Comments for Cambridge University Conservative Association

Comment on Religion and Politics? by Hugo Hadlow

Hugo Hadlow — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:27:19 +0000

An economics lesson:

I agree that universal property ownership is a good thing. However, one of your justifications for it is false:

“Property is also a wealth-generator- many families have more wealth stored in their pile of bricks than they do in their bank accounts, and more wealth can be created with rising house prices than through the 9 to 5 slog.”

This is bad economics. Property does not generate or create wealth. It is wealth. Wealth is the stuff we own, and the economy as a whole grows as we create more stuff. Intuitively, a house just sits there. It doesn’t do anything.

What you mean is that property generates income. Income is a flow of wealth. A property owner earns rent, but this doesn’t necessarily make society any better off. No extra stuff has been created; just a transfer of money from one person to another. Similarly, you can make a lot of money if you’re a property owner and house prices are rising. But no wealth has been created. All that’s happening is the government is printing loads of money and most of it is going into the housing market; house prices are inflating faster than other things. So anyone who owns houses will become richer, and anyone who doesn’t will become poorer. Society isn’t better off as a whole. Another problem with government intervention.

Comment on Religion and Politics? by Gavin Rice

Gavin Rice — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:51:00 +0000

Amen to most of what you say in terms of what religion (and in particular, it has to be said, traditional Christianity) has to offer society in terms of moral robustness, responsibility, strong family values, expectations and duties as well as rights, and a less self-centred framework of objectives and desires. However, I’m very concerned that the new emerging approach to religion and “faith groups” in society is, although preferable to Dawkinsite broadsides against the churches, a little patronising: religion is seen as something peripheral and private but fairly benign, and to be tolerated so long as it doesn’t conflict with the “moral” diktat of the state. Religion is not utility-based - religious people don’t follow the faith because it is useful to them, or because religion somehow assists their way of life (possibly with the exception of New Age religions and the Westernised quasi-Buddhism of yuppies). Quite the opposite is true: believers are expected to derive their values from their faith, not from current social trends, and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Individual morals must be made to conform to the requirements of one’s religion, not vice versa. Of course I agree that the values of religion (and Christianity in particular) are “useful”, in that they produce good results when put into practice, but that’s not the reason why I follow them, and my beliefs about marriage and the family (the ones that are “useful” for the government) exist within a broader and interconnected moral framework that abhors much else that the state attempts to force us think is acceptable, and which contains much that would be objectionable to a modern touchy-feely Cameroon.

From a turbulent (but not a priest), anti-abortion, “anti-gay” Bible-basher.

Comment on Modern Myths by Hugo Hadlow

Hugo Hadlow — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:19:15 +0000

“Genomes, whether natural or altered in a lab, are fundamentally the same.”

Yes, that was rather flippant. My point is that, for any given organism, whether it is modified or not gives us no information about whether it is good or bad. GM food is no more likely to be “bad” than non-GM food.

Yet many places, including St John’s College, have a blanket policy of using no GM food. We should campaign against this stupid policy. Indeed, I’d quite like to campaign to use only GM food just to annoy stupid people.

Comment on Modern Myths by Murali Vadivelu

Murali Vadivelu — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:19:08 +0000

Response for 1. I am not an economist, but I can possibly comment on this.
Though full employment may be theoretically possible in an ideal economy, it won’t be possible practically.
a. Zero unemployment leads to unacceptable and uncontrollable wage inflation leading to all down stream effects
b. Forgetting about the downstream effects, changes in workplace is always ahead of the workforce preparing and changing for the new workplace. This gap/ lag would always ensure that there is a subset of the workforce that is always unemployed.

Response for 2. Though there is a lot of hype against GM food there is a learned basis for it.
a. There have been occasions where GM corn have been found to be more allergenic than its natural counterparts to a large extent.
b. Simply because all organisms have genomes, does not make monkey and donkey the same. The differences in the genome manifest as different proteins, outcomes, etc., being transcribed from the DNA leading to different organisms. Similarly, GM crops produce modified proteins which effect may not be known, unlike their natural counterparts which have been used by humans for centuries and hence well understood.
This is akin to new drug being tested before found safe. Unfortunately, GM crops are not a single chemical to be studied that easily. Moreover, pharmaceutical chemicals (drugs) do not inter-breed producing newer chemicals of unknown nature, whereas plants do!

Thus, the problems are the shallow knowledge of blind proponents of GM crops. I am all for GM crops, but in a very guarded way, for example, taking the above into consideration and with proper precautions. The potential risks are too much to rush into unconditionally embracing GM crops and so on.

Comment on The Problem of Fair Trade by Hugo Hadlow

Hugo Hadlow — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:19:24 +0000

I just finished Paul Collier’s “The Bottom Billion”, a book about why the poorest countries in the world are stuck, or even becoming absolutely poorer, and what can be done about it.

His conclusions are that more aid is not the answer (it must be targeted better), but also that the problem will not be fixed automatically by growth. Growth is the answer, but we have to kick-start it.

He has an amusing section about how, while the west is not completely responsible for Africa’s problems, some people do have to take a fair amount of responsibility: Christian Aid.

Their campaigning against capitalism and free trade is not going to help anyone. Sean Gabb has a neat write-up on fair trade. http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc135.htm

The biggest problem with fair trade, as I can see, is that it locks people into a particular market. It stops them from changing from coffee to another crop or job that the country may have a comparative advantage in, or that they may ultimately make more money from.

Comment on Why do people run up debt? Why has it become socially acceptable? What is the solution? by Hugo Hadlow

Hugo Hadlow — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:57:08 +0000

People just need to be taught very basic financial management: not to spend more than they have. As basic, perhaps, as these three phrases:

“Many people think credit card debt is normal. It’s not: it’s a waste of money.”
“Do not borrow money for non-appreciating things, like TVs, cars or holidays. Borrowing is for investments like a house or a business.”
“Do not buy Sky TV. Money can be better spent.”

I’m sure a couple of religion classes could be better used teaching this.