Fuel prices

So in that barometer of public opinion, a number of Facebook groups have appeared moaning about fuel prices.

They all seem to fail to notice that the rising price of fuel has little or nothing to do with the government - oil prices are rising, duh! Fuel prices have rocketed from about 80 or 90p only a few months ago to around £1.15. Now in that time, yes the government has raised fuel duty, but if I'm not mistaken, the rise was by 2p. So that leaves another 20+ pence contributed by the rising price of oil.

And really, why should the government lower the tax it puts on fuel? Why should the government encourage car usage? The answer, simply, is it shouldn't. We already use our cars far too much as it is, with everyone having a car each - the levels of congestion on the roads show that really, we don't need to use our cars any more than we already do. It's simply laziness and selfishness driving the current desire for lower fuel duties. Do we really care about the environment when it comes to the crunch? Clearly not...

And the haulage companies? All I can say is, stop moaning. I have no sympathy. There just isn't enough oil in the world to go round, and it usually works in the world that if something becomes too expensive, you adapt - you stop buying, or you move away from it. If a business isn't profitable, you move out of it. At least, that should be the response. But as Ronald Reagan once said: "The government's stance on taxation can be summed up as: if it moves, tax it, if it continues to move, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidise it". The government will probably end up subsidising nauseating truck drivers...

More bad news from FIFA HQ...

It seems the plan to promote mediocrity was passed "overwhelmingly" by FIFA delegates. The plan is 6+5, limit the number of foreign players in your football team to 5. One of the reasons why apparently this was a good thing was that it would help national teams do better, because now their players won't be part of big squads at the best Premiership teams.

But instead, their players will be playing against bit-part players in crummy local leagues, or lower down the English footballing pyramid, if they like the money and the English countryside. How does this help national teams around Europe and the world?

And how do we square the English representative being against it? England is purported to be the team suffering most from foreign influence, having failed to qualify for Euro 2008. Yet it's only a couple of short years since England were touted as one of the favourites (wrongly!) for the World Cup in 2006. How fickle footballing commentators are, and how good it is that (apparently) the English footballing bodies understand a bit of economics.

Economists are overwhelmingly free-trade, as Greg Mankiw points out, for a number of reasons, not just that it gives a country a share of a bigger pie, but also philosophically. And it's pretty implausible that football is somehow immune from this kind of economic analysis. The overall output of English footballers will be greater with foreign competition, in terms of goals/quality football/silverware etc., because they have to produce it to survive. And this will rub off on the national team.

Football is notoriously unpredictable (part of its appeal), and fortunes can change quickly, particularly if badly managed (by an English manager in England's case!), which has more explanatory power for England's current malaise than foreign dominance: England failed to qualify for TWO World Cups in the 1970s, when the number of foreign players in England was minuscule.

As a final aside. The economics department in Oxford is foreign dominated. My masters class had at most 10% of students being English, and the ratio doesn't improve at Ph.D or postdoc (although perhaps slightly when you get to tenured staff). Is that a cause to introduce some idiotic 6+5 rule? Supervisors must have at least 50% of their students being English/domestic?

The quality would fall drastically as the best students from around the world then could not enter Oxford, and supervisors would be forced to take on poorer quality English students. I've benefitted massively from rubbing shoulders with students from all around the world of a very high quality, something that might not otherwise have been the case had UK academia had someone like Sepp Blatter as its figurehead.

Not more...

So the BBC's done some research, and there aren't too many English players playing in the Premiership. The number has "alarmingly" dropped away this year, to 170 players. It might be worth noting this is 9 players less than 2002-03 season, something not mentioned at all in the report.

So, naturally, people talk about how we need quotas, and Sepp Blatter talks about his protectionist plan to have 5 domestic players in each team, and 6 overseas, as being the big solution. How exactly will that help? Basic economics says if you protect, you promote mediocrity. If we have quotas, yes it will mean English players will play, but will it make them any better?

The answer has to be: no. They'll play against lesser opposition. Fabio Capello's point is not really emphasised: the quantity of English players is down, but the quality is high. If we have quotas, soon we'll have the quantity, without the quality, because the players won't be tested in their domestic leagues against the best players in the world. English players will become complacent with their positions in teams because they can't be threatened by foreign competition.

Another very good point is also not picked up on, made this time by the Premier League itself. England failed to qualify for TWO World Cups in the 1970s, when the English league was filled with English players. The poor showing in the Euro Qualifiers has nothing at all to do with the number of foreign players in England. 10 were on the field in the Champions League Final last week, just to give an example.

However, FIFA appears to be pressing ahead with its protectionist plan, and disappointingly, the only argument against it that is cited is European regulations. Thank God for European competition regulations...

The infuriatingness of political correctness

Read an article on the BBC website this morning: finally someone in the Church of England is remembering that the Church believes in Christianity!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7418957.stm

I find it astonishing that the Church isn't currently proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the only way to God - the Bible says that after all, and is very clear indeed on it. But it's a sad sign of the times that this message is seen as "offensive" to some and hence withdrawn. It is offensive, there's no doubt about that. But is that a reason to withdraw it, if it is correct?

Telling people to always wear seatbelts offends some, telling them to drive at 30mph not 40 offends some, but is it therefore wrong to say it?

There's a clear danger to of death if some of these guidelines are not upheld. If someone (say, the Church!) believes in the Bible, then they believe there's a clear danger of (spiritual) death if certain things are not said - so the Church should say that - if it believes in the Bible...

And the BBC Religious Affairs editor says how the move of this Christian in the Church of England will alienate Muslims at this delicate time. What Muslims is he talking about, and talking to? Does he regularly check how Muslims feel about Christians actually believing something?

Somehow I doubt it. I am not offended by a Muslim believing something different to me, nor threatened. I'm convinced in my belief in the Bible. I seriously wonder whether those who trumpet the politically correct line about not offending people are slightly insecure in their beliefs. Why shouldn't people be challenged by the beliefs of others? I'm more than happy to be challenged by anyone who wants to challenge me, and I'm sure that would be true of many Muslims too, and a good few atheists and agnostics.

That's one big moan off my chest for the time being...