I find myself asking the question: "what is work?" I have narrowed it down to two definitions:

1. Raising ten kids in one house on benefits.

2. Writing an article for a tabloid newspaper about how the parents raising ten children in one house on benefits "have never worked a day in their lives".

Because I had some rudimentary training in economics, people often ask me about questions about areas of economics I do not know a huge amount about. I know more than, say, my parents, or probably the average Oxford PPEist (concerning, given the education of most of the front bench of both government and opposition, so let's hope experience counts for something). Large swathes of macro policy often fall into this category.

So when people ask me about the current government's deficit reduction plan, I tend not to have a definitive answer. As far as I see it, the basic argument for deficit reduction now (rather than in two years, say) is that the size of our debt has created an atmosphere of uncertainty in the UK amongst consumers and business, maybe about the timing of future tax hikes, possibly about a Greek-style default (although this is silly). Anyway, confidence is low, so reducing the deficit and (eventually) the national debt in a transparent way may restore some certainty and allay the worst of these fears and get people spending again. Government spending, if too large, may "crowd out" private sector spending, which may be undesirable - there is no guarantee that government spending is the best (most efficient, most wealth-creating) type of spending.

To me, the flip side always seemed to be more tangible. A spending cut (which isn't one of those politically convenient efficiency savings) takes money away from somebody - either an employee of the government, or someone who sells something to the government. That's somebody who goes out and spends less money, either because they no longer have a job, or their business has lower profits. Less spending has a knock-on effect - if a large group of government employees are laid off, and all of them reduce their spending, that's leads to other business earning less revenue. Maybe some of those businesses have to let some staff go because they just don't have as many customers as before. And so on. It's called the multiplier, and it's been known about since Keynes.

The reason that I dither is that evidence is limited and, even if there are lessons from the past, they may not apply to this particular moment in time as easily. This recession is special, both in origin and in depth and length. However, the Economist this week drew my attention to two very different recent papers giving some indication of the possible effects. The first they describe as the intellectual justification for many government's programmes of deficit reduction - published by two Harvard economists, it finds adjustments to the structural deficit lead to short-term growth (increases in the national output). This is great news for Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron, who were also boosted last week by the IMF's backing of their "bold" deficit reduction plan. This approval is all the more surprising when you see that the second paper picked out by the Economist this week was written by the Fund itself. They have severe criticisms of the methodology of that Harvard study, which, when corrected using their own data on deficit reductions, reverses the conclusion.

Firstly, they find deficit reduction of 1% leads to a 0.5% fall in national output, and a 0.3% increase in unemployment. Secondly, deficit reduction by spending cut is less severe - however, this has usually be accompanied by lowering interest rates at the same time. It's worth noting that in the UK's current situation, there is ZERO scope for doing this, as the base rate is, to all intents and purposes, as low as it can go.

As I say, the current set of circumstances are special, so this is by no means conclusive, and actual answers will only be known looking backwards. In fact , if you ask me about it at some point down the line... well, I'll still dither. But I'll have a more pessimistic face on.

News coverage of important and complicated economic developments is often very helpful, but sometimes it leaves more questions that it answers. I was trying to get to grips with the Budget's implications for welfare this morning, but the few headline measures don't really mean anything if you don't understand how tax credits work. So this morning I spent a few minutes getting to understand the system and a few more minutes trying to model the reforms.

There are two main sorts of tax credits in the UK: Working Tax Credits, paid to those in work but on low incomes, and Child Tax Credits, paid to those with children. The two credits replaced the old Working Families Tax Credits, which basically did the same but in one go.

There is a maximum value for each component of each credit, which is reduced as your income increases. There is what is called the first threshold (presently, £6420), where earning below this means you get the maximum. At present, tax credits are taken away at a rate 39p for each pound earnt over that threshold. They are technically ordered as well, so that the first credits to be removed are working tax credits (which have a basic component, a component for being a lone parent or a couple, and a component for working over 30 hours a week), then childcare, then the variable components of Child Tax Credits (children, baby, disability) except for the family component (which is the basic fixed element). The family component remains at £545 until the second threshold, £50,000, and then removed at a rate of 6.7p for every pound earned after that.

OK so far? The key changes in yesterday's budget are that the rate of removal is being changed to 41p for each pound for all credits (including the family component of the Child Tax Credit) and that the second threshold is being reduced to £40,000 next year. The one change that hasn't really been picked up on is that the second threshold for the family componet will be scrapped in 2012-13, so the family component will be removed immediately after all other components are - I'll show an example in a minute, but it basically hits everyone earning from about £23000 to £40,000. The baby component is being withdrawn.

At the same time, the children component of the Child Tax credit is being increased by £150 per year (in real terms) and another £60 the following year. Currently, this component is £2300 per child. This shifts the benefits from tax credits in favour of the lowest earners. Added to this, the tax allowance rose by £1000. Anyone earning between the current level and the new level will now pay no tax, and anyone earning above it will pay about £200 less tax each year. Those who have been taken out of tax will gain between 20p (for the person earning £1 more than the old threshold) and £199.80 (for the person earning £1 less than the new threshold).

Ignoring the income tax issue for the moment, I wanted to figure out who is better or worse off from the tax credit changes, so I put all of this into a model and looked at changes for benefits for incomes ranging from £1000 per year to £70,000 per year. I just focused on families (single parent or otherwise) with children (not babies and not disabled), so they receive a working tax credit - maximum of £3810 if they earn below £9,000, £4,600 if they earn over that, because at that point you would expect the person works 30+ hours in a week and receives an extra £790 - a child tax credit (maximum of £2300 per child in 2010, £2450 in 2011 and £2510 in 2012) and the family component (maximum of £545). I ignored childcare credits and child benefit for simplicity and kept all other benefits and the first threshold constant.

If you have one child, you are better off in both years if you earn less than £13,000 per year, by up to £210. This is important for government aims about poverty - the benchmark threshold for poverty in the UK is around £13,000 (about 60% of median income). So any claims that this Budget do not hurt the poorest stand up to some scrutiny here.

Up to £17000, you gain in 2012-13, but lose less in 2011-12. Above that, the losses this year from the steeper withdrawl tend to outweigh the gains the following year from the higher children component. The total net losses are between £0 and £120, depending on income.

Families earning between £24,000 and £40,000 are not affected this year, as they only received the family component. Above £41,000, the family component disappears, so familes between £41,000 and £50,000 lose all or most of their current credits this year. Next year, families earning between £24,000 and £41,000 will lose the family component due to the scrapping of the second threshold. This is why it is surprising this reform hasn't been picked up on - it will affect a lot of people to the tune of £550 per year. At the same time, it's not surprising how little it has been mentioned, because it's a bit complicated to get at.

For example, if you have two children, the patterns are roughly the same, but the exact thresholds change, and the headline "Families to lose £550 per year if they earn a certain amount per year" wouldn't work well. In this case, it is families between £31,000 and £40,000 that will lose the family component of their tax credit in 2012-13.

One last thing is the income disregard change from £25,000 to £5000. This, unlike what I thought after my first reading, is not a threshold, but a way of dealing with unexpected changes in income. So you earn £12,000 the previous year and are given the appropriate tax credit payment for the coming year. At the end of the year you earn £14,000. The income disregard means you haven't got to pay any credit back if your income change is small enough. "Small enough" used to mean £25,000 a year, and will now mean £5,000 per year. A tightening of the belt, for sure, but not one anywhere near as scary as the magnitude of the numbers (a drop of 80%), once you understand what it is. And now you do too.

Anway, that's all the numbers. The welfare state is a topic which raises strong emotions, often at the expense of facts. I would want to do nothing about the emotions, but hopefully this will do something for the facts.

By the way, our tax and benefit system hurts my head.

UPDATE: Some attention now being paid to the middle income families issue.

I listen to Radio 5 on my way to and from work, which means I get Nicky Campbell's call-in in the morning. Normally, of course, the opinions of people (all people) annoy me, but I remind myself that we live in a pluracracy and it's good to hear debate about important issues and most importantly, by the time I get to work, I've written a blog-post-rant in my head and I'm just sorting out the formatting and capitalisation of important words. Then, I sit down at my desk and remember that I have Paid Employment, so it will have to wait.

Not going to happen this morning, however. I don't know why the issue of choosing a baby's sex is getting some attention this particular week, but it is and that was the topic of the call-in. The point I entered the discussion was with a woman, who had lost a daughter (possibly miscarried) and wanted to have one through a gender selection procedure, and two men, who clearly felt she (and everyone else) shouldn't have that option.

Mentioning the caller's respective genders was intentional, and is probably the reason why I got angry enough to ignore Paid Employment for a few minutes more. The tone of the exchanges sounded (once refined through my brainfilter) very much like: "Okay, WOMEN, we MEN can no longer dictate to you whether you have a child or not. You have taken that power away from us. As a result, we are looking for new and increasingly petty ways to tell you how you may and may not use your body, specifically in the womenparts region."

Nicky Campbell did a decent job directing the debate, particularly when he drew the discussion to a close when it became a lot more aggressive. One caller actually suggested, behind a wall of faux disclaimers, that it was "sick" to attempt to use science in this way to deal with the loss as a kind of therapy. Others made the point that it was just a natural thing, that people didn't always get what they want, that having children was reward in itself, regardless of their sex, and that not all children develop into the gender stereotypes that anyone who wanted one or the other might expect (if you want a boy for the typical reasons, he might not be interested in playing football).

All of which may be fine for the people making those points (some of whom were female). However, it doesn't mean that the lady calling in, or anyone else who felt in a similar position, should be expect to similarly console themselves with it. Gender selection seems to me like a victimless scientific advance. In that I can't think of someone that gets hurt by it. It uses science. And it's an advance (also: a stepforward; an improvement and a conquering of obstacles). As a result, it should be a choice. If you're not fussed either way, or not comfortable with the idea, no-one will force you pick an X or a Y chromosone from a catalogue. If you are, well, now you can.

Final point. One of the later callers (try to guess what parallel he made by the end of this paragraph), who couldn't be cut off soon enough, made me conclude this: Godwin's law and its resulting rules needs to apply to non-Internet discussion as well.

And penalties for violating it should be harsh, just like the Nazis were.

I argued before that people needed to give Nick Clegg credit, rather than criticism, for trying to make a deal with the Conservatives. I believe that an agreement on a programme of government between them and the Liberal Democrats would best represent the country, and that the same people who argue for proportional representation needed to to acknowledge that it works both ways.

However, if an agreement can not be reached, then this ceases to be the case. Two parties that can't agree to a great deal and can't move on their own aims and those of the voters who supported them does not best represent the people. In such a case, an alliance of Labour and Liberal Democrats would be more representative of the country than a Conservative minority government.

Obviously, that isn't the only consideration, and the numerous media narratives that are currently going on show that their probably isn't one completely correct, iron-clad viewpoint. On one hand, many commentators have labelled the potential Lib-Lab government a 'coalition of the losers', whilst on the other hand, other have pointed out that the Conservatives are also not winners either. In fact, if you consider where the country was last year, when Labour managed 16% of the European election vote, you would have to summise that the Conservatives have taken quite a beating from the electorate too, whilst Labour did much better than expected. It's a confusing time.

Mainly, I think this is because the country at large is dealing with a new perspective on elections as the two-party system has fallen apart. A majority of people in this country voted for one of the two main left-of-centre parties. If they are the "losers", then we are essentially saying that the 36% who voted for the Conservatives are the winners, which is an odd mathematics at best.

I will say this though, as a trained economist. Screw the markets. I'm so sick of hearing about the "market's reaction to the uncertainty of a hung parliament". Firstly, it says a lot for our priorities when short-term market fluctuations could an important driver on much longer-term decisions. That's pretty much how the financial crisis started in the first place, and it's a psychology we need to lose. Secondly, the markets went down on Friday (uncertain government, failing Greece) and up yesterday (uncertain government, bailed-out Greece). One idea that presents itself to me is this: MAYBE IT'S FUCKING GREECE, YOU FUCKWITS.

Greek unemployment is over 11% and will almost certainly continue to drop. The UK's unemployment is about 9%, and has probably reached the bottom. Greece's S&P rating went from BBB to BB yesterday, thus crossing the threshold into junk bond territory. The UK's credit rating is the maximum AAA. The UK is not Greece.

What people need to realise is that debt can be willingly held by investors. In the case of Greece, it is not. In the case of the UK, it is at present. Would this change? Only if it becomes apparent that we can not service it - that is, if we can not pay the interest on it. Our tax revenues are likely to rise as the economy begins to grow again, and benefits are likely to fall. I know people get frightened by big numbers, but there is always a context. I don't know how you make this case convincingly to the public, but all the scaremongerers need to stop it. Mainly, I'm talking about the Tories, but Vince Cable this morning sounded no better.

That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't start to reduce our debt, but not for the reasons that are usually touted. Debt is a transfer of resources over time. With governments, this can be between generations. If debt is built up for investment, then the benefits of such investment will probably outweigh the costs of repaying it, so future generations are not made worse off. However, crisis management has a more immediate payoff and much less of one for people in 30 years time. It is not fair that the costs of that be paid by the future generations, nor that the government's ability to crisis manage should a similar thing happen again in the future be impeded by a shortage of cash.

I'm a big fan of the context paragraphs that news reports tag at the bottom, as they are usually the most pedestrian of journalism. From today's Daily Mail:

"There are more than 1.1billion Roman Catholics in the world, with more than 4million of them living in Britain.

Because of its huge global influence, the religion's practices and traditions are known and respected throughout the world."

Oh, that Catholicism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8515592.stm

This is not going to be a long or nuanced post. Some things are just absolute truths:

There are no circumstances in which a rape victim should take responsibility for the attack.

Don't people know you can't launch a leadership challenge on a Prime Minister when the news has got so much snow to cover?

My thought? I don't like Patricia Hewitt. I remember her being dull, bordering on vacuous, but the interview I just on BBC News, where she managed to claim that a public call for a leadership vote is the best thing for the party is sort of hilarious, and as blatanly self-serving as she is pretending it isn't.

Without taking an unpleasant amount of pleasure in it, The Economist's obituary for Oral Roberts is delightfully sarcastic and withering.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the only argument for vegetarianism I'm interested in. It is a very good one, and I recommend giving it consideration. I, personally, try to have vegetarian lunches, or vegetarian dinner if I had meat at lunch.

I have no desire to stop eating meat entirely, but I think moderation can have a massive impact. We should all share the costs of climate change, and going without chicken on that Caeser salad should be right at the top of the list. Interestingly, this is exactly the opposite situation for me when it comes to alcohol, but the same result - I have no real desire to drink (and would happily go completely straight edge) but do so in moderation in social situations where, quite frankly, it's almost seen as offensive not to (happily, I've learned how to have a drink in hand and remain sober). I wish I could always have Coke, but I also wish to avoid unnecessary dramas.

By the way, I don't count fish in this (neither as a food nor as an alcoholic drink). They don't live on land, we don't cut down rainforests to build aquariums. Although that would be more pleasant.

I think this about covers my view on this distasteful subject. Also the expression, "I could care less".

What's the point of having scientific advisors if you only listen to them if they confirm your priors or support your political position? If you're never going to change anything, even if a respected scientist says you're basing your position on nonsense, why even bother having an advisory body?

I'm so tired of this empty debate about drugs. All governments ever say they are going to do is "fight against illegal substances", ignoring the fact that they are only illegal because they called them that. What we're trying to say is that there's hypocrisy in the distinction between those currently legal and those currently illegal, despite many of them being less personally and socially harmful (by a number of different measures) than nicotine and alcohol. If you can't get past an argument more sophisticated than "they're illegal because they're illegal", you're not the right people for this job.

I'm as Pro-bama as the next guy, but seriously, what on Earth?

Edit: Actually, reading this is an impressive argument. My initial thoughts were based on the fact that its still early days. Maybe that misunderstands the purpose and nature of the prize.

Sorry, haven't done this for a while. I meant to put up a Kitson review, and I probably still will. In the meantime, however:

Every morning, Cath puts on GMTV as she's getting ready. I have reached the point now where if I meet Andrew Castle in the street, I'll probably injure him (although that would only give him something else to look outraged about the following morning). Every morning there's some massive injustice going on somewhere in the country, some Little Man's battle against evil business or ineffectual government where he (or one of his co-hosts) will attempt to impersonate a real journalist by asking what I assume they think are the tough questions, but are actually just populist jabs, usually without the slightest bit of research or knowledge apart from the talking points from the segment introduction.

About a month ago, they were doing a segment on teen binge drinking, with the angle being that marketing departments in drink companies aggressively target young people. Possibly true, and morally quite dubious, but that misses the point. A representative from the industry made the reasonable point that companies can only operate with the existing law, and that maximising profits for shareholders is actually a legal requirement. They also had on a girl who had become an alcoholic in her mid teens. This sort of reporting, where you take one person with a huge vested interest and a sympathetic backstory as a spokesperson or expert for a particular point of view is manipulation, pure and simple, both of the individual, and of the watching audience, and lacks the intellectual rigour these issues deserve. Think Paul Betts everytime there's a drug tragedy story.

That said, she impressively and bravely argued that it was much more her personal choices than advertising that was her downfall, despite Castle's attempts to place sentences like 'wouldn't have happened if these companies didn't target children' in her mouth, nearly destroying the whole angle of the segment (it would have been destroyed if the host paid any attention to the input of their guests, rather than continuing with whatever they were going to say anyway).

This morning was a familiar one - the idea that electricity and gas companies pass on increases in energy costs much more than they pass on decreases in energy costs. The whole segment was lunatic on many levels. There was an 'expert' claiming that the problem was that the Big Six energy firms had been allowed to get too big, and competition was weak. There are SIX firms. That's four or five more firms than are active in most other European countries. The UK is the country furtherest along with the sort of market liberalisation the European Commision wants. How can any of them get too big? They have to share a market six ways.

The report also pointed out that companies tend to buy fuel a long way in advance, which is true, and for good reasons to do with reducing risk (which, ultimately, lowers cost). This, then, is the reason why changes in energy prices aren't always seen on bills. That is the end of the argument, because the initial question is the wrong one. Obviously, this point of logic ignored. They went on to ask if government should step in, as Ofgem wasn't doing enough, without the slightest discussion of why regulators are made independent from government in the first place.

The piece actually finished with a long statement from Ofgem stating that this issue had been investigated extensively last year, and no evidence was found that this perception (which has been propogated by media outlets like GMTV). I haven't read this report, but I do know that regulators rarely tend to side with energy companies on principle. I've worked on reports for regulators, and reviewed regulatory proceedings, and the amount of times a regulator will reject the arguments of a regulated company far outweigh the times they concede the point. Clearly, however, this argument will continue until someone writes a better report. Your move, Ofgem.

Let me finish this by noting that I'm no champion for the benefits of unfettered free market capitalism and big business. I realised long ago that capitalism is the only sustainable economic system, because it best matches human nature, with all its innate self-interest. That is not to say that I think that just because these motivations are natural, they are the best we can do - and anyone who argues otherwise is grotesquely unambitious. I believe that one of the challenges of the modern left is to find ways which greater equality can be created within this system.

Big business and the free market can, at times, do this - lower costs of living are a benefit to all, but a particular benefit to the poorest. At other times, the necessary conditions for effective free markets (information, rationality and power) fail so much that goverment intervention is better. I believe that government should care about social welfare, and that taxes can be redistributive, but that not all taxes on the wealthy are effective in achieving this goal. There's no hard and fast rule. But we can surely all agree that these sorts of programmes, with their uninformed, analysis-free posturing helps nothing or nobody - the whole purpose of it is to generate public anger, which takes away energies that could probably be better spent on real issues.

Booom.

Barney Frank murked that shit.

Update: Colbert adds joy to already joyous event.

Loading up the BBC News website is always more entertaining when the side bar tells you that science proves zombies could annihilate humans.

In such an event, says science, "only frequent counter-attacks with increasing force would eradicate the fictional creatures." (I think it's the word 'fictional' in the last sentence that makes it comedic art). Because, science reminds us, "it's imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly or else... we are all in a great deal of trouble." (I would personally have added the word 'fictional' prior to the word 'trouble', but then I am known for overkill)

Of course, science may not have quite got the model correct - it failed to recognise that the alternative assumption about "zombie biology is that if you manage to decapitate a zombie then it's dead forever." So stop your (fictional) panicing right now.

Man, I love it when other people are funny for me.

Say you buy an asset of some form, which produces a regular payment to you (like a bond or a share, for example). The price you pay for it should reflect the stream of payments you are expecting to get from it. If there are fluctuations in the stream of payments, this is generally captured in the price as a discount to compensate you for the risk you are taking on.

If an asset produces payments in perpetuity, and say that you expect the payments to be equal each year, and that the riskiness of these payments doesn't change, then the price of the asset should remain roughly constant - that is, the price you buy it for would be the same as the price you sell it for some years later.

If, however, the asset has a fixed life, after which it no longer produces any payments to you, then over time, the price of the asset falls. I mention this because of this story. The same thing as above applies here. The asset is Friends Reunited, which has produced income for ITV since it was purchased in 2005. The gap between £175m and £25m is vast, but this ignores the profits that have been earned in the meantime. In fact, if ITV expected that revenues would likely tumble by 2009 - possible, given the fact that Facebook and MySpace were taking off at the time, and are much more all-encompassing sites - and the price they paid for it reflected this, then this isn't a story at all. Investments can be for short term rewards as much as they can be for long-term ones.

In all likelihood, ITV probably didn't anticipate how much the value of the business would fall, or at least that this was at the low end of their expectations. They may have hoped to be able to create a better competitor for other social network sites than what resulted. I also don't deny that some of this is related to the recession, and the effect that has had on most businesses' income. But at least some of this is part of the riskiness I mentioned above, and the original price likely reflected it. Investmests underperform as often as they overperform, and its pointless to pick out individual ones that were bad after the fact. It may not have been, strictly speaking, bad - the overall gain from the investment (profits plus resale price) may still have exceeded the initial purchase price.

All I'm saying is there is more going on than "ITV lose £150m on investment".

I've read and see a couple of things recently about sex education in schools. One piece was about how progressive teaching methods have failed, according to a recent paper in the BMJ which found that one particular programme actually appeared to raise teen pregnancy rates (or, that the pregnancy rate in the treatment group was significantly higher than that in the control group). I haven't read the paper, but I also haven't read any particular methodological criticisms of it, so I will continue on the assumption that it is a valid contribution to the debate.

There was also a debate on The Wright Stuff yesterday morning about a new form of sex ed which emphasised more positive messages ("Sex is fun", "Sex is good for your health") rather than the more typical negative messages ("Sex will kill you dead if you do it wrong"). The argument made for this trial scheme was that if sex was seen as something to be enjoyed rather than something to be worried about, children would be less susceptible to peer pressure, and would wait rather than just try to get it over with as soon as possible. I'm not sure I get the logic exactly, nor the necessity of pointing out how much fun sex is, but I'm wouldn't write it off out of hand.

The main point I wanted to make, which I think is being missed in this debate is this: when did the goals become preventing young people having sex and reducing teen pregancy? The actual goal should be preventing the spread of sexually transmitted disease, and reducing unwanted pregnancy. Those are the actual social ills, and the only way to combat them is by education, in quantities great enough for everyone to know exactly what could happen if you have sex, including the exact medical risks, financial issues resulting from unexpected pregnancy and legal matters than may arise from negligent parenting.

If, as the critics say, sex education programmes expose more children to the idea of sex (which seems unlikely in given the high sexualised multimedia world we live in) and ends up encouraging more young people to have sex or get pregnant, then this really isn't a problem. Providing those people are fully informed about what they are doing, they have the right to make their own decisions, and the real concern for a government should be making sure everyone is able to make the decisions that are best for themselves.

And why does becoming twenty years old necessarily make your pregnancy better for society? I'm sure there are sixteen year olds who could be better parents than some thirty year olds. Age isn't particularly important, unwantedness is. If you are old enough to fully comprehend a pregnancy and all its implications, then that's enough to take age out of the equation. Would it be better for society if teenagers stayed in school and developed skills and contributed more to the economy? Maybe. But that isn't a decision a government should be involved in. After all, a fully informed person can choose which path makes him or her better off, and such decisions don't just reflect monetary rewards from economic input.

As for society, there are a couple of issues. Let's suppose greater sex education leads to more teen pregnancies, but that these pregnancies are (in general) wanted. It's not clear to me that more children with dedicated parents would do more harm to society than less children, but those who are born are much more likely to be the result of an uninformed mistake. Yes, children create costs for the government through the payment of benefits. But arguing that sex education policy should be designed to minimise the demands placed on the welfare state is ridiculous - if there's a problem with the the benefits system, reform the benefit system. If you think that the benefit system creates distortionary incentives for childbearing over work or further education, then the indirect solution of designing sex education policy to counter this is clearly inferior to changing the incentives directly.

And, on a related point, the dependency ratio (retirees to workers) in the UK is projected to exceed 40% by 2050. It shouldn't inform policy on sex education, but it does help to remember that an ageing population also creates massive problems, and that there could be some benefits to increasing the population at the other end.

Here's a challenge. Watch Sarah Palin's resignation speech, and see how long you last. Not because she's saying anything particularly objectionable, but because after a certain number of minutes of hearing words unrestrained by grammer or sentence structure, you may actually start to feel dizzy, unsettled or even nauseous.

I made it to 10.11, when I was finally finished off by: "Life is too short to compromise time and resources and though it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand 'sit down and shut up', but that's the worthless, easy path-out, that's a quitter's way out and I think a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and go with the flow. We're fisherman, we know that only dead fish go with the flow."

Then I thought I'd try to finish it, but a minute later this happened: "I've never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this, to make a difference, to help people. So I choose, for my state and my family, more freedom to progress, all the way around, so that Alaska may progress, I will not seek re-election as Governor." And I rested.