Caliban's First law on Understanding Human Behaviour

A while ago I heard a chap on the Today programme describing his researches into unaccountable deaths following transplant operations. Obviously there is a risk in such radical surgery, but the mortality rate was higher than the surgeons expected or could reasonably explain.

The vital clue came when the researcher interviewed a man who was dying after his second transplant operation. It transpired he had not been taking the prescribed medication, an essential component of the therapy.  The researcher followed up this lead, and discovered about twenty percent of all transplant patients failed to take the medication.

The interviewer was completely baffled. And he asked why on earth this should be the case, as all patients were carefully told about the critical importance of anti-rejection drugs.

The researcher explained. And although he chose his words carefully, in essence he said that around twenty percent of the population are mad. Transplant patients are a representative cross section of the community, so as you would expect, twenty percent of them are mad too.

So Caliban’s first law of Human behaviour is:

“Twenty percent of the population is mad.” 

He didn’t go on to define his terms. But I think we can reasonably assume that ‘mad’ covers a fairly broad spectrum.  And in my experience it ranges from slightly eccentric, through downright weird, to completely barking.

And once you understand the hypothesis, it is not only self evidently true, but also a very useful tool for understanding the world in which we live.  All those bizarre stories you will have heard or read in the newspaper and shaken your head in disbelief are suddenly explained!

All that talk about The Rapture, The End of Days, Scientology, Homeopathy, Horoscopes and much, much more, otherwise inexplicable nonsense is suddenly crystal clear. It’s the twenty percent at work.

Now, you will probably be looking askance at your family friends and neighbours. After all, twenty percent is one in five of the population! But there is good news. After some consideration I have realised the twenty percent are not evenly distributed among the general population. They clump. Some groups have a very high concentration of bonkers, while others have virtually none. As an example pop down to any radical religious group meeting and it will be positively teeming with crazy. On the other hand, pick a Church of England or Catholic Church and they will nearly all be disappointingly sane.

So unless you are crackers, there is a good chance your family and friends are sane too. Neighbours are less reliable as you don’t choose them. And indeed certain regions of the World seem especially prone to mad. The Middle East seems to have a very generous share that is way beyond its official twenty percent allocation. And worryingly a lot of them are leaders in government and religion. That could just be a reflection of the high level in society at large, but either way, it’s a good place for sane people to avoid.

And of course, most mad people do not go around waving their arms in the air and shouting hallelujah or allahu akbar. So mad can be quite hard to spot. And it often only comes out under particular circumstances. I suspect some mad people know they are quietly loopy and do their best to act normal, only when provoked or off guard does the loopy shine through.

A very good friend of mine and his wife became friendly with an older couple who were gentle and pleasant people. They became quite close and often exchanged mutual invitations to supper. The gentleman concerned was one of those heroic pilots who flew during the war. However one evening he carefully explained who during the war he never actually flew, as his spirit self had taken the aircraft up into the sky to fight leaving him safely on the ground. A brave man no doubt, but barmy as a box of bats. The suppers ceased forthwith.

An interesting codicil to Caliban’s law of Human Behaviour is:

“There is no idea, so mad, that someone somewhere will not believe it.”

This barely needs explanation. But just consider: Some people are Scientologists. Quite a lot of people (mostly in America of course) are Mormons. There are people who believe the story of Adam and Eve is literally true.

And just in case you think this is confined to religious groups, there is a Flat Earth Society. Some people insist they have been abducted by Aliens, others believe them. There are supporters of Big Foot, The Abominable Snowman, Leprechauns, Homeopathy, Horoscopes and all manner of clearly made up stuff.

It doesn’t matter how crazy the idea is somebody, somewhere will believe it. I suppose it all adds to the gaiety of nations and gives the rest of us sane ones a good laugh, but personally I find it rather tedious. Because no matter how bonkers the idea, you can be sure they will not only tell you all about it - but will expect you to believe it too.

       

E.T. But not nice about it.

I was recently pondering other worlds and what extraterrestrial life will be like, if we ever find any.

My bet is we will find some kind of life on Mars. Not little green men of course, but bacteria or maybe something larger. The probes have found nothing yet, but I heard a scientist on the radio explaining how she had taken a probe into a US Desert, and it had found nothing! And that is an area that has plenty of life.

It seems pretty certain that Mars had free water at some point in its history, and it was there long enough to carve river valleys and gorges. Free water means life is highly possible if not highly probable. And one thing we know from our own planet is life is very , very, persistent. Some of the most inhospitable places on Earth have life that has somehow adapted itself to the most hostile environments.

Which means if there ever was life on Mars, it’s probably still there.

But I was imagining something far more bizarre. Could a planet develop only animal life i.e. no plants! It’s quite easy to imagine the opposite but a planet without plant life?

Well it is possible (just about). Every creature from the smallest to the largest would have to be a predator. Without a base of herbivores, life would be competitive in the extreme. Every animal would have to aggressive and defensive. Every “cow” would need fangs and claws!

 But there is a major stumbling block – oxygen. Our animal life is based on oxygen and all of the oxygen in our atmosphere comes from, you guessed it, plants. Oxygen is a very highly reactive gas. That’s how we animals can “burn” it for energy.  It reacts with almost everything, so it’s very unlikely to occur naturally as a free gas. So the alarming denizens of our predator planet could not have a metabolism based on oxygen.

So, is there another highly reactive gas that occurs naturally? Well yes, there are a couple. One is sulphur dioxide. It is produced in vast amounts by volcanoes. It’s pretty reactive and forms sulphuric acid in contact with water.

But I think a more satisfying candidate is chlorine. Unlike Sulphur dioxide, It’s an element like oxygen. It’s very highly reactive.  And I believe it already occurs naturally in the atmosphere of some planets.

What an intriguing thought! A planet with a green atmosphere, populated by ravening beasts that would look and behave differently from anything we know - or can easily envisage. The evolutionary pressures would be extreme with just about everything trying to eat everything else.

Would that very extreme natural selection produce more intelligent life, faster? Or would such extreme savagery mean intelligence was a luxury no animal could afford?   I’m inclined to the former view. After all intelligence is just another environmental niche to be filled, and I would imagine extreme selection would fill them all very quickly.

I’m not a biologist so I don’t know if Chlorine is sufficiently reactive to support organisms or if a carnivore only ecosystem could exist. If you have any thoughts on this, put ‘em down below, in the comments box.

How the West was lost (and how to get it back)

Despite its current economic woes America is still by far the most powerful country in the World.

For all its inability to control public spending, the US economy is still five times larger than its nearest rival (China). The US military machine is much, much, larger than any other. US defence spending is five times more than its nearest rival (also China).

And yet America’s military expeditions in foreign lands since WW2 have all been notable by their failure. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, none of these have been indisputable American victories. Only Vietnam was an outright defeat, but Korea was at best, a draw and Iraq and Afghanistan have been tactical victories, but strategic defeats. But why?

Well, in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the military campaign was swift efficient and effective. It has failed to meet its objectives because its objectives were political and hopelessly naive. They were, to create modern liberal democracies in medieval countries.

I have met many educated, intelligent and sophisticated Americans. But there is a thread of naivety in the national psyche, especially about foreign affairs. It is often about a simplistic desire to ‘do good’ as they see it. They are not so naive as to be unprepared to do bad things to achieve that end, but the end will usually be relatively moral.

As the most powerful nation on Earth they wish to project their power. Their wish to do good may be a little naive to older nations' cynical eyes, but who can doubt it is better than, say the USSR which wished to impose a horrible single party tyranny on the world. And therein lays the US problem.  Everybody does not share the same view of good.  For example, the medieval Islamic nations adore their chains. Indeed they think the world would be happier if it shared them.  Obviously, not all Muslims think this way. But the Islamic parties hold a majority of the seats in the newly formed Egyptian post revolutionary parliament. And there are very powerful Islamic factions in post revolutionary Libya.

The US wishes, legitimately in my view, to project its power. But it does not want an old style Empire. This more novel than it might appear. All old style world powers did seek to create empires, and they always have, since antiquity. So the US is creating a new model for world domination – and it’s not working very well. So we return to the question – why?

Because the are trying to do good in a world that is unready for that type of morality.

In Korea and Vietnam they were trying to protect those nations from communism. And having seen how well communism worked for the people of the USSR, Cambodia, Cuba and (since then) North Korea, who can doubt that was a noble aim. But they were reluctant to unleash the full horror of their war machine on their enemies, so they lost.

In Iraq and Afghanistan they learned that lesson, and the US military juggernaut soon crushed the opposing forces. But, then came the strategic mistake and the reason why those missions will end in failure. They stayed. 

Exactly why they invaded Iraq is a complete mystery to me. Al Qaeda was not a significant presence in that country, and the classic conspiracy story about oil, does not stand up. The West could have had as much Iraqi oil as it wanted, and at a much lower price in lives and treasure. Afghanistan was much clearer cut. The Taliban, hand in hand with Al Qaeda launched a murderous attack on the USA, killed three thousand innocent civilians and injured another six thousand. If you attack the most powerful nation on Earth, there will be a price to pay, and it will be very expensive. So a punitive mission was inevitable. But. . .

For the US a simple revenge attack was not enough. There had to be a moral justification, and that moral justification was the transformation of both Iraqi and Afghan society into Liberal democracies.

Although as a fairy tale, Hollywood, ending that would have been nice, it was a terrible strategic error. The Allied lives wasted and the fortune spent on this lost cause is tragic beyond words. And not just Allied lives. The price paid by the Iraqi and Afghan people has been dreadful.  Civilian deaths since the wars were ‘won’ are estimated at around fifty thousand Afghanis and over one hundred thousand Iraqis. It's probably many more. Their societies have been transformed – they are much, much, more dangerous.

America wants to project its power across the world; it wants to remove oppressive regimes, a noble aim. But Afghanistan and Iraq are decidedly not the models for doing it. America is good at assault and can win. It is passing bad at occupation, and will lose.

So my proposal for a New Model Empire is: America should stick to what it is good at. It can easily and relatively cheaply use military power to remove regimes it is not content with. Having completed that exercise, they should leave. Let the locals sort out their own salvation, or otherwise. Thus America (and its Free World allies) can achieve their aims of world leadership, remove despicable regimes and move towards a world of free liberal democracies. That move will be slow, it was slow in all old world free democracies. But by making life very uncomfortable for regimes that are not democratic, the process will be hastened. And while some human suffering will actually be created by this policy far more be relieved.    

The arguments usually ranged against this are:

1. The same, or very similar, villains would soon re-establish themselves. 

Quite possibly. But a second or even third operation to remove them would be cheaper and more effective than a ten year war of attrition. Even the most primitive of tyrants would soon realise it was a rather short term career option. A relatively few high profile executions of their predecessors would soon persuade leaderships that compliance with a few Western ideals was an acceptable idea.   

 2. Chaos would ensue.

Maybe it would, but would it be worse than the chaos we cause by staying? And local chaos is more acceptable to populations than chaos imposed by uninvited foreigners.

Civilised societies, where the rule of law runs, human rights are respected and democracy is true are rare. They are virtually unknown outside North America, Western Europe and Australasia. That is a very precious thing, worth protecting and expanding. In our world, that means fighting. The only debate is how we conduct that fight.          

  

Welcome to Fantasy Island

Following my chat with David Cameron I feel emboldened to go further with my panacea for Life the Universe and Everything.

I hate to concede anything to the Left because I think it’s a failed philosophy. It has failed in its most extreme forms in the USSR, China, Cuba, and everywhere else communism has been attempted. But it has also failed in more moderate incarnations, notably in India where the release of free enterprise has turned a sclerotic failing state into another Asian tiger.

I will go further. All social enterprises reduce growth, impact living standards and waste money. That includes cherished institutions such as the NHS, public education and welfare. But sane people will accept a degree of social spending because it is the price we pay to live in a civilised society. The only question is: where do you draw the line? I believe the fundamental difference between Right and Left is, the Left believe government is a force for good, and we need more of it. The Right believe government is a necessary evil and we need as little as possible. Of course ‘more’ means higher government spending and higher taxation and ‘less’ means lower spending and less taxation.

I am pretty convinced people spend their own money a lot more effectively than the government will spend it for them.   

But, oh dear, I have to admit the Left are right to call the Banking Crisis a failure of Capitalism. However there is a key difference, Capitalism will recover. It always does. It is a fluid as water. It will automatically take the shape of any environment it finds itself in.

But, even as a rabid right winger, I find myself very uneasy about modern capitalism. I am a passionate believer in Free Enterprise and Free Enterprise and Capitalism are often used as synonyms. But I am starting to believe that Capitalism as practised now, is very damaging to Free Enterprise. Big Capitalism is the enemy. It always seems to result in monopolies, duopolies or triopolies (yes, I know there is no such word, but you know what I mean).  That destroys competition and without competition Enterprise is not Free. 

Governments are not unaware of this, but they seem to accept industry explanations that these massive corporations are in fierce competition - with each other. Now, there is actually a lot of truth in that. But the chance of an enterprising new business succeeding in these industries is close to zero.  But any government of the Right or Left must be pragmatic, and many of these massive companies are delivering what their customers want – which is how they got massive.

Once you step onto the Global stage, massive is too small a word for it. As we all now know, The Banks became so huge they could (and did) threaten the survival of the state itself.

Governments tried to use regulation as a substitute for the real market constraints of competition. They failed miserably. Partly because Banking is byzantinely complicated and they did not understand it and partly because the cleverest and most skilful people were in the banks making fortunes and not in government trying to wade through tiers of leaden bureaucracy to make a career. But mainly because governments are incompetent financial managers and they need the banking system to fund their profligate spending.

I heard an interview with a Greek Minister on the radio today. He was an intelligent and articulate man, especially considering he was speaking a foreign language (i.e.English).  He was explaining how wrong it was for the EU to be sending in financial mangers to oversee Greek spending ministries. He also explained how the Greek economy was in thrall to the hedge fund managers. He was understandably distressed that the Greek government and therefore the Greek people were not masters of their destiny, but at the bidding of foreign powers. The only thing he forgot to mention is the Greeks are entirely responsible for the situation. They were the ones who borrowed like a teenager with her first credit card. They were the ones who faked their accounts to gain entry to the Euro, which gave them the ability to borrow way beyond their ability to repay the debt – ever. They were very happy with the hedge funds and big banks then. But when the time came to pay the Piper . . .

Globalisation has enabled us in the First World to improve our standard of living without improving our productivity. We have bought cheap manufactured goods from poorer countries at very low prices. As a result our standard of living has improved but because productivity has stagnated, we have borrowed to pay for it.

So, how do we get back to Free Enterprise in a world of mega corporations and the Super Rich?

Well, I have a solution. We limit the size of a company by law. We make it illegal to own or operate a business with a turnover greater than (say) one billion dollars or making an operating profit of more than two hundred million dollars. Needless to say, this would need to be an international agreement otherwise companies would simply relocate to parts of the world were the law did not apply. But the whole world does not have to sign up. Just all those countries that represent serious wealth. It would also be illegal for subsidiaries of any company over the threshold to trade in signatory countries.

A lot of fairly obvious loopholes would have to be closed; no individual could own a group of companies that exceeded the limits. No person could have shareholdings in a group of companies that exceeded the limit (tricky to enforce). Proxy ownership and shareholding would be illegal. Breaches in the various laws and regulations would be punished very harshly. Other schemes and wheezes to avoid the law would no doubt be legion, and would need to severely suppressed and punished.

Companies at the limit, would no doubt stagnate with no growth possibilities, that’s OK it makes room for enterprising new comers.  Huge global entities would have to be broken up. All to the good. Some maverick countries would certainly use this as an opportunity to attract big business, but with no access to lucrative advanced markets those big businesses would probably soon become smaller anyway. And if small less advanced countries want the benefits of mega corporations trading in (and virtually owning) their territories – they are welcome to them. We have been there. It’s not nice.

I did title this piece Fantasy Island. None of this will ever happen. Trying to get international agreement on preventing some clearly potty people in Iran getting nuclear weapons has failed. And that is the most obvious, common sense, aim I can imagine. Similarly, we have failed to get serious agreement on global warming, Syria murdering its citizens, population control (a particular favourite of mine) and a dozen other good causes that, with goodwill could be fixed fairly easily.

Chances of a radical new proposal limiting the size of businesses?

Somewhat less than zero.       


              

My Chat with Dave

As you will probably know, the British economy is not in great shape. The only thing that prevent us being in exactly the same mess as the rest of Europe, is our government has a very tough plan to reduce debt.

Unfortunately although that plan has implemented big cuts in public spending and big tax rises it is not working very well. These austerity measures are well known to affect domestic economic growth. But the hope is, that will be offset by a large increase in exports. But in this particular situation, our main export markets (the EU) are in even worse shape than us. So while the markets are happy with the UK's efforts for now, lack of growth is a very serious problem. It causes many problems, not least a fall in government tax revenues at a time when they need more money to pay down debt.  The social consequences are pretty dire too. Unemployment is rising and with it both poverty and yet more spending on welfare benefits.

So how do we escape from this impasse? Well I am convinced our salvation lies with small companies (often referred to as SMEs - small and medium enterprises). It's well established that most new employment comes from SMEs and their reaction time is a tiny fraction of the time it takes a big corporation to react to market and regulatory changes. Most of their business is done domestically, so the troubles of our traditional trading partners have little impact here. 

But, and it's a rather large but - government regulation and tax policies actively discourage anybody starting a small business or anybody already running one from expanding their operation. Restrictive employment laws governing who you can hire, how you can fire, and everything else from taxing you for every person you employ to paying them when they are not at work, seem specially designed to choke off your business before you have even started.
     
There are lots of examples of developing economies where removing regulation and punitive taxes has created explosive growth driven by SMEs. India is a prime example. I was so exercised by this I decided to write to my local MP, Who happens to be a Mr David Cameron. This is my letter, his response and my follow up. 

Oxfordshire

15 November 2011

Mr David Cameron

10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA

Dear Mr Cameron

As a constituent of yours I realize you are an incredibly busy man, and slightly mad people pestering you with their crazy ideas must be an occupational hazard.  But, I have some thoughts on the economy which I’m afraid, I feel compelled to share with you.

As you will know the traditional method of alleviating a recession is to increase government spending or cut taxes, and neither option is open to you. May I suggest a third route.  It is well established that SMEs generate most new employment and are a key driver in economic growth.

My suggestion is to completely deregulate SMEs.

In practice, some regulation will have to stay. But it should be pared down to an absolute minimum.  In particular they should be excluded from all Employment legislation including minimum wage regulations. This would cost the exchequer nothing.

I would also strongly advocate reducing taxation, in particular employers National Insurance contributions. But in general, any tax possible.  I would even like a lower rate of VAT on SMEs, although that might prove to be irredeemably complicated.   

All these tax reductions would cost the exchequer money, and that would need more careful analysis than I am capable of. But the stimulus effect and the fact that very low levels of taxation are not worth avoiding, might well increase tax revenues (e.g. the introduction of the 40% top rate of income tax by Margaret Thatcher).

The removal of regulations and reduction of taxes should be progressive. So that as a company grows the burden of regulation and taxes increases slowly. And I would define growth as the number of employees.  (The definition of self employed and agency workers would need to be significantly tightened).

In addition, the changes do not have to be permanent. They could be phased out as the economy returns to growth.

A very appealing side effect of this policy would be its presentational drama. It would be a very clear and unmistakable signal that ‘something is being done’.

The most compelling evidence for the success of these policies is Hong Kong. By a policy of Positive non-interventionism, Cowperthwaite turned it from an unimportant offshore island into one of the world’s most dynamic economies. Obviously in a modern developed social market economy, that cannot be applied universally. But it could be applied to small enterprises at very modest cost to the exchequer.

If you have taken time to read this, many thanks.

Sincerely

His reply

 So, it turned out the government was doing more than I thought. But still I thought, not enough, not part of a coherent strategy, and not very well presented to the electorate at large. So I wrote again:

 

Oxfordshire

17 December 2011

Your ref DC/na/Y

 Mr David Cameron

10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA

Dear David

Thank you very much for your response dated 12^th Dec to my letter about stimulating small businesses.

I’m afraid I feel moved to reply. I know it’s traditional for constituents to use green ink for these slightly unhinged moments, but I only have a mono laser printer. Sorry about that.

I think I may have placed too much emphasis on tactics in my original letter. What I was really trying to talk about was a strategic approach to growth.

I think everyone understands the Conservative fiscal policy. The objective is clear: reduce the deficit by the end of this parliament. The strategy is clear: reduce UK indebtedness by public spending cuts and tax increases.  The tactics are painful and contentious, but clearly support the strategy.

I believe most people understand all this and know it has to be done, despite the pain.  And I think most people accept the blame lies with the profligacy of the last government.

My first point was meant to be, if it is true that we like Europe are facing our ‘Biggest threat since the Second World War’ we need a dramatic solution.  My second point was meant to be, we need clear and important objectives for economic growth, and releasing the potential of SMEs should be the strategy to achieve it.

You may have clear objectives, strategy and tactics for growth. But I’m afraid your letter looks a like a list of tactics. The measures might look breathtaking to a Whitehall mandarin, but to me they look like a long list of rather small things

I have no doubt all the points you mention are good news for small businesses. But these measures do not seem to be coming across as a clear and coherent government strategy for growth. Before I retired my business was marketing and it is a marketing truism that ‘perception is everything’

I think I am more interested in politics than the average citizen and I was barely aware of the tactics let alone any strategy. And I have friends who own or are involved with SMEs and government support for their companies is not something they eulogize over.

I think very few people understand the Conservative strategy for growth. That maybe because the communication is poor, but I suspect it doesn’t really exist in a single coherent form. A bit of extra spending here, tinkering with a regulation there, it’s hardly a ‘bonfire of red tape’. You may well dispute that, but as I said ‘perception is everything’

Any Prime Minister must get very bored indeed with references to Margaret Thatcher. Sorry, but I’m going to do it again.

When Lady Thatcher introduced the Right to buy Campaign, it was a clear statement of Conservative values and how they affect the ordinary citizen. It stood for a property owning democracy versus the paternalistic state. I’m sure that nobody in the whole country was unaware of the campaign and that most people understood the underlying message. It changed the demographic profile of the UK.

The ‘Tell Sid’ campaign when British Gas was privatized was similar. Although the lasting effect was less obvious, the message was clear and dramatic and it did change attitudes to owning shares.

I believe you need to be much, much bolder. You need to package everything up as a single, dramatic, strategic policy – a short list of very big things. Then spend some money communicating the programme to the general public – not just to the direct beneficiaries of the programmes. Consider the time and treasure we spend on attracting inward investment – we need to spend far more time and treasure on creating and encouraging our own domestic entrepreneurs.

Sorry about the harangue. I am on your side. I want Conservative free market values to win and our nation to prosper. Honest.

And I promise to leave the subject alone now. But I can’t promise not to find some other bone to worry! 

Yours sincerely

P.S. I think Tony Blair understood perception is everything, but he failed to understand that discontinuity between the promise and the product is fatal.

This time I got a standard "Your letter has been received and the contents noted" post card. Ah well, he is a busy man!