Blog powered by Typepad

« Don't say I don't do you any favours! | Main | The easiest job in the world »

Saturday, 18 July 2020

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What is it with you Brits and chlorinated chicken? From a hallowed name:

'According to a report from the Adam Smith Institute (which argues in favour of allowing PRTs), “immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”'

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/food-safety/chlorinated-chicken-explained-why-do-the-americans-treat-their-poultry-with-chlorine/555618.article

Just can't bear to part with salmonella?

You don't complain about having chlorine in your drinking water. In fact, you were on the cutting edge:

"In 1897 the town of Maidstone, England was the first to have its entire water supply treated with chlorine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_chlorination

Do get a grip.

I agree, Bob.

The EU accepts that chlorinated chicken is clean and argues merely that the process before the final chlorination cleaning stepmight be compromised. So what? We eat salad that's grown outside and covered in bugs and crap and then doused in chlorine at the last stage before it's bagged. The Brit authorities say it's merely to prevent competition and protect Brit jobs - I suppose at least they're honest! ...

https://fullfact.org/europe/does-eu-say-its-safe-eat-chicken-rinsed-chlorine/

But more to the point, why not let the people choose? Not through the clumsy hand of democracy electing cretinous, double standards pols to choose standards, but rather through the precise hand of individual choice. Label the chicken breasts and let the people vote everyday in the supermarkets.

Some might argue there's no choice for the poor because their poverty will always coerce them into buying the cheapest. That's where Funded Libertarianism comes in: if everyone's got the social buying power through credit placed on their card or phone which can be used on food only - like Rishi Sunak's recent "eat out" voucher - and affords all standards of food, chlorinated or not, then problem solved.

Funded Libertarianism works by making the supply side compete, including the standards bodies, thereby leveraging the only known system that makes production efficient and high productivity. And the demand side bung ensures all citizens have the buying power to participate in what the well healed would choose to do with their incomes: go to the market.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander - and that's not just chlorine.

SoD

Brexiteers who think the single market is a good thing. I suppose that mathematically there must be one or two, but if you think that is typical of Brexiteer opinion then you have a case of advanced Remoaner-itis. I proscribe a dose of democracy, which as we know is quite unacceptable to all Remoaners.

Steve T,

I think you're assuming I'm talking about just the specific EU single market? I'm talking about the single market as a construct in the general sense. So that is, regardless of whether it is applied at the world, European, Britain, or the SWINE's (Scotland, Wales, Ireland (North), England).

Most Brexiteers embrace the idea of a single market as intrinsically good because it brings prosperity for all the people who engage in it - "free trade on steroids" you might say. So most Brexiteers wanted it for Blighty to operate across the SWINE's.

And Blighty's sub-state leaders also want a single market in their states only. If some Highland and Lowland sweaties suggested that each of those two regions of Scotland should have their own standards bodies, you can be sure the Scots Nat's would be up in arms and object.

And so it's "turtles all the way down", until the problem answers itself: From the EU, to Britain, to Scotland, to the Highlands, the admiration of the form of the single market and the benefits it brings goes all the way down until the decision hits the individual: "Oi, why daen y'all f'karf, I'll choose m'own standards for missey and the wee bairns!?"

Which is what I said in the first place.

SoD


Gee whiz SoD 'pears t me you cud pass reason'bly camoed thru Arkansas.

Might have t'do sumpin about your wardrobe. Got any Big Smiths?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEr60igUfHY

SoD,

How would the poultry industry in Britain go about "monetarily encouraging" members of parliament to continue considering PRT rinse a "lower standard"?

I have some sympathy toward your idea of letting people choose, but for things that require specialized knowledge it rarely works. Wearing masks to keep our germs to ourselves has turned into a political debate that's helped spread C19. Anti-vaxers are another prime example, and no doubt once there's a C19 vaccine we'll see plenty of silliness and fear mongering. To go to the illogical extreme, why not leave water untreated and let people add bleach or pool chlorine to their water if they choose to?

Overalls not my thing, JK old boy!

Except on women. Don't know why or where it came from, maybe growing up in the seventies when "Dungarees" were all the rage, or some dodgy nurture experience while under the influence, but I've always found overalls sexy on women.

Let's have look see, ah yes, this is the sort of thing I mean.

Bloody hell, was that a cunning plan to distract me from another Brexit discussion, JK?

If so it worked - I've just discovered "short dungarees". Byyyyeeee, see y'all in a coupla days!

SoD

So Bob, it works like this ...

How much does someone eat per day at the cost of supermarket food? £5? Maybe a tad more, call it £7. So 365 x £7 = £2,555 per annum, £220 per month (rounding up to the nearest tenner).

Give that to everyone per month as a voucher on their card or phone. The voucher credit can only be used for valid food products, verified by the bar code on scanning. If the card / phone is used for buying valid food products it comes off the voucher credit balance on the card / phone first until the food voucher credit is exhausted before any amount comes off the other cash on the card / phone.

Tax the rich to give to the poor and all that, so middle income earners break even - they lose £220 per month in tax, but they gain £220 in the voucher. The rich pay more but still get the voucher. The low income earners pay little or nothing but still get the £220.

So no-one knows if you're rich, poor, or middling in the supermarket queue when you're handing over the card / phone. Like uniforms at school before working class attire became fashionable - everyone looks the same and there's no status distinction or stigma.

Open up to the standard bodies to all the developed countries and mark the products accordingly so consumers can check. Nobody seems to be dying in great numbers from food poisoning when on holiday in the developed countries. So even if you're not the Albert Einstein of food hygiene standards, or even bothered to look at the internet jibber-jabber about it, there's nothing bad going to happen to you, FFS. And if you happen to be the sort of paranoid android that does care passionately about chlorinated chicken or whatever, well, you've got the buying power on your card / phone to do something about it.

Which reminds me - all food-banks can close because there won't be any folks in need, and the ex-food-bank staff can transfer to Walmart, Tesco etc. where the demand has increased from the needy who now command some dignified attention with real buying power.

Now do that across the big 8 - the things without which harm will come to you ...

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter
4. Health
5. Education
6. Energy
7. Information
8. Transport

About £12k per annum per person, last time I counted it up.

And in exchange for not dying of starvation, cold, or ignorance that the £12k buys you, you must go to a place of work and put in 40 hours. If you want more for iThingies, ten pints of lager on a Saturday night, or foreign holidays, then work harder, longer, smarter or some combo thereof.

We don't need a "Welfare State". We just need the tax man and a bit of tech to turn the cash around in the workplace before it gets anywhere near the pol-mass - the pols and the public sector.

And ref the pol-mass - sack the effing lot of them. Let them find out what getting a proper job actually means. And if no-one will pay them more than the £12k's worth of pay - as most of them will probably discover - well they'll finally get to know their true worth.

SoD

So to flatten income inequality you exchange the current political system for some sort of technocratic actuarial state? What motives do technocrats have to resist bribery or do what's best for the country? What ensures the value of or fair payment for state mandated (make-work) jobs? Your idea seems more than a little similar to the utopian socialistic experiments the Soviets tried with little success.

If I'm missing something, help me out.

What motives do technocrats have to resist bribery or do what's best for the country?

What technocrats? There are no technocrats. There's no-one to bribe or to resist bribery.

What ensures the value of or fair payment for state mandated (make-work) jobs?

What state mandated (make-work) jobs? The job's value is what the market pays, starting at a minimum of £12k. Anything less than £12k is less than that which harm will come to you because you're missing one or more of the big 8, so isn't allowed. If you can't make £12k you can present to the slimmed down social services of the state who will evaluate whether you're a bullshitter or not and act accordingly i.e. point you at several £12k jobs and leave it at that if you're a bullshitter, or put you into care if you're disabled (i.e. assist you with your claim on your health insurance that the £12k a year has been affording you) or pay £12k in unemployment benefit if there genuinely are no £12k jobs.

SoD

Some group of people have to establish the current market value for the big 8. If you don't want to call them technocrats, how about "quants" to better fit market language? What forces them to do accurate estimates? Who actually distributes the money? It seems you want to eliminate the rest of the government. (And ref the pol-mass - sack the effing lot of them.) If the people have no representation you have an authoritarian system with central planning. It's not surprising. You did claim to be a commie the other day.

After giving it more thought, on its own the rest sounds like a BMI. Because of automation that's probably going to be necessary at some point, so I'm with you there.

Democracy decides the level of funding for the big 8.

Envisage 3 parties ...

The Right Libertarians of the right pointy corner of Nolan's chart. They're view is: -

Food £0
Clothing £0
Shelter £0
Health £0
Education £0
Energy £0
Information £0
Transport £0

In other words the original American Libertarians. It's all down to you, no bungs. You keep precisely what you earn, and if you don't earn enough to cover the big 8 then it's down to faith, hope and charity to help you out.

The Funded Libertarians of the top pointy corner of Nolan's chart: -

Food £2000
Clothing £500
Shelter £3000
Health £2500
Education £1250
Energy £750
Information £500
Transport £1500

£12k per annum per person. No fun money, just enough for need so no harm comes to you. The party of yours truly.

The Left Libertarians, left pointy corner of Nolan: -

Food £3000
Clothing £1000
Shelter £4000
Health £3500
Education £2000
Energy £1000
Information £1000
Transport £1500

£17k per annum. More than is actually needed. A dollop of £5k's worth of "fun money" included.

Envisage the life cycle of Libertarianism: RL party gets elected, goes ok for a while, then a recession comes and social unrest occurs. LL party gets elected, goes ok for a while, then productivity drops, debt rises, capital flees, the currency drops and inflation starts up. FL party gets elected, everything goes ok for a while then people get bored and think a change is ok for change's sake. LL or RL party gets elected. And so on.

The democracy is hands-off the operation of the means of production and distribution irrespective of left, right and centre politics. The parties are positioned along the top track of points in the Nolan chart. Contrast this with today's political firmament where the parties track left, right and centre of the bottom pointy corner of Nolan's chart: hands-on authoritarianism screwing up prosperity and freedom.

Democracy's executive still does defence, foreign policy and law enforcement. So plenty of scope for the pol-mass to get their teeth into. Hands-on with allies, enemies, and criminals - what the limits of democracy were originally intended to be, leaving the ordinary folks at home alone to prosper and live free.

SoD

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/2020/07/17/people-dead-hospitalized-drinking-hand-sanitizer-methanol-arizona/

Yo Bob!

If a person deceases after ingesting the hand sanitizer is the dead person's death certificate to still list it as 'Death from Covid 19'?

SoD,

The fun thing about Libertarians is that you want the impossible and no matter how many times it's pointed out, you persist.

JK,

The more important papers would be a civil suit against Trump for negligent homicide.

Heck Bob why not charge it in the 1st degree?

Obviously since a President is always prepared for what he's about to say during a press conference premeditation is apparent.

JK,

Chris Wallace would think you're a very kind man (it was impossible to avoid clips of the interview). First degree murder of reality, maybe.

JK,

Good news! Trump is going to resume his coronavirus briefings! With a little more of that voodoo he do so well he'll get his approval numbers into the 20% range. He's got less than 20 points to go. Dear Leader and his crew are as sharp as soap bubbles.

Maybe Chris would, maybe Chris wouldn't Bob.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/chris-wallace-is-why-there-cant-be-fact-checkers-at-the-2020-trump-biden-debates

I'm reminded of all - well maybe not all of the times you'be Bob "helpfully fact-checked."

Like this instance:

What Trump said

“The murder rate in Baltimore and Chicago is higher than El Salvador, Guatemala, or even Afghanistan.”

Bob's provided fact-check

This is False

Baltimore and Chicago do have higher murder rates than Guatemala and Afghanistan, but El Salvador’s is higher. Regardless, comparing the crime rates of cities to entire countries is misleading.

JK,

The Washington Examiner knows how to make a case. And, as Will said, "To err is human."

JK,

Just curious. What effect do you think personal attacks on peripheral figures or news outlets is going to have on the campaign? Those two techniques are already baked in to the Nth degree. The people who love Trump aren't going to change their minds and no one else cares.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)