Despite Perry’s recent preoccupations, Samizdata seems to be bowling along nicely, doesn’t it? The pattern is, there’s an eight hour silence, Perry is out on the town trying to sign up more Samizdatans and getting somewhat “tired”, I decide it’s up to me, I post a page-and-a-half of waffle about whatever comes into my head and other Samizdatans read it and say to themselves we can’t have all those Americans thinking all this is is Brian waffling we’d better do something. So they do. And I now have some rambling to do in reply.
I liked Paul Staines’ bit about Britain’s growth rate having sunk like a stone. What this confirms is that British government income is now as high as it can be. Increasing the percentage rate of taxation doesn’t increase government tax income, it merely slows the economy down and causes government income to remain static. Similarly, if the government were to reduce the percentage rate of tax, government income wouldn’t decrease. This would merely cause the economy to surge forward, and the smaller slice of a bigger cake would end up being the same size as the bigger slices of smaller cakes. Britain is now at the top of the Laffer Curve. Isn’t that exciting? In plain English, the bastards are taking us for the absolute maximum amount they can, and if they get any greedier we stop coming through their bit of the forest.
If they truly want to spend more on the British National Health Service they are going to have to spend less on other things.
Aaron Armitage liked my ramble about gun-control, but wants to add that: “… people who are more likely to be shot are more likely to buy guns for self-defense. In other words, the risk of getting shot causes the gun ownership, not the other way around.” Quite right. Capitalise the P, take away “in other words”, and we have another anti-gun-control aphorism for the collection.
I didn’t pay much attention to that David Caruso movie, but by the end Marg Helgenberg was making excellent use of a gun to kill a bad person. David Caruso, if I understood matters correctly, continued to disapprove and instead of remaining with Marg like a Real Man and having some more sex with her in her swimming pool instead buggered off to Rio de Janeiro. Good riddance. Whatever happened to David Caruso? (E-mailers: I do not care what happened to David Caruso.)
I was delighted that Alice Bachini responded to my bit about pram design. I feared that this pram posting had disappeared into the oblivion bucket labelled Things That Belligerent Men Of A Certain Age In T-Shirts With Jobs In IT Don’t Care About. “Prams? Prams?!?!?!?! We want threats to H-Bomb the Middle East, girls in black leather on motor bikes, GNP statistics, guns, jet planes, pictures of Kylie Minogue in see-through clothing …” [stay tuned gentlemen]. “We may not be Real Men, but at least when we’re sitting at our computers allow us to pretend that we are.” Etc.)
Anyway Alice, thanks. You caught me committing an error I’m fond of denouncing others for, which is another Fixed-Quantity-Of fallacy, in this case the Fixed Quantity of Infant Attention fallacy. Your point being: outside stimulation increases the total capacity of infants to pay attention to things in general, such as and including Mum. They don’t either attend to the outside world or to Mum. They pay more attention to both. Makes sense.
That’s enough rambling for now. I’ll get to Antoine later. As usual, most of what he’s saying I agree with.
