It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard
Politics, economics and culture from the master. Unmissable.
Melanie Phillips home page
Melanie Phillips' peerless blog. Read, and learn.
Daniel Finkelstein's Times Comment Central
A daily must-read.
Tim Worstall
Lots of interesting nibbles - and a ruthless swatter of economic gibberish.
Harry's Place
Must-read left of centre blog from writers who understand the threat to the West.
Clive Davis
Always interesting selection of culture and politics, from an Anglo-American bent.
Samizdata
Libertarian blog, packed every day.
Norm's blog
The thoroughly sensible thoughts of renowned left-wing academic Norman Geras, Professor of Government at Manchester. And cricket, too.
Public Interest
Peter Briffa's inimitable take on The Yazzmonster and other assorted demons.
Reform
The public sector reform group; their website is an invaluable source of data and ideas.
Centre for the New Europe
The leading European public policy think tank.
Developed by:
| August | 22 |
| 2006 |
Jamie Whyte is spot on (as ever) in his Times piece on the drivel some people speak about 'UK plc':
Despite its popularity, the idea that countries compete in international trade is nonsense. It is companies that compete, not countries. The competition between Renault and Ford is not a competition between France and America. An American politician who thinks it is, and imposes import tariffs on Renaults, only injures his people. He forces them to pay more for cars and diverts American resources to the car industry when they could more productively be deployed elsewhere.The free trade that allows competition between companies from different countries is a form of co-operation between the countries themselves. It allows them to deploy their resources more efficiently. All countries that participate in the global economy benefit from it, even if (indeed because) some of their companies do not. A “win-win†arrangement isn’t a competition.
The idea that trade involves competition between nations stems from the tenacity of an early socialist misconception. Many continue to think of a country as a single, very large, company. The expression “UK plcâ€, typically used by those who like to think of themselves as economically astute, perfectly encapsulates the error.
BTW, do read his Bad Thoughts: A Guide to Clear Thinking if you haven't.
(It's just been announced that Jamie Whyte is shortlisted for this year's Bastiat Prize.)
MessageSpace
My colleagues slaving away at the lab bench and teaching physics undergraduates may not thank me for this, but I have to agree with Jamie Whyte. He is absolutely spot on, and it's rare these days to see such clarity of thinking on educational matters.
Students are increasingly wise to the economic realities, and are chosing, in their own interests, not to study science. There is a serious problem with the state of science education, as I argued in a recent Comment is Free article. I would argue that students are missing out on something truly wonderful in not learning about the wonders of the world around them, and developing the kind of life skills that a science and engineering education affords. But let's not kid ourselves that the economy of "UK plc" is going to suffer because we are not producing enough British science graduates to fill jobs which don't yet exist, and may never do so.
If we wish to debate seriously about science education, then we need to return to the near-extinct notion of education for its own sake, and the difference between education and training.
This is the field - trade - in which I currently work and the idea of Any Country plc is ludicrous at ministerial level. For a start, the word 'partner' takes on a whole new meaning once removed from the context of one company; win/win is always a distinct possibility and except for the Swiss, many of the benefits are more intangible and often further down the track in the planning cycle.