On a UK space programme

As anyone unfortunate enough to be within 5 feet of me in the last month has undoubtedly gathered, I have recently become somewhat enamoured with space. Because of this I have decided to do a blog about why the UK should have a space programme.

In order to consider the merits of such an endeavour we must first look at the cost. The total, inflation adjusted, lifetime budget of NASA between its creation and 2008 was $851.2 billion. Dividing this by 50 we get $17.02 billion, NASA's current funding is about $18billion. A quick google reveals these to be around £11 billion and £11.6 billion respectively. This is of course quite a large amount of money. For the sake of safety I often overestimate costs, so for the sake of example we shall assume that a UKSA, after start up costs, would cost about £12 billion a year. This would represent 1.7% of total government spending and 0.005% of GDP.

So here I shall present the various benefits of a UK space programme.

1. Moon Silver
There's silver on the moon so lets go get it. Furthermore, there is also the notion of asteroid mining which is already receiving attention. Both of these present examples of resources in space that we could sell here on Earth.

2. Being the "Silicon Valley of Space"
Firstly this argument assumes that there will one day be the commercialisation of space, with various companies doing various things across the solar system. If we take that to be inevitable then we must ask, where will these companies be based? Where will these companies set themselves up? The answer is wherever the experience and technology for going into space is, so if we want the worlds space entrepreneurs to set up companies in Britain, we need to be showing that we can go into space and the best way to do that is to just go into space. This is also an argument for a space elevator, if we build one then this removes the main obstacle to private firms operating in space, specifically that escaping Earth's orbit is hard. If we build a space elevator, which estimates suggest would cost $40 billion or £25 billion for a one off investment, then we will make Britain the place to launch stuff into space from.

3. Attracting investment.
Other investment could also be attracted by the British space programme, not just space relevant investment. This is because it would create give an impression of a technologically advanced country, on the cutting edge of scientific advancement, hence attracting firms that are technologically sensitive.

4. Inspiration.
This is a point stolen from Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Specifically it refers to giving public presence to science and promoting a sense of wonder in young people. Space is something children find cool and if we make space travel something that exists rather than the preserve of science fiction, then we are more likely to have people wanting to grow up to be engineers and scientists. Engineers and scientists create new technology, new technology leads to economic growth, economic growth leads to lower unemployment, lower unemployment leads to an improved government budget as they will have higher tax revenues and lower unemployment benefit expenditure.

5. Beating China to it.
Not strictly an economic argument, but I don't much like the idea of humanity being represented outside of Earth by the "People's Republic of China" for reasons that should be plainly obvious to anyone with a shred of humanity.

6. It's awesome.
Yup. It is. Deal with it.

Also this probably won't be the last I talk about space and economics, though I will try to keep in confined to the blog. Although a bunch of people don't read my blog, so I'll have to tell them in person. So to conclude if I'm talking about space and you're bored by it, just say "I've read your blog about it" and I'll shut up.

The whats and whys of nationalisation

I'm back, not that you missed me or anything, but regardless of your lack of appreciation of me I have returned yet again to bestow my knowledge upon you. To this end I intend to write about the economic arguments for the nationalisation of certain sectors of the economy and while many economists go on and on and on about how the free market can solve everything, they are what we call "bad economists" and should not be listened to under any circumstances.

Also note that I am not advocated total nationalisation of everything, there are some things which I feel work best when left to market forces, the difference between sectors of the economy that should be nationalised and those which shouldn't lies in the incentive structures and the effects of competition as I shall demonstrate throughout this blog.

1. Pharmaceuticals.
There are, according to the ever reliable wikipedia, three hundred and sixty nine pharmaceutical manufacturers in the United Kingdom. After giggling at the fact that number ends with sixty nine, you may noticed that this means that the pharmaceutical resources of the United Kingdom are divided three hundred and sixty nine ways. This strikes me as something that is likely detrimental to the medical research sector.
Also note how the incentive structure for a pharmaceutical company is contrary to the common good. If a firm produces a treatment that has be done constantly for the rest of the patients life, this is likely to create much higher profits than a cure. Hence it has been demonstrated that the pharmaceutical industry is one where a state-owned monopoly is preferable to the free market.

2. Farming
This is a more tricky one but this is another sector which would be better under state control. The reasons for this are thus. Firstly, it allows for the circumvention of the glorified ludditism that is "organic farming" which the existence of is frankly embarrassing, if the state controlled agriculture then we could have proper investment in superior GM crops and new farming capital, which is sometimes unavailable due to the low profit nature of the agricultural sector. Also, it will allow for the production of a "food surplus" for emergency stores as well as for various humanitarian projects and as a foreign policy tool, its much easier for oppressed people to overthrow their dictators if we provide them with food as well as weaponry.

3.Scientific research in general
This one is rather straight-forward for some of the same reasons as the pharmaceutical industry, such as the merging of resources and the allowing of them to work in unison as opposed to in competition, but there is also the avoidance of "tech-killing" whereby a company could invest in research in areas that would harm its profits, thereby enabling them to patent it and then not use it. It would also allow for more UK firms to benefit from technological advancements, as opposed to simply the firm that patents it, as the government could license the tech to any and all UK firms. Finally it would enable research into areas that aren't deemed profitable, but that could provide benefit to humanity.

Theres a few arguments for taking a few sectors into state ownership, I may do a few more later but right now I don't want to and its my blog so I'll do what I want, get off my back.

Why are drugs so unpopular?

Here's a blog for you, yes I stole it from an essay I did but it works pretty well, though I have rejigged it slightly so that it makes sense for people who aren't economists. Actually that sounds like a bit of a pain so I'll use this as a chance to expand your vocabulary, if you don't know what vocabulary means then stop reading now, I don't want your kind reading my blog.

"Utility" here refers to the concept of pleasure acquired through an action. Economists generally use the word utility rather than pleasure, because it sounds fancier and hence makes us seem smarter, but also because its less likely to be confused with a crude innuendo.

"Substitutes" here refers to a similar good that a person could consume instead of the original. For example cider vs beer or the cinema vs watching television.

"Opportunity cost" here refers to the cost of an action in terms of not doing other actions instead. For example if I go to the pub, there is an opportunity cost in the form of time I could have spent working on essays or whatever other fun filled activities the university has deigned to bless me with.

According to an NHS study, in 2006 72% of men and 57% of women reported drinking an alcoholic drink on at least one day in the week prior to the interview. This contrasts with marijuana, which according to a study for the UK drug policy commission in 2007, less than 9% of people in England and Wales had used in the past year, with the figures for stronger drugs such as ecstasy, heroin, and cocaine all being lower than 3%. The reasons for this relative unpopularity can be explained as a simple case of lower demand, but we can also look deeper and assess why demand may be lower for these substances as opposed to legal ones.

Firstly there is the rather obvious case that crack cocaine is a tad worse for you than alchohol, so theres that. But the health effect only applies to the stronger drugs, with weaker ones having health effects that according to some are no worse than legal alternatives. Due to this, looking at the effects of illegalisation may be more insightful.

The illegality of drugs disincentivises people from using them, this effect is boosted by the existence of legal substitutes such as alcohol. This means that when a person makes a decision they not only make it based on whether they will gain utility by consuming illicit drugs but also whether this utility gain is greater than the opportunity cost of using the time and money consuming illicit drugs as opposed to consuming a legal substitute.

Firstly, the illegality means that buying the drugs in the first place is harder. While in the case of alcohol a person can easily walk into a shop, many of which have signs identifying them as places where alcohol can be purchased, with drugs a person has to somehow find a dealer, which is tricky due to their inability to advertise. This adds an extra cost to illicit drug consumption in both terms of time and effort.

Secondly, the illegality adds an extra risk to the activity. A person who desires to relax through recreational drug use, also has to deal with the risk of being caught purchasing, carrying or using the drug. This lowers the utility of consuming drugs.

Thirdly, the utility is limited due to the consumer only being able to consume their illicit drugs in certain places. Due to the fact they need to keep their use relatively hidden, drug users are unable to consume their drugs in many social settings and choosing illicit drugs over legal substitutes may limit their ability to socialise with their non-drug using friends. This restriction limits the net utility of drugs by adding an extra opportunity cost relative to legal substitutes, for example if a person is choosing between cocaine and alcohol, this may also translate into a choice between staying at home or going to the pub with their friends respectively.

Finally, the illegality creates a disincentive in terms of both ethics and the way a person is viewed by society. On the first point, if a person does not think of himself or herself as a criminal and has a strong objection to breaking the law, then they are unlikely to consume illicit drugs while they will have no impediment from consuming alcohol. On the second, a person may fear being perceived by their social circle as either a “junkie” or a “criminal” in general and so may decide against drug use for the sake of maintaining their social standing.

So there is basically a brief analysis of why drugs are so unpopular in the form of a list of what illegalisation does to the demand for the product. Not a complete analysis admittedly, but it was written for an essay that could only be 3000 words and I'm not currently in Manchester so I'm not really in a position to focus and write new material. Also in a continuation of my laziness I do my next blog on the practice of "cutting cocaine" as that's also a bit in my essay. Either way I'll at least try do something original at some point. Not much of a promise that, but you know.

A short blog wherein I explain how to solve the Eurozone debt crisis.

Basically the problem appears to be that Greece can't might default and if it does that will create problems for the rest of us as a lot of Greek debt is held by banks in a lot of countries.

The solution is basically to merge all the debt into a central fund managed by the ECB and give the ECB/European Parliament powers to set upper and lower bounds for spending and taxation respectively. The latter part would be necessary in order to prevent one member just borrowing lots and passing the cost onto the other members. This would also allow some of the poorer members to be allowed deficits funded by the issuing of "Euro-bonds" or through the surpluses of the richer members.The Eurozone as a whole would be in a decent position to service its debt, but at the moment the entire thing is at risk because of one member.

Now firstly I should mention that I'm not a fan of the Euro, I do not support the UK joining it, but if there is going to be a single currency then there needs to be some degree of fiscal union for it to be stable. The Eurozone must either go forwards or backwards, it cannot remain where it is. To use a metaphor, they are standing in the middle of a bridge during a gale, they should either go back to where they came from (as in return to their own currencies) or go to the other side (as in enter a fiscal union).

So there, a solution to the problem. You're welcome world, I'll await my medal.

Time to party....(with bonus moaning about protestors)

Or rather to do party stuff, yes this of course  is my obligatory blog about the fact I have now crossed over from the world of interesting and principled politics and dived head first into the world of bitter partisanship. I've got my card and everything. Well here's something of a blog on the party.

My half-watching of the recent conference, I had studying to do so I couldn't watch everything, gave me a couple of things to say about Labour, and surprisingly one is positive.
1. Ed Miliband can actually answer a question. I know, I'm as surprised as you but in his little "Question and answer" thing he did with an audience of members of the public he actually provided a decent answer to a question on outsourcing, pointing out that due to the global nature of the modern economy its hard to force firms to keep jobs here and its better to focus on trying to making Britain a better place to do business. I was actually impressed by how good an answer it was for a politician.
2. But not if the question is "how?". Seriously he mentioned lots of things he wanted to do but no ideas as to how he was going to do them. The one time he tried to provide an answer as to how was even worse than nothing, he suggested that the way to get young people into work was a bank bonus tax. While a bank bonus tax could help fund a method of getting young people into work its not actually a method in itself. I wouldn't be as miffed about this whole thing, but the man was talking about "restructuring our economy" to make it "[insert standard buzz words here]" and frankly the idea of someone trying to restructure the economy without a clear plan scares the hell out of me.

Now for the aforementioed moaning about protesters. Now while I generally agree with your cause, what I don't agree with is some of the more crazy participants of the protests in Manchester yesterday. Here is a quick list of things that don't help anything.
1. Trying to attack people simply for being conservatives having the audacity to try and enjoy some fresh air.
2. Chants about wanting an eighty five year old woman, who is not even relevant to the issues at hand, to die.
3. Littering. (Seriously, people live here)
4. Trying to incite others to break off the protest route and storm a conference, though admittedly this was just one crazy person with a megaphone who was mostly ignored.

And I will leave you with some wise words "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing".

On the Euro

In light of recent events, I figured I'd do a blog about the rather silly business of the Euro.

Firstly let me start of by saying that a shared currency isn't always necessarily a bad thing, it's just that the Euro expanded over too wide and economically diverse an area. I could completely see the argument for a United BeNeLux currency or the creation of an Iberian Dollar as these are smaller areas enabling for the benefits of easier trade without creating the problems of having to attempt a one size fits all approach to monetary policy across an entire continent, the problems of which are being experienced in Greece and Ireland and will be experienced again next time there is a major recession.

Those who say that the collapse of the Euro would have major negative effects for both the Eurozone and Britain are of course correct, I'm not going to lie about that as it would be silly, but in the long run its better for everyone if the currency is ditched and national currencies/regional currencies are (re)instated. This would allow for monetary policy to be tailored to the specific economies as well as hopefully shaking of the disturbing trend in the activities of the EU. This trend is the way that many seem to think that prefixing something with "European" automatically makes it a good thing regardless of the actual facts, similar to how in Maoist China "redness" was seen as more important than being productive or efficient.

Despite the fact it would be better for everyone in the long run, the Eurozone won't collapse, as too many powerful people have too much political capital invested in the idea that the European Union is the solution to every policy objective and so German taxes will continue to prop up Greece, then Spain, Italy and Portugal. However I would say that even if the Euro does survive, then I would advocate them trimming the fat, by which I refer to the PIGS. (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, not actual pigs, although the actual EU farming policy is in dire need of reform, but that is an issue for a different blog.)

However I must concede that now is probably not the best time for either a dismantling, or at least trimming the membership of, the Euro and that waiting until the global economy has stabilised is preferable.

So in summary what they should do is start planning for the abolition of the Euro, with an aim to do it once the global economy is stable, if however they don't want to do that then they should at the very least cut the membership down, its better for everyone if Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece revert to the Escudo, Peseta, Lira and Drachma respectively, and would you believe I only had to look one of those up? (It was the Portugese one)

No topical quote today, I couldn't find a decent one on the Euro. So here is something completely different.

And I feel just like Sigourney Weaver when she had to kill those aliens and one guy tried to get them back to the earth and she couldn't believe her ears. -  John Grant.

On the news media

I'm somewhat outside my area of expertise, but I figured "Get journalists to respect peoples privacy and not break the law in search of stories" how hard can it be?

Basically as far as I can tell there is a problem with journalists doing rather evil things in pursuit of a story, granted its somewhat less evil than William Randolph Hearst starting a war just so he can sell papers by writing about it but its still pretty bad stuff. I won't go into detail as I don't want to write about it. The thing is though, hacking is illegal, so is bribing policemen, as well as, last time I checked, filming people without their consent and attempting to access other peoples personal information, which raises a point as to how they get away with it. The answer is rather simple in that they don't have to tell anyone they do it, and that the people who know they do it are in on it.

So my solution to this is a rather simple one. Make them tell people they are doing it. To clarify, I would argue that it should be law that journalists must reveal their sources and if these sources were illegal, such as phone hacking or breaking into peoples houses and putting cameras there, then they would be arrested as is appropriate. Granted this would need to be coupled with measures to protect people who reveal the nefarious activities of governments and businesses, as well as greater transparency in government so that "whistle-blowing" isn't needed. This would also negate the ability of the press to print outright lies that a "senior civil servant" apparentaly said.

Also I'd probably have some kind of law placing further limits on the amount of media one individual/company etc can own, makes sense really.


I read the newspapers avidly. It is my one form of continuous fiction- Aneurin "Nye" Bevan