h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Nothing wrong with cynicism! One of the healthier emotions I feel.

Yes, that's right. We can all live happily ever after in agreement on this topic!

(Sorry, I'm in a very funny mood. I've just read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_967000/967421.stm and it made me chuckle! )

Dearie me A prime example of the ability of humans to see what they want to see...

One further comment about economic models. It's demonstrably the case that GDP and indicators as infant mortality and life expectancy are higher in free-market, less regulated economies than in 'command and control' ones; and I would argue that indicates the relative efficiency of the two economic models. Maybe it comes down to a moral question: the less well-off members of a free-market economy tend to be better off than the poorest in a socialist economy. However, in a free-market economy, the difference between richest and poorest tends to be wider. Take your pick

I've got an excellent book called _The Armchair Economist_ by Steven E. Landsburg.

In the chapter _Telling Right from Wrong_, he says this:

"...if I could ask one question of every presidential candidate, it would probably be something along these lines:

"Which is better: A world where everyone earns $40,000 a year, or a world where three-fourths of the population earns $100,000 a year while the rest earn $25,000?

"I'm not sure how I'd answer this myself, and I wouldn't disqualify a candidate for coming down on either side of it. But I *would* like to see some evidence that he found such questions interesting."

Yes, that's good - I'll have to look out for that book. If we had a world in which everyone started out earning $40,000 a year, I suspect human nature would soon opening up a differential.

....latest score just in.......

Socialists 1 Communists 2

A last minute winner from the mecurial number 9. Jinked past the midfield, ghosted into the box and fired an unstoppable shot high and handsome into the top left hand corner.

hola, the thing I don't get is why do we need the same taxes all over Europe, what about a little competition? Helping underdeveloped regions is important, but trying to protect the status Quo of the bigger memberstates taxewise will hurt us all on the long run

Equal taxes are needed for the same reason that equal subsidies are needed - fair trade. All that competition would do is force all taxation to come from non-mobile goods, like houses. That's bad, in case you can't wok it out...

This is something the UK government - although supposedly in favour of European integration - seems somewhat quiet about. If UK taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and petrol were to go down to average European levels, the Government would have a much better chance of selling the UK electorate on the advantages of the EU. Can I invite the audience to suggest why they don't follow that line?

Because the UK electorate is anti-EU in general, and are as likely to agree to tax harmonisation as cows are to being slaughtered. So the politicians do it on the sly and don't tell anyone about it.

Progress by stealth.

Well, stealth comes naturally to politicians But don't you think that if the Government went ahead and lowered taxes on alcohol, tobacco and petrol, and then set about harmonising the rest of the tax structure, that they'd get away with it? I'm convinced that they would - on the "bread and circuses" principle. Not that I'd be in favour of the UK having to underwrite the disastrous underfunding of pension promises in most the of the EU, of course...