own and manage? Well now you don't own or manage it- ta da!"

It's good to see the Obama's ideas come crashing down; it is also good to see the TEA party getting so little mention as it again illustrates the extremely limited understanding the BBC has for what is going on, and why it is failing convincingly overall.

Net neutrality is just the next frontier in pushing egalitarian and failed socialist doctrines into yet another media sphere: that because their is inequality of a commodity that this somehow needs to be fixed and/or can only be fixed by government; it isn't always necessary and govt., as should be patently obvious by anyone lately, is the least good way of bringing about change for the better.

You want better coverage of left-wing ideological concepts? present something other than generic bilge, hope enough people read it and garner the advertising and popularity that drives greater bandwidth; heck, Maddox manages to support higher connection by the millions of viewers to his site utilising the thousands made and he posts something maybe once every few months.

Why is the collectivist's first reaction to a problem always to wish it away with government intervention? You see a mountain you need to cross you don't force someone at gun point to dig a hole through it or blow it to mulch and rubble, you climb it and feel rewarded by the endeavour.

Otherwise every molehill becomes impassable.

Fun With Numbers

Mark Serwotka writes today that their is an "alternative" to public spending cuts; predictably his answer boils down to "not cutting his meal ticket":

If, as Osborne plans, we sack 600,000 public servants in the coming years that is 600,000 people with no income, on benefits – since few jobs are being created. They will spend less in the economy, which combined with cutting public capital spending, will have a knock-on effect in the private sector. Cutting 600,000 public sector jobs will lead to 700,000 private sector job losses. We know this, because the document telling Osborne this from his own Office for Budget Responsibility was leaked to this newspaper at the end of June.

Fascinating; let's look at this another way:

The percentage difference between the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (£539 per week) and the private sector (£465 per week) widened over the year to April 2009, following annual increases of 3.1 per cent and 1.0 per cent respectively.
(From here)

So the cost of firing these people in terms of lost earnings is £33.75Bn. Measured against the average welfare payout (I'll generously say it's £17.5k) in terms of the afforded benefits in kind means the cost in added welfare payouts is £22.75Bn, meaning we make a net saving of £11Bn; a healthy swipe at the structural deficit and one that the markets will certainly take notice of.

Let's make a wilder assumption here: say Osbo takes this 10% drop in the number of public sector plebs and marks it with a resultant drop in the amount of work it dips it's oar in, e.g. winds down every NHS PCT passing funds directly into GPs hands or adopts a full educational voucher system and privatises education provision voiding local education authorities en masse or passes logistic control of the army to generals and reforms the MOD thusly; let's say 10% of government spending based on that's £66.1Bn.

In total we have saved £72Bn just by cutting these numbers and several of those assume that their us no splash effect on the economy; we don't take into account that those unemployed civil servants will not remain unemployed for long or that private education providers will become net contributors to the tax pot than detractors (though this strays dangerously close to Seworta's neo-Keynesian assertion that we should continue to dig holes for others to fill, which is just silly). None of which takes into account how inefficient public funding is processed - if we accept a conservative value of say £1 in 4 is wasted just by churning it through HMRC then we put £90Bn back in the economy instantly.

Numbers are fun yes?

Some People REALLY Love Public Transport

Via the Good Dr. North.

In other news Bob Crow has been remanded in custody for molesting Transport for London.

That Bible Burning Preachers Actions in Context

As Hamas completed its conquest of Gaza last Thursday, a spokesman for the group appeared on Palestinian television and announced the “end of secularism and heresy in the Gaza Strip.”

Shortly after, a group of militants stormed the Latin Church and the adjacent Rosary Sisters School in Gaza City, reportedly using rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors.

After gaining entrance, the rampaging jihadists burned every Bible and destroyed every cross they could get their hands on before setting both buildings alight, according to sources who spoke to Israel Today.

This doesn't excuse Pastor Jones of his actions, but when I hear of the constant persecution of us kuffir in lands with large muslim populations, of churches built on charitable donations demolished by the state in Nigeria on spurious grounds, ex-muslim converts skinned alive along with their families in Saudi Arabia whilst our quisling government and that of the USA wring their hands at their own people burning paper.

Course who can blame them? They've been sucking at the bond-buying teat of oil-producing countries for decades to hide the fact that they've sold our children into penury so their client-voter base can be sated on borrowed money.

The rank dishonesty and hypocrisy of all involved stinks to high heaven; expect God to illustrate his displeasure. Amen.

Alcohol Tax in Context

Following the Scottish governments plans for a minimum price for alcohol it seems that for all their bleating about the increasing abuse of the demon drink we are drinking less of it.

Al Jahom has put it succinctly enough in the blogosphere, however, it is worth relaying the words of Sian, our local off-licence shopkeeper.

He pointed out that during Brown's period as Pillock in Chief and Chancellor there were no increases in the duty costs of Whiskey; incidentally duty on cider was more or less half of what it is for wine and beer.

So we have a situation where Brown, a serial tax riser who would rip off his own granny for her pension to pay for another vote to keep him in power, avoiding an obvious port of call for a grab, on a product synonymous with Scottish industry and exports.

Incidentally when Brown tried to raise the duty on cider it was later dropped by Cameron, a man who owes what pitiful support he got at the last election to a few core southern constituencies in farm areas, run by red nosed farmers producing large volumes of scrumpy.

Not questioning the underlying wrongness of them taxing the crap out of us for shits and giggles isn't it wrong that this is a turf war between the Jock-mafia and the Turnip Taliban?