How smokers can help the economy
Thursday, September 30, 2010 Yesterday I was invited to provide a comment for a curious article on the BBC News website. Entitled 'How to spend to mend the economy' it asks, "Where would those ready to fulfil their patriotic duty be best advised to splash their cash?". I said:
"During the recession you can indulge in one or two so-called vices like smoking and drinking in certain knowledge you will be raising money for the public purse and enjoying yourself at the same time."
Concerned, no doubt, that readers might be tempted to take my advice, the article suddenly becomes a little darker:
Some go further, suggesting smokers do the country a favour by dying early and not drawing a pension - helping ease the demographic timebomb of an increasingly ageing population. Others, however, point out that the cost of treating smoking and alcohol-related diseases amounts to billions of pounds.
Eh?
Full article HERE.
Reader Comments (8)
Here's an interesting question:
Suppose some Brilliant Scientist were to invent a genetically-modified cigarette that not only GUARANTEED perfect health, but enabled one to live to 150.
How would the Government - and all the little Arnotts - react to THAT ?
Bit of a poser, I'd say...................................
I remember reading somewhere, not long ago (sorry, can’t remember where) that there is in fact a theory around that it was the sudden spread smoking bans throughout the world which was the true catalyst for the global financial crisis, rather than the most-cited “ignition point” of the collapse of all those sub-prime mortgage companies due to non-payment of mortgages. Everyone knows about the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market and the effect that it had, but few if any journalists seem to have asked the question as to why they collapsed in the first place.
The writers pointed out that in fact sub-prime mortgages weren’t a new thing – they’ve been around since the mid-1980s and had been jogging along, by and large, without any problems. Then from the mid-2000s onwards there was a sudden and drastic rash of smoking bans all over the place, particularly in the States. And, as we know only too well, one of the main casualties of smoking bans is the hospitality sector. And in which field did many of those sub-prime mortgagees work? Yep – the hospitality sector, as bartenders, waiters, waitresses, short-order chefs and kitchen assistants. So guess what happened to their mortgage repayments? After that, of course, it became a domino effect which made the headlines.
As a theory, it has a lot of merit and offers some interesting explanations in terms of the suddenness of the collapse, its precise timing and the reasons which might be behind it, but needless to say it’s never been allowed to see the light of day in any of the MSM publications. Perish the thought!
It never seems to occur to these economists that if the Gov keep increasing the cost of 'luxuries' (like cigs and booze) through taxation, then the people buying these luxuries have less to spend on other things. I have used luxuries as only one example. The same also applies to building inefficient windmills to supply electricity at enormous expense and raising fuel prices to pay for them - less to spend on other things. Another wheeze has been to employ training organisations to teach young people (young men in particular) to write better CVs in order to have a better chance of getting jobs which do not exist. (This seems to be an awful distortion of Keynes' idea that, in times of recession, the State should make work for the unemployed - his idea was to provide actual worthwhile activities which might not be necessary but contribute something to the Nation in due course, such as repairing potholes in roads, cataloguing books in libraries, assisting skilled people in their work - ie, making a contribution) But there is also another factor in these equations, and that is that all the increased costs that the Government impose UPON US ALL, decrease our competitiveness in the world. They have been at it for the last ten years, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
There are lots of weird and wonderful things about how the economy works, but, in general terms, within a closed economy, provided that the money supply and inflation are controlled, the economy is self balancing.
From the point of view of the 'Save our Pubs and Clubs' campaign, this is very important. The thing is that supermarkets selling cheap alcohol ought only to effect - small off-licences. Business moves from the off-licences to the supermarkets - that is why there are so few corner shops these days. The situation self-balances. But this situation ought not to affect pubs since pubs do not just sell alcohol. They are meeting places and entertainment places (entertainment in the sense of self-entertainment). And so, when Ed Mili said, "" [...] we must be on the side of those who are dismayed by the undermining of the local pub with cut-price alcohol from supermarkets"" he was barking up the wrong tree. The question is: does he KNOW that he is barking up the wrong tree and is he deliberately misleading people? I think that he does and that he is. The same goes for the Government (a consensus, peer reviewed of course,is being created). I can see in my imagination, Government officials congregating in non smoke filled rooms, calculating how to impose extra taxes on supermarkets in order 'to redress the balance between pub prices and supermarket prices'.
Expect an announcement soon.
Oh......by the way. The time really has come for Forest to change its name. It really is very important for smokers not to demand THE RIGHT to smoke. ASH made much of Forest's claim to have THE RIGHT. Smokers do not demand THE RIGHT to smoke - they ask for THE FREEDOM to smoke in the open air and in places where the proprietors permit and, of course, in their own places.
Would it not be interesting to have a little competition to choose a new name?
Junican -
Re: "The question is: does he KNOW that he is barking up the wrong tree and is he deliberately misleading people? "
Now, THAT is the question, isn't it ? Do these politicians actually KNOW they'te talking crap much of the time ? If they do, then they are - as certain people have long supsected - merely LIARS.
If, however, they truly BELIEVE what they're saying - whatever the weight of any countervailing evidence, then they are - as certain people have also long suspected - simply FOOLS.
I have a pretty shrewd idea into which category I'd place people like the idiotic (clue) Caroline Spelman - Planet-Saver to the Quality - and Tony Benn Junior. But as to trickier folk like Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband...........................
Welcome to Goon Island !
There is a third option, of course, and that is that some of them are “pathological” liars (rather than the common-or-garden variety) - a very common symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, i.e. they are people who latch onto (or fabricate) a lie because, for whatever reason, they want it to be the truth and who then, by constant repetition, exaggeration within each repetition, and strenuous resistance of conflicting evidence, gradually come to convince themselves (even if they don’t convince anyone else) that what they are saying is genuinely true.
I’d say there’s a pretty even mix of all three categories amongst all MP’s of all parties. Maybe we should do a little study of the comments which each of them make on other things on a “compare and contrast” type basis to see if we can identify which category each one falls into – Fool, Fibber or Freak!
Good point, Misty !
And 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder' WOULD certainly fill the bill in many cases. It might even be a necessary QUALIFICATION for preferment to high office these days..................
@Misty and Martin V.
You may be right, but I think that there is a much simpler explanation.
One might ask, "Who wrote EdM's speech?" Whoever was on the committee which wrote the speech will never personally be held to account for what they put into the speech since no one will ever know whom they are. It follows therefore that they can put into the speech any nonsense they like, provided that it sounds good. None of the faithful listening to the speech either know or care about the implications.
There is something inherently peculiar about politics. It seems to be the case that truth and accuracy are irrelevant. Only 'the sound' is important. How else can one explain how it comes to be that 150 ish Tory MPs voted against the smoking ban, but only 31 MPs of all persuasions have signed Binley's EDM?
Nevertheless, it is encouraging that EdM has at least recognised the plight of pubs. In my opinion, it is not surprising that many of the 'magnificent edifices' (many of which originate from the horse and carriage era - stabling) are failing. The present era lends itself to smaller establishments, albeit with the same floor space, more or less - no rooms to let and no landlord accommodation. The significance of the smoking ban in these circumstances is that it inhibits the development of this sector.
Let us look at the likely meaning of EdM's statement that supermarket prices are closing pubs. In all honesty, the only expectation is that he intends to increase tax on supermarket sales! But will this increase custom in pubs? Frankly, it makes no sense. Such a tax might reduce sales in supermarkets, but there is no logical consequence that it will increase sales in pubs.
All very simple really.
"How else can one explain how it comes to be that 150 ish Tory MPs voted against the smoking ban, but only 31 MPs of all persuasions have signed Binley's EDM? "
The Party Whips, perhaps ? Or just Negotiable Principles ?
Either way, most of them nowadays seem little more than pathetically inadequate little time-servers with no stomach for any kind of fight. If we were faced with a second Dunkirk, they'd probably demand a 'risk assessment' before the boats were sent..............................................