Katy Manning, who played Dr Who's sidekick Jo Grant in the early 70s, now lives in Australia and is married to Barry Crocker.
Lalla Ward, who played Romana and who was briefly married to Dr Who actor Tom Baker, is married to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. She is also known as The Honourable Sarah Ward.
2007-05-10
2007-05-09
Players to watch
I've been scanning cricinfo, and there are some interesting players which should feature some time in the future (averages are first class):
Ryan ten Doeschate. Nearly 27, this South African born player recently represented the Netherlands in the World Cup. He turned a few heads, and plays for Essex and Western Province. He has a first class batting average of 65.60. "Tendo" may one day play for South Africa or England.
Samit Patel. 22 years old, this English player is obviously from an Asian background. He's played on and off since 2002, and his batting average is currently 51.86 after 17 matches. This is pretty good for a 22 year old, especially since his early appearances were apparently forgettable. He may play for England one day.
Kyle Coetzer. 23 years old. Batting average 52.33 after ten matches. Scottish - so he could play ODIs for Scotland and maybe one day represent England.
Ryan McLaren. 24 years old, South African allrounder. 35 matches, batting average 31.00, 120 wickets at 24.37.
Yasir Arafat. What a great name! This guy has played 7 ODIs for Pakistan and will undoubtedly feature quite prominently in the next ten years for his country. At age 25, he has played 112 matches and scored 4060 runs at 26.88, and taken 473 wickets at 22.34. His strike rate is 39.16!
Naqqash Tahir. Age 23, English. 23 matches, 300 runs @ 20.00, 62 wickets @ 26.83.
Tim Bresnan. Age 22, English. 46 matches, 1117 runs @ 20.68. 119 wickets @ 32.15.
Zoheb Sharif. Age 24, English. 14 matches, 756 runs @ 44.47.
Ryan ten Doeschate. Nearly 27, this South African born player recently represented the Netherlands in the World Cup. He turned a few heads, and plays for Essex and Western Province. He has a first class batting average of 65.60. "Tendo" may one day play for South Africa or England.
Samit Patel. 22 years old, this English player is obviously from an Asian background. He's played on and off since 2002, and his batting average is currently 51.86 after 17 matches. This is pretty good for a 22 year old, especially since his early appearances were apparently forgettable. He may play for England one day.
Kyle Coetzer. 23 years old. Batting average 52.33 after ten matches. Scottish - so he could play ODIs for Scotland and maybe one day represent England.
Ryan McLaren. 24 years old, South African allrounder. 35 matches, batting average 31.00, 120 wickets at 24.37.
Yasir Arafat. What a great name! This guy has played 7 ODIs for Pakistan and will undoubtedly feature quite prominently in the next ten years for his country. At age 25, he has played 112 matches and scored 4060 runs at 26.88, and taken 473 wickets at 22.34. His strike rate is 39.16!
Naqqash Tahir. Age 23, English. 23 matches, 300 runs @ 20.00, 62 wickets @ 26.83.
Tim Bresnan. Age 22, English. 46 matches, 1117 runs @ 20.68. 119 wickets @ 32.15.
Zoheb Sharif. Age 24, English. 14 matches, 756 runs @ 44.47.
Deeper Satire
I don't know what else to call it. But here's two examples:
Today's Doonesbury.
The idea is that these fictional troops are now being starved out of their position by the actions of congress. The thing to remember, though, is that the cartoonist is anti-Iraq war. So what is being lampooned and satirized here is the attitudes of those who want to keep the war going, while at the same time appearing to be criticizing congress.
Domestic Terror - Onion editorial cartoon.
Again, almost the same sort of thing - taken at one level the cartoon is an attack upon Democrats for their minimum wage hike. Yet if you look at it carefully the satire is so biting that it actually is the other way around - it is a careful satire of those who satire badly. The message itself is so overdone - comparing Democrats with terrorists and minimum wage hikes as suicide bombs - that it actually has the opposite effect.
Today's Doonesbury.
The idea is that these fictional troops are now being starved out of their position by the actions of congress. The thing to remember, though, is that the cartoonist is anti-Iraq war. So what is being lampooned and satirized here is the attitudes of those who want to keep the war going, while at the same time appearing to be criticizing congress.
Domestic Terror - Onion editorial cartoon.
Again, almost the same sort of thing - taken at one level the cartoon is an attack upon Democrats for their minimum wage hike. Yet if you look at it carefully the satire is so biting that it actually is the other way around - it is a careful satire of those who satire badly. The message itself is so overdone - comparing Democrats with terrorists and minimum wage hikes as suicide bombs - that it actually has the opposite effect.
Another reason not to trust Al Mohler
Read this:
Wrong Al. I'm not from America but even I know the facts.
As I said in March last year:
35-40% of Americans claim to be "Born Again".
7% of Americans can be defined as Evangelicals.
The fact that such bias exists is significant in its own right, considering the fact that a majority of Americans at least claim to be evangelical Christians.
Wrong Al. I'm not from America but even I know the facts.
As I said in March last year:
35-40% of Americans claim to be "Born Again".
7% of Americans can be defined as Evangelicals.
2007-05-05
I've had it with Blogger
I've been having problems for about 2 years now - blogger seems to find it very hard coping with Firefox on Linux. I had just written about 1000 words on an important subject and Firefox crashed, losing all the info. This has happened before when I was using early versions of Firefox. Since I seem to have no problems accessing other blog sites I'm going to assume the problem is with blogger.
So at some point in the future I am going to migrate to another blog type.
Any suggestions of where to go? Wordpress? Typepad?
So at some point in the future I am going to migrate to another blog type.
Any suggestions of where to go? Wordpress? Typepad?
Creating a conservative world
Conservative people were so incensed at Wikipedia's bias towards left wing beliefs (ie the truth) that they created Conservapedia.
Now they've created Qubetv, a "right-wing only Youtube".
What's next? Porn that contains only conservative-voting female models?
Now they've created Qubetv, a "right-wing only Youtube".
What's next? Porn that contains only conservative-voting female models?
2007-05-04
The World cricket team
Just when should a cricketing nation be awarded test status? Since 1981, the world of international cricket has expanded from six to ten teams - Sri Lanka (1981), South Africa (1991), Zimbabwe (1992) and Bangladesh (2000). There's no doubt that Sri Lanka and South Africa are highly competitive and deserve their status. Zimbabwe, however, has been exceptionally disappointing with its player walk-outs and retirements, corrupt board and general national deterioration all but eliminating the potential that the nation once had. Bangladesh hasn't done well in its first 7 years, but the same could be said of Sri Lanka's first ten years so there is still time.
In my opinion, Zimbabwe should be relegated back to Associate status and prevented from playing Test cricket again until such time as they can prove their strength. But who should relpace them... if at all? Why not Ireland, whose performances in the World Cup gone by were one of the competition's few highlights? Why not Kenya or the Netherlands?
There needs to be an easy and efficient way in which Associate nations can be raised to international competition without having to disappoint. International cricket is a highly competitive sport and the associate countries (Bermuda, Canada, Kenya, Ireland, Netherlands, Scotland) have all found top level cricket excruciating (Ireland's World Cup success notwithstanding). It is not progressive or profitable for these nations to play matches against Test teams when the result is foreordained.
So what is my solution? An international Test and One-day team, made up of the best players in the world who are not from any of the Test-playing countries. Let's call this team "The World"
The idea is simple. This team would have immediate Test and One-day status and compete on an equal footing with other Test playing nations. You would see matches between Australia and "The World", or England and "The World", and so on. Moreover, The World would be a completely professional outfit that pays its players to play, creating an immediate professionalism amongst its players. It would also play the same amount of international matches as other top teams (eg 12 Tests and 30 ODIs in a year). It would also compete in the World Cup.
The World team would draw its players from everywhere else in the world apart from the top teams. The World would not be able to select, for example, second or third-string Australian or Sri Lankan players, but it would be able to pick a player from, say, Cambodia, if they think he would perform well.
In practice, it means that the Associate members of the ICC (Bermuda, Canada, Kenya, Ireland, Netherlands, Scotland) would no longer play matches against the top teams, but instead become the equivalent of "feeder clubs" for the World team. It means that the top players in these countries would no longer have to officially migrate overseas to a top cricket nation (like England) and then play there for a few years in order to "qualify" for that country... and then hope they're still good enough to be selected. Instead, these top players will have the opportunity to play top class cricket from the moment they are noticed.
Moreover, the World team's selection policy will be based solely around performance. In other words, only the best players will be selected. There will be no room for making political selections or "affirmative action" selections. The reason for this is obvious - the team will be competing at the top level and it has to be assumed that they will pick the top players. But another reason is also important.
If a country like Ireland, for example, continues to grow and develop its cricket, the chances are that the World team will begin to fill up with Irish players. As this continues, and as the World team begins to be dominated by the Irish, then it becomes more and more obvious that the ICC should seriously consider elevating Ireland to full international cricket status and join the other top teams in competing at Test and ODI level. If this happens, then the World team would lose its Irish players but then be able to pick replacements from other nations. Thus the reason for picking top players only is borne out in the policy of trying to determine which nation should be given full international status.
Where would the team be located? The best place would be to base the team in England during the Northern Summer, and then "tour" during the Southern Summer. The team would also play some of their international matches in the countries where many of the team members are located. If the team has lots of Irish, then some matches need to be played in Ireland; If the team has lots of Kenyans then some matches will be played in Kenya.
Locating the team in England during the Northen Summer will have lots of advantages, the first being access to the County cricket competition. My hope would be that the England and Wales Cricket Board relax their County selection rules so that County teams can freely select international-based players to play for them. This would allow top international players the chance to play regular first-class cricket, thus giving the English County competition to be the feeder for both the England Cricket team and the World Cricket team.
If people in England think that this process might "crowd out" potential English players, then perhaps one or two minor county teams could be added to the first class list (like Devon or Hertfordshire for example) to compensate.
Another advantage of being in England is that the World team could play against the top international teams regularly on Test-standard grounds - the same ones that England would play on. Additionally, tours during the Southern summer would be easier to organise since it would not require the juggling of all their Tests and ODIs over a 5-6 month period.
Being located in England would also fit in with nations doing three or four test tours in England. If India tours England and plays three tests, it can then stay and play three against the World team. If New Zealand are due to play England in three tests in the second half of the season, they can play against the World team in three tests in the first half of the season. An annual Test against England could also be arranged.
There is, of course, the question of finance. Who will pay for the team? Will the team be expected to be profitable in the same way as other national cricket teams are?
The team will be managed by the ICC. Funds from member nations will be diverted to the creation of the World team, which will also include medical staff and coaching personnel. The team will be selected by a panel that will be appointed by the ICC. If we assume that the World team performs well, then matches against other international sides will draw sponsorship and broadcast rights.
The idea of a World team is much better than the situation as it stands now. Although it might seem sad that teams like Ireland could lose their ODI status as a result of the World team, it would give their players the chance to perform regularly at top level and, hopefully, lead their country to be elevated to full international status. It would also give top players like Daan van Bunge, Ryan ten Doeschate, Eoin Morgan, Andrew White, and Niall O'Brien the chance to shine on the international stage (especially since some of them are better than current Bangladesh or Zimbabwe players). Given that past players like Gavin Hamilton and Ole Mortensen could probably have been regular Test players if given the chance, this idea is sound.
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
In my opinion, Zimbabwe should be relegated back to Associate status and prevented from playing Test cricket again until such time as they can prove their strength. But who should relpace them... if at all? Why not Ireland, whose performances in the World Cup gone by were one of the competition's few highlights? Why not Kenya or the Netherlands?
There needs to be an easy and efficient way in which Associate nations can be raised to international competition without having to disappoint. International cricket is a highly competitive sport and the associate countries (Bermuda, Canada, Kenya, Ireland, Netherlands, Scotland) have all found top level cricket excruciating (Ireland's World Cup success notwithstanding). It is not progressive or profitable for these nations to play matches against Test teams when the result is foreordained.
So what is my solution? An international Test and One-day team, made up of the best players in the world who are not from any of the Test-playing countries. Let's call this team "The World"
The idea is simple. This team would have immediate Test and One-day status and compete on an equal footing with other Test playing nations. You would see matches between Australia and "The World", or England and "The World", and so on. Moreover, The World would be a completely professional outfit that pays its players to play, creating an immediate professionalism amongst its players. It would also play the same amount of international matches as other top teams (eg 12 Tests and 30 ODIs in a year). It would also compete in the World Cup.
The World team would draw its players from everywhere else in the world apart from the top teams. The World would not be able to select, for example, second or third-string Australian or Sri Lankan players, but it would be able to pick a player from, say, Cambodia, if they think he would perform well.
In practice, it means that the Associate members of the ICC (Bermuda, Canada, Kenya, Ireland, Netherlands, Scotland) would no longer play matches against the top teams, but instead become the equivalent of "feeder clubs" for the World team. It means that the top players in these countries would no longer have to officially migrate overseas to a top cricket nation (like England) and then play there for a few years in order to "qualify" for that country... and then hope they're still good enough to be selected. Instead, these top players will have the opportunity to play top class cricket from the moment they are noticed.
Moreover, the World team's selection policy will be based solely around performance. In other words, only the best players will be selected. There will be no room for making political selections or "affirmative action" selections. The reason for this is obvious - the team will be competing at the top level and it has to be assumed that they will pick the top players. But another reason is also important.
If a country like Ireland, for example, continues to grow and develop its cricket, the chances are that the World team will begin to fill up with Irish players. As this continues, and as the World team begins to be dominated by the Irish, then it becomes more and more obvious that the ICC should seriously consider elevating Ireland to full international cricket status and join the other top teams in competing at Test and ODI level. If this happens, then the World team would lose its Irish players but then be able to pick replacements from other nations. Thus the reason for picking top players only is borne out in the policy of trying to determine which nation should be given full international status.
Where would the team be located? The best place would be to base the team in England during the Northern Summer, and then "tour" during the Southern Summer. The team would also play some of their international matches in the countries where many of the team members are located. If the team has lots of Irish, then some matches need to be played in Ireland; If the team has lots of Kenyans then some matches will be played in Kenya.
Locating the team in England during the Northen Summer will have lots of advantages, the first being access to the County cricket competition. My hope would be that the England and Wales Cricket Board relax their County selection rules so that County teams can freely select international-based players to play for them. This would allow top international players the chance to play regular first-class cricket, thus giving the English County competition to be the feeder for both the England Cricket team and the World Cricket team.
If people in England think that this process might "crowd out" potential English players, then perhaps one or two minor county teams could be added to the first class list (like Devon or Hertfordshire for example) to compensate.
Another advantage of being in England is that the World team could play against the top international teams regularly on Test-standard grounds - the same ones that England would play on. Additionally, tours during the Southern summer would be easier to organise since it would not require the juggling of all their Tests and ODIs over a 5-6 month period.
Being located in England would also fit in with nations doing three or four test tours in England. If India tours England and plays three tests, it can then stay and play three against the World team. If New Zealand are due to play England in three tests in the second half of the season, they can play against the World team in three tests in the first half of the season. An annual Test against England could also be arranged.
There is, of course, the question of finance. Who will pay for the team? Will the team be expected to be profitable in the same way as other national cricket teams are?
The team will be managed by the ICC. Funds from member nations will be diverted to the creation of the World team, which will also include medical staff and coaching personnel. The team will be selected by a panel that will be appointed by the ICC. If we assume that the World team performs well, then matches against other international sides will draw sponsorship and broadcast rights.
The idea of a World team is much better than the situation as it stands now. Although it might seem sad that teams like Ireland could lose their ODI status as a result of the World team, it would give their players the chance to perform regularly at top level and, hopefully, lead their country to be elevated to full international status. It would also give top players like Daan van Bunge, Ryan ten Doeschate, Eoin Morgan, Andrew White, and Niall O'Brien the chance to shine on the international stage (especially since some of them are better than current Bangladesh or Zimbabwe players). Given that past players like Gavin Hamilton and Ole Mortensen could probably have been regular Test players if given the chance, this idea is sound.
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2007-05-02
Business and Community
As someone who is leftist in their thinking, I have always felt reasonably on-side with calls for Australian businesses to run their operations in a legal and ethical manner. Employees have legal rights and cannot be forced to do things that are illegal, or to work in conditions that are unsafe.
But at the same time I also recognise that the laws that Australia sets up and imposes upon businesses can and do cost these businesses money. Even basic laws like having fire extinguishers in the office or approved safety harnesses for builders are things which cost business money.
One of the great things about living in a place like Australia is that we have very humane workplace laws that (supposedly) protect workers from being exploited or endangered while on the job. Laws have evolved over time as disasters and accidents have taken their toll.
But while these laws are good and just, we need to remember that it is ultimately the business itself that pays the financial cost for ensuring that it complies with the law. This means that the end product itself that they are producing (whether goods or services) has to factor in that cost. And if the total costs for running a business exceed its revenue, then the business has no reason to operate.
Add to this, then, the increasing amount of globalisation that is occurring. Businesses in Australia cannot compete with many businesses in poorer countries like China or Vietnam because a) the labour price is low, and b) these businesses do not have to comply with strict government safety rules. "Sweatshops" that cannot exist in Australia are outperforming Australian businesses simply because costs are low.
The result? Australian workers who are out of work and Australian entrepreneurs who are unable to run a business properly - all because we allow goods to enter Australia that are manufactured in conditions that would be illegal here.
Which means, ironically, that the laws our nation has set up to protect workers and to ensure they are paid a decent wage have ended up putting Aussie workers out of work and encouraging overseas "sweatshops". Sad, but true.
Of course, many people have noticed this and responded. Those on the left have decided to go down the "moral" track and highlight the immorality of buying certain imported goods (like Nike running shoes). Their solution seems to be a form of protectionism that is informed by anti-globalisation. What this would do, essentially, is to put up trade barriers and prevent goods made in sweatshops (or similar conditions) from entering Australia. This, however, would not solve anything since the workers who spend their time in these sweatshops would then become unemployed, making their poor life even poorer.
Those on the right have responded by arguing for lower minimum wages, reducing award rates and getting rid of collective bargaining. The Industrial Relations changes that the Howard government has brought in were intended to make conditions easier for businesses to hire and fire employees. Business groups that are concerned about their profitability (ie all of them) will try to dissuade government from passing certain types of legislation that would impact them - such as anything to do with environmental protection or safety. This solution, however, will make life difficult for workers. Lower job security and harsher working conditions are not what Australian workers want.
So we seem to be at an impasse. Is it possible to have economic and social conditions that both favour business and individual workers? Is there some way of ensuring workers are protected and paid well without discouraging business?
Yes there is. It's not painless, but it is possible.
Essentially my argument is that if the community wants something then the community should pay for it. If the community wants businesses to operate safely then the community should be willing to provide funds for it. If the community wants decent pay rates for workers then the community should be willing to cough up the dollars for it. Businesses should only have to pay market rates for anything and should not be penalised in any specific way for having to comply with the law. Businesses are there to make profit, full stop. The community, on the other hand, should bear the responsibility for ensuring that its members are happy and healthy. You can't have it both ways. If the community expects businesses to pay for community demands, then both community and business lose out (the opposite is true too btw).
How would this work out in practice? Easy. Who is "the community?". Government. The government should pay for workplace safety with money raised from tax revenue. Examples: Fire extinguishers should be in every workplace, but let the government supply them; Builders should be kept safe with safety harnesses on construction sites, but let the government supply them; Workers should be paid a decent wage... but if businesses can't afford it then the government should provide the difference.
Is there any company in Australia that manufactures TV sets? I don't think there is any these days. Why? It's because they are made cheaper in China. Yet if Australian businesses could keep costs down by having an external source look after its safety compliance and minimum wage requirements, then it may be possible for an Australian TV manufacturer to be created.
Or take the building industry. When a construction company is building a skyscraper it needs to have trained safety personnel and ensure that its workers do things safely. Yet the cost of doing this can be quite high. If the funds for safety training and compliance were paid for externally, then the company would be able to concentrate upon building and making money.
One problem with this solution of mine is, of course, the question "Where do you get the money?" The answer is tax revenue... and if tax revenue isn't enough then raise taxes. These taxes should be from as broad as base as possible, and spent as broadly as possible. Subsidies for specific industries or businesses is just not on. Subsidies are fine in my book, but they need to be broadly applied otherwise we run into the issue of "old socialism" from the 1960s and 1970s (where governments supported specific industries and promoted inefficiency).
There'd be many people out there who would see my solution as anathema... but we need to remember that countries like Sweden have exceptionally high tax rates but also exceptionally high living standards to go along with them. And since my suggestion has tax revenue going directly to help business, any complaint about "high taxes hurt business" should be easy to answer.
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
But at the same time I also recognise that the laws that Australia sets up and imposes upon businesses can and do cost these businesses money. Even basic laws like having fire extinguishers in the office or approved safety harnesses for builders are things which cost business money.
One of the great things about living in a place like Australia is that we have very humane workplace laws that (supposedly) protect workers from being exploited or endangered while on the job. Laws have evolved over time as disasters and accidents have taken their toll.
But while these laws are good and just, we need to remember that it is ultimately the business itself that pays the financial cost for ensuring that it complies with the law. This means that the end product itself that they are producing (whether goods or services) has to factor in that cost. And if the total costs for running a business exceed its revenue, then the business has no reason to operate.
Add to this, then, the increasing amount of globalisation that is occurring. Businesses in Australia cannot compete with many businesses in poorer countries like China or Vietnam because a) the labour price is low, and b) these businesses do not have to comply with strict government safety rules. "Sweatshops" that cannot exist in Australia are outperforming Australian businesses simply because costs are low.
The result? Australian workers who are out of work and Australian entrepreneurs who are unable to run a business properly - all because we allow goods to enter Australia that are manufactured in conditions that would be illegal here.
Which means, ironically, that the laws our nation has set up to protect workers and to ensure they are paid a decent wage have ended up putting Aussie workers out of work and encouraging overseas "sweatshops". Sad, but true.
Of course, many people have noticed this and responded. Those on the left have decided to go down the "moral" track and highlight the immorality of buying certain imported goods (like Nike running shoes). Their solution seems to be a form of protectionism that is informed by anti-globalisation. What this would do, essentially, is to put up trade barriers and prevent goods made in sweatshops (or similar conditions) from entering Australia. This, however, would not solve anything since the workers who spend their time in these sweatshops would then become unemployed, making their poor life even poorer.
Those on the right have responded by arguing for lower minimum wages, reducing award rates and getting rid of collective bargaining. The Industrial Relations changes that the Howard government has brought in were intended to make conditions easier for businesses to hire and fire employees. Business groups that are concerned about their profitability (ie all of them) will try to dissuade government from passing certain types of legislation that would impact them - such as anything to do with environmental protection or safety. This solution, however, will make life difficult for workers. Lower job security and harsher working conditions are not what Australian workers want.
So we seem to be at an impasse. Is it possible to have economic and social conditions that both favour business and individual workers? Is there some way of ensuring workers are protected and paid well without discouraging business?
Yes there is. It's not painless, but it is possible.
Essentially my argument is that if the community wants something then the community should pay for it. If the community wants businesses to operate safely then the community should be willing to provide funds for it. If the community wants decent pay rates for workers then the community should be willing to cough up the dollars for it. Businesses should only have to pay market rates for anything and should not be penalised in any specific way for having to comply with the law. Businesses are there to make profit, full stop. The community, on the other hand, should bear the responsibility for ensuring that its members are happy and healthy. You can't have it both ways. If the community expects businesses to pay for community demands, then both community and business lose out (the opposite is true too btw).
How would this work out in practice? Easy. Who is "the community?". Government. The government should pay for workplace safety with money raised from tax revenue. Examples: Fire extinguishers should be in every workplace, but let the government supply them; Builders should be kept safe with safety harnesses on construction sites, but let the government supply them; Workers should be paid a decent wage... but if businesses can't afford it then the government should provide the difference.
Is there any company in Australia that manufactures TV sets? I don't think there is any these days. Why? It's because they are made cheaper in China. Yet if Australian businesses could keep costs down by having an external source look after its safety compliance and minimum wage requirements, then it may be possible for an Australian TV manufacturer to be created.
Or take the building industry. When a construction company is building a skyscraper it needs to have trained safety personnel and ensure that its workers do things safely. Yet the cost of doing this can be quite high. If the funds for safety training and compliance were paid for externally, then the company would be able to concentrate upon building and making money.
One problem with this solution of mine is, of course, the question "Where do you get the money?" The answer is tax revenue... and if tax revenue isn't enough then raise taxes. These taxes should be from as broad as base as possible, and spent as broadly as possible. Subsidies for specific industries or businesses is just not on. Subsidies are fine in my book, but they need to be broadly applied otherwise we run into the issue of "old socialism" from the 1960s and 1970s (where governments supported specific industries and promoted inefficiency).
There'd be many people out there who would see my solution as anathema... but we need to remember that countries like Sweden have exceptionally high tax rates but also exceptionally high living standards to go along with them. And since my suggestion has tax revenue going directly to help business, any complaint about "high taxes hurt business" should be easy to answer.
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2007-05-01
Are Queenslanders stupid?
Of course not. However they probably are ignorant.
Sort of explains why some of them didn't want recycled water.
Sort of explains why some of them didn't want recycled water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)