October 2007 Archives
Good little cafe this one. Does a hearty full breakfast as well as light Mediterranean dishes. Friendly staff and reasonably priced too. Sometimes the music is a bit loud for a hangover, but other than that it is a good choice.
Problematic stuff, oil. So precious, so harmful, so useful, so sparsely distributed around the globe. We are addicted to it, and through being so give billions of our hard-earned to people who would rather see us dead or enslaved, and to dictators and other tyrants. One thing is for sure and that is it is going to run out. From that, we can also conclude we are going to use it all. And seeing as we are going to use it all, setting up mechanisms to reduce our usage is not necessary - does it matter to the environment who used it? Does it matter in the great scheme of things at all? Not really. One man reducing his consumption means another has more to use, and he will.
However, as the price rises because demand rises whilst supply declines (commodity markets behave how economists expect us all to behave) other fuel sources will become more commercially viable. Cost will, however, most probably rise overall. Cost of transportation; cost of heating; cost of living. But think of the immense slack in our economies that we can use up to cover these costs: we could probably reduce power consumption by 20% without breaking a sweat. Aircon is unnecessary in Britain (open the window) and getting a job closer to home or home closer to work is possible for a lot more people that let on. Using infra-red detectors to switch off TVs and gadgets when no-one is in the room. Walk to the post box instead of drive. Simple things. No detriment to us individually. If I reach my 60s I'll look back at the late 20th Century as the gloriously, uniquely, indulgent period it was, where frugality and modesty in our wants were thrown aside for a brief moment in history. Our future, I think, won't be worse for lack of fuel. Other things might make it worse, but excessive consumption and inefficiency as a mode de jour are not the be all and end all of a happy life.
Oil will run out. Let's not get too wound up about it. As Buddha said when asked, "how should I get out of the burning sun?" just "step into the furnace".
However, as the price rises because demand rises whilst supply declines (commodity markets behave how economists expect us all to behave) other fuel sources will become more commercially viable. Cost will, however, most probably rise overall. Cost of transportation; cost of heating; cost of living. But think of the immense slack in our economies that we can use up to cover these costs: we could probably reduce power consumption by 20% without breaking a sweat. Aircon is unnecessary in Britain (open the window) and getting a job closer to home or home closer to work is possible for a lot more people that let on. Using infra-red detectors to switch off TVs and gadgets when no-one is in the room. Walk to the post box instead of drive. Simple things. No detriment to us individually. If I reach my 60s I'll look back at the late 20th Century as the gloriously, uniquely, indulgent period it was, where frugality and modesty in our wants were thrown aside for a brief moment in history. Our future, I think, won't be worse for lack of fuel. Other things might make it worse, but excessive consumption and inefficiency as a mode de jour are not the be all and end all of a happy life.
Oil will run out. Let's not get too wound up about it. As Buddha said when asked, "how should I get out of the burning sun?" just "step into the furnace".
Now this is a friendly and pretty good all round pizza cum spicy potatoes cum kebab cum chips n burgers joint. Sometimes open incredibly late (have seen it open at 4am) and actually does a garlic sauce. Nothing amazing but nothing too bad either. Average in the world of kebabs (no way near a Dennis' of High Wycombe or "Restaurant" on Cowley Road, Oxford, back in the 20th Century, but okay nonetheless). A drunkard's choice of late night trans-fats.
Kebabs are so so, and often out of doner after 10pm. Service is with a scowl. Prices are reasonable, but there's no garlic sauce and it doesn't look like there's any intention to get any in. Okay after a slewful of ale and you're not feeling up to walking the extra 50 yards to Grill House by the bridge.
This is a decent curry house. Mainly focused on the eating in side of things, but they do take away and deliveries too for a small fee. The curry has been consistently good quality and the service friendly and competent. Has quite a regular customer base, which is no surprise given the overall quality.
I made some the other night and it was just what the doctor ordered. I was about to write up the recipe but there are plenty on the web anyway. Mine was pretty much the BBC recipe except with a bit of spud in it to thicken it up and single cream instead of coconut milk to make it extra lardy and tasty. A good way to make use of the inside of a pumpkin if you're decking one out for Halloween.
Crusty rolls with butter are compulsory.
Crusty rolls with butter are compulsory.
This place is stylish and the food was great. Contemporary British / cross cultural, it's a bar mostly. We went for a work party. I opted for the veggie dish and it was fresh, filling and tasty. Reminds me of the those Soho outfits I used to frequent in the late 90s. Good G&Ts and Long Island Iced Teas (I am old skool, FACT). Good location down by the river. Might be problematic for those of use still smoking seeing as the place is very self-contained. Still well worth a visit.
My local curry house. First few visits we found it fantastic: just down the road and great curry. However, the last few visits the rice has been dry and tasted like it had been sat around for a fair while, and the dhal was tasteless. The tikka lamb jalfrazi (a once favourite) was harsh the last time I tried it. I won't be going back to Kizmet in a hurry.
Why Money Doesn’t Buy Happiness is a strange article in Newsweek explaining how psychologists have discovered that after a certain point you get less enjoyment from more money. This is the diminishing returns principle, applied to application of a resource (money) to gain a return (happiness) and is nothing new, having been first described in the 19th Century. What is interesting is the odd reasons they come up with for their being less return for money. According to the article the range of choices creates stress and therefore unhappiness. But surely you don't need to be a good earner to have access to such a bewildering array of choices? You don't, of course. You choose between 17 different cheap types of pasta instead of 17 different types of expensive pasta.
They seem to have missed the obvious answer, which is that relative wealth is important to us. Notice how the optimum happiness from wealth is around the comfortably middle earnings region? This point is also where you end up being relatively wealthier than most of the population, with a sharp decrease in numbers of people above you (those that are have a sharp increase in income). You're wealthier than most people but still part of the lumpen masses, with plenty of similar peers, which is what lots of us like. Notice how gap year kids (and backpackers generally) love living what would be described as itinerant, meagre lives, eating cheap crap and sleeping in bug infested hostels when in the developing world but would be mortified to do the same at home? Because their position in the society they are in at any one time is more important than the materials they own or have use of.
Keeping up with the Joneses, attaining or maintaining a good position in society, relative wealth are what drives us to work five days a week; not an intrinsic need for a Nintendo Wii or stuffed quails' eggs. Expanded choice isn't the cause of diminishing returns from greater wealth: the extra effort; the dislocation from your peers; the irrelevance of being more better off (once you're better off, that's the important thing) than the next chap is what reduces the return from money once you get beyond the upper quartile.
They seem to have missed the obvious answer, which is that relative wealth is important to us. Notice how the optimum happiness from wealth is around the comfortably middle earnings region? This point is also where you end up being relatively wealthier than most of the population, with a sharp decrease in numbers of people above you (those that are have a sharp increase in income). You're wealthier than most people but still part of the lumpen masses, with plenty of similar peers, which is what lots of us like. Notice how gap year kids (and backpackers generally) love living what would be described as itinerant, meagre lives, eating cheap crap and sleeping in bug infested hostels when in the developing world but would be mortified to do the same at home? Because their position in the society they are in at any one time is more important than the materials they own or have use of.
Keeping up with the Joneses, attaining or maintaining a good position in society, relative wealth are what drives us to work five days a week; not an intrinsic need for a Nintendo Wii or stuffed quails' eggs. Expanded choice isn't the cause of diminishing returns from greater wealth: the extra effort; the dislocation from your peers; the irrelevance of being more better off (once you're better off, that's the important thing) than the next chap is what reduces the return from money once you get beyond the upper quartile.
Host Tracker provides a free service (and paid ones) for checking your site is up and running, with a neat little graphic to show the % uptime too. Nice little add-on.
It's funny that abolition of inheritance tax is so popular.
First, it affects hardly anyone: 6% of estates would be liable to it and 0.1% of the population end up paying it. The majority of people supporting its abolition will never experience it either as a dead person or a beneficiary.
Second, it's only levied after a hefty, generous zero-rated allowance of £300,00 and only on the value over that hefty, generous zero-rated allowance. There's none at all to pay if the beneficiary is a spouse. But if someone were to leave £310,000 when they die, £306,000 would be left after inheritance tax. Hardly a small sum.
Third, why pay tax when you're alive when you can pay it when you're dead? It's a death tax - it's levied on the estate not the award any beneficiary receives. I'd rather pay tax when I'm dead. If I had a choice, I'd like to pay all my tax when I'm dead. When do you want to pay tax?
Then there's the argument that it's already been taxed; I shouldn't have to pay more tax on it. But why not get rid of VAT, beer and tobacco duty, road tax? We've already paid tax on the money we spend, right? Fact is, the gubmint needs to collect tax. It collects it on transfers of money from one party to another mostly. Either they collect it all on income tax or a bit on VAT, a bit on inheritance, a bit on income tax and so on. They need to collect tax. That's how they have money to spend.
Inheritance is intrinsically unfair. It leads to social and economic malaise. The aristocracy were built on it and people can only now think (incorrectly) that they can climb the intergenerational greasy pole game because inheritance has been reduced to a minor economic phenomena in the past century. A hundred years ago they would be a lot clearer about how hopeless it would be to think oiks like them could compete with the Dukes of Westminster and their ilk.
Interestingly Bill Gates and George Soros were against abolition in the USA. Two of the richest men in the world with a lot to give away in their wills. They know that self-made men like themselves would be up a creek had they had to compete with generations of wealth collating aristocracy. They also point out that it deters philanthropy, and Gates' Foundation's work shows how valuable intelligent, successful people can be to the world of charity.
I find it unhealthy that so many people expect inheritance. How about earning a living? Give each child a (more) level playing field and if they do well, good, and if they arse about, and land on their arse then that's their choice. Given some a pile of cash they haven't earned makes taking part so much more pointless for those that don't receive such. Fears that your children can't compete in the housing market are fears of the symptoms of inherited wealth (I can't think of anyone my age who has bought a house without parental handouts). The cure is not more inheritance but better population management and market regulation (the free market isn't a good mechanism for housing as it doesn't increase supply and doesn't decrease demand).
The current allowance is generous, it's easily avoidable, it does the economy and society good, and it means we pay less tax when we're alive. Abolition of inheritance tax is a non-issue wrapped in bubble headed economic short termism.
First, it affects hardly anyone: 6% of estates would be liable to it and 0.1% of the population end up paying it. The majority of people supporting its abolition will never experience it either as a dead person or a beneficiary.
Second, it's only levied after a hefty, generous zero-rated allowance of £300,00 and only on the value over that hefty, generous zero-rated allowance. There's none at all to pay if the beneficiary is a spouse. But if someone were to leave £310,000 when they die, £306,000 would be left after inheritance tax. Hardly a small sum.
Third, why pay tax when you're alive when you can pay it when you're dead? It's a death tax - it's levied on the estate not the award any beneficiary receives. I'd rather pay tax when I'm dead. If I had a choice, I'd like to pay all my tax when I'm dead. When do you want to pay tax?
Then there's the argument that it's already been taxed; I shouldn't have to pay more tax on it. But why not get rid of VAT, beer and tobacco duty, road tax? We've already paid tax on the money we spend, right? Fact is, the gubmint needs to collect tax. It collects it on transfers of money from one party to another mostly. Either they collect it all on income tax or a bit on VAT, a bit on inheritance, a bit on income tax and so on. They need to collect tax. That's how they have money to spend.
Inheritance is intrinsically unfair. It leads to social and economic malaise. The aristocracy were built on it and people can only now think (incorrectly) that they can climb the intergenerational greasy pole game because inheritance has been reduced to a minor economic phenomena in the past century. A hundred years ago they would be a lot clearer about how hopeless it would be to think oiks like them could compete with the Dukes of Westminster and their ilk.
Interestingly Bill Gates and George Soros were against abolition in the USA. Two of the richest men in the world with a lot to give away in their wills. They know that self-made men like themselves would be up a creek had they had to compete with generations of wealth collating aristocracy. They also point out that it deters philanthropy, and Gates' Foundation's work shows how valuable intelligent, successful people can be to the world of charity.
I find it unhealthy that so many people expect inheritance. How about earning a living? Give each child a (more) level playing field and if they do well, good, and if they arse about, and land on their arse then that's their choice. Given some a pile of cash they haven't earned makes taking part so much more pointless for those that don't receive such. Fears that your children can't compete in the housing market are fears of the symptoms of inherited wealth (I can't think of anyone my age who has bought a house without parental handouts). The cure is not more inheritance but better population management and market regulation (the free market isn't a good mechanism for housing as it doesn't increase supply and doesn't decrease demand).
The current allowance is generous, it's easily avoidable, it does the economy and society good, and it means we pay less tax when we're alive. Abolition of inheritance tax is a non-issue wrapped in bubble headed economic short termism.
It's funny, but some people I know have never heard of eggs mashed up in a cup. What poor lives! So for anyone that hasn't heard of them, here's what it involves:
Perfect food for cold miserable days.
- Boil some eggs (2-3) for 5 mins (until hard)
- Peel the shells
- Place eggs in a cup
- Add butter, salt, pepper
- Mash up with a knife
- Eat with a teaspoon
Perfect food for cold miserable days.
