« Pub quiz answer | Main | The case for basic income »

April 13, 2005



"... the exponential rise in greenhouse gases ..."



So basically you like the Green party for everything other than its environmental and social wealth distribution policies?

Personally, if you spell globalization (sic) incorrectly then you don't get my vote.


The original quote spelt globalization the wrong way, with an s. I tidied up the spelling myself. -ize endings are good enough for the Globalization Institute, for Americans, for most English writers before the 20th century, and for the Oxford Review of Economic Policy:
-ise endings are, generally, a modern and French innovation. They are therefore to be opposed on two grounds. I refer you to the OED:


Good post. Sadly, you are right. A mix of very reasonable policies worth serious discussion, along with a mindset that occasionally allows them to slip into idiocy.

Phil Hunt

"""Secondly, they share the silly notion of the other parties that families and pensioners are legitimate targets of redistribution"""

If all parties think this, why's that a reason to not vote Green? Surely, it shouldn't affect how you vote, since all parties are equally bad in this area.

Green-Party.org.uk Webmaster

If you're intending to link to The Green Party's web site, the URL should be http://www.greenparty.org.uk/

Tim Worstall

Quite agree with all of the reasons above. Some excellent policies mixed with the utmost rubbish. Who where and when discredited comparative advantage?


chris: I prefer the French to the Americans. Plus I don't especially like the letter zed. Finally I live in the 21st century not the 19th or before - and I can't be asking Dickens how to spell, and let's be honest Shakespeare couldn't, and have your tried deciphering Louis Stevenson?

If we're going to debate Frenchisms then the americans drive on the right, whereas we drive on the correct Roman side of the road. The Americans call trousers pants (from the french), the americans call chips 'french fries' and they have the statue of liberty, and even made their colours red white and blue cos of the french - who stole it from the British anyway.

For Tim Worstall: driving on the left - another thing the Romans did for us :P

Backword Dave

"a relevant consideration only if time travel is invented within the next four weeks" Um, no. It doesn't matter *when* time travel is invented. ;)

Speaking of which, your comments are on GMT. :)


Re. Dave above: I am now convinced time travel is impossible, because if anyone ever invented it, there'd be some really wierd things going on.

Also, allocative efficiency, from undergraduate economics, only applies in perfect markets. Perfect markets must have neglible barriers to entry. Significant capital costs and/or restricted numbers of appropriate sites (i.e., either you build a site, by renting pay for someone else to build a site or you wait for another, already paid for site to become vacant) constitute a significant barrier to entry. Ergo, nigh-on impossible to achieve allocative efficiency in provision of health or education, because the market won't be responsive enough to change to with any shifts in demand. Also, why should we be treating education as a solely market good (which the mention of allocative efficiency implicitly does: allocative efficiency is the point at which marginal cost equals marginal benefit, which, in a market, means marginal financial cost to the supplier - a firm - and marginal financial benefit to the consumer - an individual). Why not acknowledge that education and health has benefits which are not solely quanitifiable in terms of financial resources, and which do not fall solely on those who recieve it? I've said this before, and I may well say it again, but, reducing everything to a single metric, managerialist, assertion that one model provides the best allocative mechanism, managerialist.


I seem to have gone into wierd rant mode today. Sorry.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad