This is From Arse To Elbow's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following From Arse To Elbow's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
From Arse To Elbow
Recent Activity
It's always worth remembering that very few people conceive of themselves as living in a liberal society, beyond the anodynes of "minding one's own business" and "not hurting anyone". The anxiety of liberalism - constant competition, self-improvement, maximising assets - is a class characteristic, just like psychotherapy. There is a vast, cross-class market for social media like Facebook, but there is a much smaller market for personal surveillance, the smart home and the exploitation of one's own data. What's on you mind? Quite possibly cake.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on who wants to know? at potlatch
Perhaps you give too much weight to the idea that the "right" is made up of "free marketeers" who laud superstars and decry cronyism. The primacy of property (whose "ladder" obscures actual income scales) and the associated privileging of inheritance would suggest that the dominant strain of thought on the right today is distinctly pro-inequality and little cares how it arose. I believe this is called conservativism.
Mike Shupp makes a good point that "skunkworks" were (and I use the past tense deliberately) a product of a historical moment in American industry. Many of the firms that pursued this approach had the "luxury" of tolerant Department of Defense contracts, notably during the military investment surge of the 60s and 70s. Many of these same firms had close ties with DoD-funded research institutions, such as Stanford and CaltTech, with the result that the idea pollinated a number of early technology companies that were incubated in the same environment. By the time that Google adopted it, it was pretty old-hat. One interpretation would be that the migration of the idea from the defense to the commercial tech sector reflected the "peace dividend" of the 90s. Today, skunkworks is largely honoured in the breach, with "own time" treated as a self-regarding perk rather than an efficiency measure. The focus should not be on trying to get the corporate world to "tune in, turn on and drop out" (for many, skunkworks is just more CSR blather), but on developing mass innovation via the "own time" enabled through a basic income.
Ex-public schoolboy suggests a government minister was "a bloody good bloke". And this is news?
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2015 on "A nice guy" at Stumbling and Mumbling
Families adopt multiple budgeting strategies by force of circumstance, including fixed sum or percentage (e.g. entertainment), zero-based (kids), hypothecation (any bonuses towards the holiday fund), rationing (turn the heating off), and trade-offs (buy own-brand food). The problem is that government seems to be less sophisticated, hence the aversion to hypothecation, the poor public debate about NHS rationing, and the unwillingness to do proper zero-based (e.g. deriving the defence budget from a realistic threat analysis). The irony is that their tacit defence for this incoherent approach is the lack of political sophistication on the part of the public.
Smithers focuses on a particular mechanism - that bonuses incentivise short-termism and deter long-term investment - but there is another possible explanation, namely that there is a competition for funds between the capex schedule and the bonus pool. It's worth remembering that the bonus culture has spread to most layers of management over the last 30 years, so the bonus pool is now a very large item in many companies finances. It's not just City banks or C-level executives any more.
The simple answer to your opening question is: because they are frustrated. There is a lot of anger around at the moment, and some of this will inevitably erupt in "thickness". Though these incidents may appear regrettable in isolation, it is also worth considering them in aggregate, and in that context, social change comes about through struggle not by polite requests. It would be an unhealthy sign for the left in this country if no one was angry right now. I haven't seen the Carswell footage, but that's because I don't need to. I already have a "worst image" in my mind, planted there by years of media exposure, that would merely be "reinforced". If the left is activist, it will be characterised as violent, undemocratic and strident by the right. Even the soft-left will accuse it of "tactical naivety" (cf 1984). It it sits on its hands, it will be derided as weak and ineffective. @MatGB, most historians consider the combination of the 'gettes and the 'gists to have been crucial in securing female suffrage. The one did not undermine the other. That said, historians also consider the key to extending the vote was actually the introduction of universal male suffrage in 1918 - i.e. women rode in on a tide of sentiment that was driven more by male sacrifice than women's war work. It's worth noting that states that introduced universal male suffrage well before WW1 were among the latest to grant equality to women (e.g. France). If the Chartists had succeeded, British women might not have got the vote before WW2.
@Neil Wilson, "large businesses get any productivity effects largely from oligopolistic practices". Oligopolistic (or monopolistic) practices can boost profits, and this can be misinterpreted as an increase in productivity, however this tends to be a one-off (you maximise your gains early) and can thus be distinguished from steady productivity growth. You're also implying a narrow measure of productivity - i.e. profit rather than turnover. On average, larger firms have higher rates of productivity growth than smaller firms because of higher levels of capital utilisation, more skilled workers and economies of scale. Yes, they suffer from bureaucracy and other structural inefficiencies, but this is outweighed by the advantages of size. Old firms can suffer from entropy, but they can also take advantage of deep tacit knowledge, established market relationships and employee loyalty. There are pluses and minuses. Most young firms fail because of incompetence - i.e. they're not sufficiently good at what they do to supplant incumbents. What you want is a mixed economy in terms of firm size and age, as much as a mix in terms of sector and skillset, as this provides the greatest aggregate resilience and flexibility. The imbalance of the UK economy today is not just about London or financial services, or productive vs distributive, but the growing share of small, inefficient and unprofitable firms. Our creative destruction is insufficiently creative.
Toggle Commented May 23, 2015 on Blair vs the Blairites at Stumbling and Mumbling
Encouraging smaller businesses will, ceteris paribus, depress aggregate productivity. Also, bear in mind that most unskilled migrant labour is employed by small firms, not by large ones. What we need are more large worker-controlled businesses, but that would require a degree of market intervention that is well outside the Overton Window. If Blair's triangulation sought to reconcile big capital and labour, the current mood (essentially manoeuvring ahead of the EU referendum) appears to be focused on reconciling big and small capital. I think Kendall reflects this zeitgeist, rather than any misundertanding of Blair's record.
Toggle Commented May 22, 2015 on Blair vs the Blairites at Stumbling and Mumbling
A workers' cooperative is a business. A prosititute is a business. Russell Brand is a business. Noam Chomsky is a business. The point, of course, is that we interpret "business" to suit our interests. For some, pro-business means less "red tape" and fewer labour regulations. For other businesses it means the opposite - e.g. EPL footballers or Hollywood actors. One of the ideological tricks of the "business" trope is to obscure the different interests of different forms of capital. @Metatone, the standard credit days (28 or 30) haven't changed in a century. This is despite telegraphy, telex, email, BACS, SWIFT etc, not to mention ERP and accounting systems. A change would produce winners and losers (i.e. who gets more days of earned interest), so the dominant party (the buyer - which, at an aggregate level, means big business) will not countenance change. This is not about capability but power. You probably knew that. @Matt Moore, your claim, "the defining feature of the market is actually cooperation", only makes sense if you beieve that transactions tend to be mutually-beneficial. But this assumes that markets are essentially neutral - that they do not encode any prior advantage or systemic bias - which experience would suggest is an optimistic belief at best.
Toggle Commented May 22, 2015 on Pro-growth, anti-business at Stumbling and Mumbling
Metatone makes a plausible case for what is essentially a managerialist tactic (albeit an effective one, in Chris's terms), namely the appointment of an interim CEO. I suspect this may happen anyway, for structural reasons. Labour's problem is that the Blair years have weakened the institutional capability of the party to listen to both members and supporters, having replaced an active (and therefore troublesome) organisation with a passive one, and having made autonomy suspect (thus handing the SNP a gift in Scotland). The legacy of Philip Gould is a party incapable of generating new thinking from the grassroots, as opposed to taste-tasting the output of thinktanks and the media bubble. As a post-democratic party, Labour finds itself lacking a democratic culture at precisely the point when it needs one most. The decision this week to have a four-month leadership election process is an obvious compromise between the Blairite desire for an early coronation by acclamation and the non-Blairite desire for the party conference to act as a hustings. It would have made more sense to adopt a split strategy: appoint an interim leader now (if Harman isn't up the job, why was she appointed Deputy in the first place?); and spend the next 2-3 years rebuilding the party's democratic capability from the ground up. Of course, the very idea of democracy will give some grandees the heebie-jeebies, but if there is one cause that is genuinely common to the fragmentation of Labour support across the SNP, Greens and UKIP, it is the failure of representation.
@Steven Clarke, John Locke's theories on property conveniently denied rights to the land to Native Americans, on the erroneous basis that they did not cultivate or enclose it, and thus did not "mix their labour", in his narrow definition. You can take it as read that the "others" referred to in his caveat did not include either Native Americans or African slaves (Locke was an investor in the slave trade and was involved in the drafting of Carolina's slavery-friendly Constitution). Locke stands in a long line of philosophers, historians and anthropologists who have excused the theft of land from indigenous peoples by denying their agency, denigrating their technology and insisting on their essential childishness or fecklessness - i.e implying that they did not deserve to own land. You'll also notice that his theory privileges first-movers. For example, if I invest more of my labour in a small area of another man's field than he does, by cutting the grass with a pair of scissors and removing every pebble with a pair of tweezers, this does not give me a superior claim to that land. Locke is defending existing property distributions generally, and the seizure of America specifically.
Toggle Commented May 16, 2015 on Hating libertarians at Stumbling and Mumbling
Caplan gets closest to the truth when notes that intellectually-coherent libertarians (who he describes as "self-conscious") are vanishingly few in number. The problem is all those other bastards who claim to be libertarians but are just reactionary poltroons or instrumental neoliberals advancing corporate power. What many people despise about self-identifying libertarians is their insincerity.
Toggle Commented May 15, 2015 on Hating libertarians at Stumbling and Mumbling
@Ehsan, so you're equating voter turnout at a constituencey level with apathy as it pertains to a specific party? Presumably this apathy is contagious, otherwise highly-motivated Tories could have won Manchester Central etc. Labour seats usually have a lower turnout than the national average. This is because of two correlations: labour seats tend to be more working class (and thus urban); and working class people tend to turnout less than the middle class. There is nothing new in this, so you cannot interpret the 2015 result as indicating an increase in apathy among potential Labour supporters. You can find a turnout breakdown by constituency for earlier elections at http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
Toggle Commented May 12, 2015 on Wanted: a new Blair at Stumbling and Mumbling
@Luis, re "Does anybody actually do things like talk to voters ... to ask them why they voted as they did?" This will be going on now. The earliest feedback I've seen is from the Tories' favourite pollster, Michael Ashcroft. http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Post-vote-poll-summary1.pdf http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Post-vote-poll-GE-2015-150507-Full-tables.pdf The "reasons" and "issues" questions are an obvious case of selection bias, but the data on vote-shifts (pg 14 of the 2nd doc) is interesting, mainly because it gives the lie to a few of the immediately popular interpretations.
Toggle Commented May 12, 2015 on Wanted: a new Blair at Stumbling and Mumbling
@Phil, re the "Great Mystery Tory Swing of 2015". There really is no mystery about this. The Tories increased their vote share by 0.8% nationally (1.5% in England), whereas Labour increased by 1.5% nationally (3.5% in England). The "swing" was from the LibDems to (in descending order of the quantum of votes shifted) UKIP, Labour and the Tories. The reason this translated into a Tory majority was because they picked up lots of LibDem seats in the South and South-West, whereas Labour's improvement was too weak to pick up enough of their target marginals. The election was won and lost in Torbay and Twickenham. It is possible their inhabitants are particularly keen on one-party government, but a more likely explanation is that they were just Yellow Tories all along.
Toggle Commented May 12, 2015 on Wanted: a new Blair at Stumbling and Mumbling
@Luis, re "Guardian columnists that are not Blairites". Do you mean Matthew D'Ancona, Simon Jenkins, Ian Birrell, Melissa Kite et al?
Toggle Commented May 12, 2015 on Wanted: a new Blair at Stumbling and Mumbling
@Ehsan, re " the north is primed for a takeover by UKIP - they came second in the majority of the northern constituencies". UKIP did indeed come 2nd in many northern constituencies, but Labour typically increased their vote in those same constituencies, so "apathy was highest in Labour heartlands" isn't right. In net vote terms, UKIP's rise was largely at the expense of the LibDems (with a little bit of erosion of the already low Tory vote in the North). This could mask lots of Labour voters heading to UKIP being backfilled by incoming LibDem refugees, but that in itself is not a portent of doom for Labour unless you think both that the LibDems are going to bounce back in 2020 and that the EU referendum will not have happened (i.e. keeping UKIP going).
Toggle Commented May 12, 2015 on Wanted: a new Blair at Stumbling and Mumbling
I think you can interpret Johnson's use of the word "aspiration" in two ways. The generous interpretation is that it is a synonym for hope: a better tomorrow, opportunity for all etc. The less generous interpretation is that it is code for business/rich-friendly. The comment by Ben Bradshaw, that Labour needs to "celebrate our entrepreneurs and wealth creators and not leave the impression they are part of the problem", would suggest the latter interpretation is the more likely. Like the Bourbons, the Blairites seem to have learnt nothing.
Toggle Commented May 9, 2015 on "Aspiration" at Stumbling and Mumbling
I'm dubious that a decline in commitment among the young and poor since the 80s can be explained as "learned helplessness". Before you know it, you'll be claiming that there are families who haven't voted in three generations. Allowing for the structural factors of education and wealth, I suspect a lot of the "tuning-out" (as the IPPR put it) reflects the shift in the popular political agenda since the 80s, notably the focus on house prices and tax cuts. I think the "I'm not interested" response is closely related to the "politics is not for the likes of us" response. The root issue is representation, which perhaps explains why the SNP appears to be doing a lot better in attracting the young and the poor to the polling station. Like Dennis, I will be interested to see the turnout breakdown in Scotland on Thursday. The lesson for Labour is that traditional bankers like the NHS are not enough (not least because the NHS discourse has always been dominated by the middle class). Wages and welfare are the core issues for both the poor and the young (even middle class youth are likely to have some exposure to the welfare system early on), which is why Reeves's comments were so tin-eared.
@Steven Clarke You appear to be equating economics with "the market". They are not the same thing at all. The former can be thought of as the justification for interventions - i.e. the admission that something can be done - which presumes that all markets are embedded within society and thus subject to human control. The latter is a metaphysical concept that assumes a clear separation between the spheres of society and the market, with the presumption that the latter is beyond our full understanding or control (the invisible hand, the coordination problem etc).
Toggle Commented May 2, 2015 on "Serious" politics at Stumbling and Mumbling
Re "one might ask why there is no political party with entirely sound economics" Politics can be thought of as an argument about the rightful place of economics in public affairs, relative to morality, security etc. The uber-right would argue a minimum (laissez-faire); the uber-left would argue a maximum (economics is social). Short of full socialism, economic debate will always be subject to subversion, e.g. the "maxed-out national credit card" trope and other mediamacro classics. The competition for power produces a maximum of understanding (I'm sure George Osborne understands and accepts the paradox of thrift) and a minimum of admission (he acts as if he's never heard of it). No party can be too explicit about its understanding of economic theory as that would restrict its room for manoeuvre when allocating economic privileges. You don't want to be hoist by your own petard. Politicians generally treat economics instrumentally (Thatcher's admiration for Hayek and Friedman was philosophical, not technical). Since the Lawson/Walters farce, politicians have been careful to keep economic theory off-stage, unless it can serve a narrow, tactical purpose (e.g. Reinhart/Rogoff). There is an informal agreement across all the main parties to keep it this way (arguably, a key part of the neoliberal code), safe in the knowledge that fringe parties can be relied on to sabotage their own advocacy (e.g. the Greens bollix re a basic income). In the circumstances, it is surprising we don't have more parties that deny the very existence of economics (mind you, UKIP comes close).
Toggle Commented May 1, 2015 on "Serious" politics at Stumbling and Mumbling
@Steven, the comparison between Tesco and Google is revealing. As gastro george noted, the driving force in retail is selling customers to suppliers. This was the dynamic behind the introduction of loyalty cards in the 90s and Tesco's notorious charges to suppliers. Their problem was that they were simultaneously persisting with an older and more expensive form of information-gathering, i.e. opening up new superstores, while the competition were diverting their capital to online shopping. Though home deliveries and click-n-collect are more expensive for supermarkets (estimated to be about £15 a load), the quid pro quo is a huge improvement in customer data and thus the potential for greater lock-in. The recent decline in loyalty card schemes, like the replacement of superstores with "dark stores", shows the extent to which the lock-in dynamic is shifting from loyalty (i.e. customer familiarity with a retailer) to expectation (i.e. retailer knowledge of a customer). The cost of retail logistics continues to fall, as does the cost of acquiring customer data. In parallel, the market for goods (i.e. the global middle-class) continues to expand. For this reason, the future actually looks as rosy for Tesco as for Google. Both are data mediators. Tesco's recent mistake (perhaps polluted by UK ideology) was to think it was also a property magnate.
Toggle Commented Apr 27, 2015 on The knowledge problem at Stumbling and Mumbling
@Steven, there are two tendencies at work here. The fall in traditional transaction costs has allowed many corporations to shrink by making outsourcing and sub-contracting easier. But the same forces that have enabled this (IT and the legislative framework of globalisation) have also made it cheap to gather the sort of information that was once prohibitively expensive (e.g. customer preference data). A good example of this is Google Street View. The camera-car drivers are subcontractors; Google now has a dataset of images that hitherto would have been unfeasible to create. In terms of reach and market dominance, Google is a lot bigger than GE, Ford or US Steel ever were.
Toggle Commented Apr 25, 2015 on The knowledge problem at Stumbling and Mumbling
Dmcdougall says "a well-run small company should have certain advantages against a larger competitor because it can gather and act on information more efficiently". But the evidence, in terms of profitability and productivity, is that large companies are more efficient - that's why they get to be large. We shouldn't be distracted by the ideological fluff of "nimbleness" and "disruption". The economy is dominated by large businesses that have become larger over the last 40 years not because of globalisation (which is symptomatic) but because they have become more efficient as bureaucracies. Hayek (like von Mises) is of declining relevance because his pessimistic worldview was the product of Hapsburg bureaucracy as much as a fear of communism. He was unable to appreciate the impact that information technology would have on (commercial) central planning. Instead of Gosplan we got Google. The "Hayek threshold" sounds like a variant on Coase, given that the transaction costs of a firm are largely the costs of information-aggregation - i.e. knowing what is going on in a timely enough manner to take action. When businesses talk about "focus" or "control" when making out/in-source decisions, they are usually talking about the cost of information. As technology has driven the cost of information down, and allowed the exploitation of whole new classes of data, so the size of big business (in terms of reach and market dominance) has increased. Ironically, this has also allowed the boundaries of the business (in terms of beneficiaries) to be reduced, which means that a global corporation can still pretend to be an upstart.
Toggle Commented Apr 25, 2015 on The knowledge problem at Stumbling and Mumbling