LIBERTARIAN/CONSERVATIVE DIGEST AND COMMENTARY FROM AN ACADEMIC PSYCHOLOGIST in Brisbane, Australia. My academic publications are widely read
Click on the title of any post to bring up the sidebar
"Divestiture" craziness
Coles and Woolworths are big because they are good at what they do. Nobody forces anybody to walk through their doors. And there is plenty of competition to keep them on their toes in the form of Aldi, IGA, Harris Farms etc
And a split would require two management teams instead of one -- with an increase in costs and a reduction in competence. How is that a win for anyone?
One hopes that these proposals are just hot air. Any political party trying to implement them would make enemies of two very large companies with stores and a voice all over the place. No wonder the ALP is shying away from the idea
Coles and Woolworths would not even have to pay for advertising to voice any concerns they may have. They could just put up signs in their stores! They could reach (say) 90% of voters that way
Peter Dutton and David Littleproud have flicked the switch to the kind of junk policy you’ll usually only find in the Greens’ box of free-market atrocities.
Divestiture – allowing the courts to forcibly break up large corporations or forcing them to sell parts of their business – is really a last-resort option for the worst offences under competition law. Sure, it may grab the headlines and scream “we feel your pain” at the checkout, but it is regulatory overkill and weird for the alleged friends of business.
Last term the Coalition flirted with the populist “big stick” to bring energy companies to heel. The nation needs effective competition policy, not look-at-me populism and big swinging sticks that should be beneath parties that want to form government.
Even those supposedly crazy interventionists in Labor, wanting to pick industry winners and increase the size of Canberra’s footprint in the economy, have been wise to steer clear of such heavy-handed measures.
In this season of persistent high inflation and living-cost squeezes, big retailers, especially Coles and Woolworths, are on the nose, and have been accused of price gouging. Their chief executives have been dragged before show-trial parliamentary inquiries that have been little more than grandstanding opportunities for antagonists such as Greens senator Nick McKim. He has pushed hard for divestiture powers and has even garnered expert opinion and trade unionists to support his case. At the Greens-instigated inquiry into supermarkets in April, former prices and competition tsar Allan Fels backed the introduction of divestiture laws as “sensible” to stop powerful companies misusing market power.
The Coalition has proposed legislation to break up major supermarkets if they seriously break competition laws, according to Sky News Business Editor Ross Greenwood.
“Felsie”, who still loves a camera as much as he adores a stoush with Big Anything, had conducted an inquiry for the ACTU on price gouging and unfair pricing practices. In his report, the former Australian Competition & Consumer Commission chief recommended a power to force divestiture to address market power issues. And it’s true our supermarket sector, with Aldi and Metcash making up the big four, is not as competitive as in larger US and British markets.
But the ACCC is conducting a far-reaching inquiry into the sector and it would have been prudent for the Coalition to wait to see what current trading tsarina Gina Cass-Gottlieb’s troops had recommended.
Labor’s hand-picked expert to review the grocery code of conduct Craig Emerson argued that forced divestiture in the supermarket sector would bring a range of other problems, including even greater market concentration and store closures. The former Labor minister said forced closures could see workers having to find new jobs and lead to inconvenience for shoppers.
For forced divestiture to work as an effective deterrent to anti-competitive behaviour by supermarket chains, the threat would need to be credible.
The pitfalls, as outlined by Emerson, mean divestiture would lack credibility.
Which is the danger Dutton and Littleproud, too, now face with this policy overreach.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/coalition-dips-into-greens-populist-junk-policy-bag/news-story/6879c8e8cbc1b615c65297ff35b1905d
*****************************************************
This common drink increases the risk of serious heart condition, study finds
The commentary below is greatly over hyped. The "Results" section of the journal abstract below. We see that all the Hazard Ratios were quite low -- meaning weak effects -- with the results from sugar-sweetened and articially sweetened drinks being virually the same. As usual, income was not controlled for so all we are probably seeng here is that poor people (big drinkers of fizzy drinks) have worse health. Richer and wiser people drink orange juice. Rather amusing, really
During a median follow-up of 9.9 years, 9362 incident AF cases were documented. Compared with nonconsumers, individuals who consumed >2 L/wk of SSB or ASB had an increased risk of AF (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01–1.20] and HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10–1.31]) in the multivariable-adjusted model. A negative association was observed between the consumption of ≤1 L/wk of PJ and the risk of AF (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87–0.97]). The highest HRs (95% CIs) of AF were observed for participants at high genetic risk who consumed >2 L/wk of ASB (HR, 3.51 [95% CI, 2.94–4.19]), and the lowest HR were observed for those at low genetic risk who consumed ≤1 L/wk of PJ (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65–0.92]). No significant interactions were observed between the consumption of SSB, ASB, or PJ and genetic predisposition to AF.
Whether you're looking to satisfy a craving with a crisp can of sugary goodness or offset it completely with the refreshing taste of your favourite diet soda, when it comes to selecting a beverage from a drinks menu, we’re spoilt for choice.
But are our ‘healthier’ drink choices really adding much value to our well-being in the long run? According to a new study, they could be having the opposite effect.
Published in the journal Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, the research follows the drinking habits of roughly 202,000 adults aged 37 to 73 in the United Kingdom, examining the results of a 24-hour diet questionnaire.
Specifically, the findings of the study suggest a strong correlation between adults drinking no to low-sugar beverages and their risk of developing atrial fibrillation.
Individuals who reported consuming more than two litres of artificially sweetened drinks in the 24-hour time period were found to have a 20 per cent higher chance of developing the condition (that’s roughly six standard cans).
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a serious cardiovascular disease defined by having a heartbeat that is too slow, too fast or irregular. Additionally, patients diagnosed with AF report symptoms such as lightheadedness, chest pain, extreme fatigue, and shortness of breath. Most notably, atrial fibrillation has been found to be the leading cause of stroke in the United States.
According to the Heart Foundation, atrial fibrillation is the most common recurring arrhythmia found in clinical practice, prevalent in two to four per cent of the population in developed nations such as Australia.
Additionally, the findings indicated that the individuals who reported consuming beverages with added sugars had an increased risk of the disease by up to ten per cent. On the flip side, consuming unsweetened juices, such as natural orange juice, was associated with a reduced risk of up to eight per cent.
“Our study’s findings cannot definitively conclude that one beverage poses more health risk than another due to the complexity of our diets and because some people may drink more than one type of beverage,” says lead study author Dr Ningjian Wang, a professor at the Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital and Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.
“However, based on these findings, we recommend that people reduce or even avoid artificially sweetened and sugar-sweetened beverages whenever possible,” Wang added in a statement discussing the study’s findings.
While the results are certainly worth discussing, this is the first study of its kind to examine the correlation between atrial fibrillation and both sugar-sweetened and no-to-low-calorie artificially sweetened beverages, indicating much further research is needed to fully understand the risks associated with each beverage.
So, if diet sodas and ‘no-sugar’ alternatives could be facilitating equally as much damage to our health, what’s the safest drink to turn to? Based on the study’s results, the safest hydration option is plain and simple H2O.
“Do not take it for granted that drinking low-sugar and low-calorie artificially sweetened beverages is healthy, it may pose potential health risks,” warns Wang.
https://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/health/health-news/this-common-drink-increases-the-risk-of-serious-heart-condition-study-finds/image-gallery/c1442ee9ef82a08436afe5a7f4b9558d
***********************************************
A plant-based diet is good for your health. But there’s one exception
The journal article is:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(24)00115-7/fulltext
It's yet another rubbishy diet study. They anaysed their data using extreme quartiles, which means that they threw away half of their data before testing it, which in turn usually means that there were NO correlations in the full dataset. And even then they got only marginal hazard ratios. For instance:"After adjustment for potential confounders, a 10% increase in the contribution of plant-sourced non-UPF in diet was associated with a 7% reduced risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.91–0.95) and a 8% reduced risk of incident coronary heart disease (adjusted HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.90–0.94)"
Relationships as weak as that are often not replicable so the study is most safely seen as failing to show that diet has any certain effect on health at all. In plain speech, eat what you like. The best thing to do for your health is probably to have friends
Eating a plant-based diet is good for your health, but not if those plant foods are ultra-processed, a new study has found.
The findings show that all plant-based diets aren’t the same, and that plant foods can have very different effects on your health depending on what manufacturers do to them before they reach your plate.
The new research, published on Monday in the journal, Lancet Regional Health-Europe, found eating plant-derived foods that are ultra-processed – such as meat substitutes, fruit drinks and pastries – increases the risk of heart attacks and stroke. But when plant foods such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts are only minimally processed – meaning they are cleaned, cut or squeezed before packaging but served largely as they are found in nature – they have a protective effect against cardiovascular disease. The study treated freshly squeezed fruit juices as unprocessed.
Ultra-processed foods have faced intense scrutiny from health authorities in recent years. What’s unusual about the new study is that it zeroed in on the health effects of ultra-processed foods that begin as plants, comparing them with minimally processed plant foods. Given that plant-based foods are generally healthy in their natural state, the research suggests that there’s something uniquely damaging about ultra-processing that changes a food in a way that can harm a person’s health long term.
“The artificial and heightened flavours of these foods can lead people to become addicted to these flavours, making it difficult for them to appreciate the natural flavours of real foods such as fruits and vegetables,” says Fernanda Rauber, the lead author of the new study and a researcher at the Centre for Epidemiological Research in Nutrition and Health at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.
The new study analysed data on 118,000 adults who were followed for roughly a decade as part of the UK Biobank, a study that has been tracking the health and lifestyle habits of people throughout the United Kingdom. As part of the long-running study, the participants answered questions about their diets, habits and environments on different occasions and provided biological samples, and health and medical records. The findings included:
The more ultra-processed foods people consumed, the higher their likelihood of dying of heart disease.
Every 10 per cent increase in kilojoules from plant-derived ultra-processed foods was associated with a 5 per cent higher likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease and a 6 per cent higher risk of coronary heart disease in particular.
For every 10 per cent increase in the consumption of whole plant-based foods — those that were not ultra-processed — the participants had an 8 per cent reduction in their likelihood of developing coronary heart disease and a 20 per cent reduction in their risk of dying of it. They also had a 13 per cent lower risk of dying of any cardiovascular diseases.
Many of the foods studied were not foods people would typically consider a plant food. But the main ingredients in many junk foods come from plants, such as cane and beet sugars, wheat flour, corn, potatoes, fruit juices and vegetable oils.
***********************************************
Why Even ‘Woke’ Companies are Turning Their Backs on Toxic HR Diversity Schemes
More bosses are pulling the handbrake on costly diversity initiatives after realising they have allowed toxic identity politics to enter their workplace and wasted millions of pounds on pointless schemes. The Telegraph has more.
Behind office doors, HR departments at some of Britain’s biggest businesses have recently been feeling defensive and on the back foot.
Increasingly laid at their doors is the blame for allowing toxic identity politics to enter the workplace, and wasting millions of pounds on pointless diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) schemes.
Pointing the finger are belt-tightening senior leaders scrutinising their returns amid soaring wage bills, with some even feeling betrayed for being shepherded by HR into the vicious culture wars.
Christoffer Ellehuus, the Chief Executive of workplace training company MindGym, says: “A lot of them are blaming HR for not having reined it in and having had a much clearer business focus about what they were doing.”
Fuelling this blame game are recent findings that Britain’s diversity drive is “counterproductive” despite businesses spending millions of pounds on ultimately ineffective workplace initiatives.
It was the conclusion of an independent report commissioned by Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, which discovered popular so-called ESG (environmental, social and governance) practices had little to no tangible impact on boosting diversity or reducing prejudice.
Ms. Badenoch in March warned British companies against outsourcing or delegating to workplace training consultants with “potentially conflicting incentives” which are ultimately selling “snake oil”.
She told the Times: “There are lots of people who just cook up stuff and say, ‘Oh, I’ve got a course. Why don’t you buy my course?’ … They’ve been making money out of selling stuff that is not evidence-based.”
Badenoch’s report is damning for HR departments who now face questions from their superiors about why they fell prey to so-called snake oil sellers in the first place.
This includes decisions to roll out divisive training programmes in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, designed to spread awareness around unconscious bias, white privilege and gender pronouns.
However, what were sold as quick fixes to create a fairer workplace – in online training sessions as short as 30 minutes – many have discovered to be little more than fashionable fads with damaging consequences.
*************************************************
Srbija walks both sides of the street
Srbija is a significant arms producer. The Zastava factory has been producing quality rifles and other weapons for many decades
Serbia is secretly increasing munitions sales to the West, strengthening Ukraine's defences. At the same time, the country did not join Western sanctions against Russia. Putin is losing an ally…
The British newspaper The Financial Times estimates that Serbia has exported € 800 million ($ 858 million) worth of munitions to its Western allies since Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. These weapons then found their way to Kiev via third countries.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić called the situation a business opportunity. At the same time, Vučić stressed that he will not take sides in the war. "This is a part of our economic revival and important for us. Yes, we do export our ammunition," he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
"We cannot export to Ukraine or to Russia . . . but we have had many contracts with Americans, Spaniards, Czechs, others. What they do with that in the end is their job", he also said. " I need to take care of my people, and that’s it. That’s all I can say. We have friends in Kyiv and in Moscow. These are our Slav brothers."
Serbia is not a member of NATO or the European Union. At the same time, Serbs are traditionally attached to Russia and distrustful of the West.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/putin-stabbed-in-the-back/ar-BB1oMK8K ?
***************************************************
DOJ challenge to laws Banning Sex Changes for Kids Doesn’t ‘Hold Water,’ Legal Expert Says/
The Constitution doesn’t protect sex-change procedures for minors, an expert in civil rights law told The Daily Signal as the Supreme Court announced it would weigh the issue after its next term begins in October.
The highest court in the U.S. agreed Monday to hear a Justice Department lawsuit against a Tennessee law, passed last year, that bans gender surgeries and cross-sex hormones for those under 18.
The Biden administration alleges that the state violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause by excluding children who say they are transgender from “essential medical care.”
The administration’s claims “don’t hold water” because a variety of laws reserve significant decisions for adults, Sarah Parshall Perry, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told The Daily Signal.
“States have the power to democratically enact laws that protect minor, vulnerable populations—as evidenced by age limits on alcohol, tobacco, contracting, driving, and more,” Perry said. “The Supreme Court has long recognized that minors lack the maturity and intelligence to make life-altering decisions.”
“To overcome this judicial history,” she added, “the DOJ would have to successfully argue that the laws are discriminatory in nature and violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.”
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has sued multiple Republican-controlled states for restricting sex-change procedures. Its petition to the Supreme Court argues that such laws “discriminate based on sex and transgender status” and therefore must pass a judicial standard known as intermediate scrutiny.
“In other words,” Perry told The Daily Signal, “Tennessee would have to prove the law furthers an important government interest and must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.”
“Even under this heightened standard … the state’s defense would stand,” said Perry, who previously was a senior counsel in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights as well as a civil rights litigator. “There can be no more important interest than protecting vulnerable adolescents from the life-long complications of these interventions, and the possibility of debilitating regret.”
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority issued an emergency order in April that allowed an Idaho ban on such medical procedures to take effect amid a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Tennessee case before the high court will decide the fate of children in at least 25 states that have passed similar restrictions.
The Supreme Court’s next term begins in October and a decision in the case is expected by July 2025.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
UK: VAT [sales tax] on private schools: a spiteful policy?
As my stepson in Scotland remarked to me the other day: "In typical leftist style, Labour's attempts to "close the class divide" will only widen it!". It will make private education an option for the very rich only. At the moment, a lot of middle class parents have managed to afford independent schooling by cutting back on other things.
And the claim that it will raise tax income to the government is very shallow. Many parents will instead send their kids to the better-run of the government-funded schools, thus putting their budgets under presure, which government will have to fund. And the tax will raise NOTHING from them
In good Leftist style, the underlying intention is clearly to hurt rather than help
"Another day closer to the general election and I'm at my daughter's prep school in Oxfordshire," said Arabella Byrne in The Spectator. Once again, "I'm having a 'VAT chat' with a fellow mother".
We've known about Labour's plan for months – stripping the VAT exemption from private school fees. But as the election draws near, the reality is starting to sink in. It will lead to a likely 20% rise in fees, which for many parents, including me, will be unaffordable. "I will have to take my daughter out of the school that she loves."
This is an appalling policy, motivated by "the politics of envy" and "simple spite", said Martin Stephen in The Daily Telegraph. The success of independent schools has always been "an embarrassment" to Labour. The policy will be a "hammer blow", ensuring that in future, they are only for "the super-rich".
No 'mass migration' from sector
This "niche" issue has been given an amazing amount of coverage by the right-wing press, said Catherine Bennett in The Observer. There are endless "sob stories" about this "formerly obscure minority of a minority": private school parents who now "face the brutal prospect of state education". We hear about all the sacrifices they've had to make to pay fees, driving old bangers, denying themselves West End shows, and so on. But let's not forget that Labour's policy is actually a moderate "compromise": private schools are not being abolished or stripped of charitable status, they're just having their VAT rules changed.
Most services, after all, have to charge VAT, said Daniel Freeman on CapX. And I am unconvinced that this policy will lead to a "mass migration" from the sector. Private schools have provided clear evidence that parents aren't sensitive to fee hikes. Since 1997, average fees have more than doubled in real terms. The effect? "Essentially none." Besides, there is little reason to believe that schools will pass on the full cost of VAT, at least in the short term. They're more likely to cut the lavish facilities they provide.
A 'counterproductive' plan
Bigger, richer schools will be able to take the hit, said Anne McElvoy in The i Paper. Others won't. For example, Downham Preparatory in Norfolk, which gives a third of its places to autistic children, says it will not survive the VAT hike.
Admissions to private schools have already fallen by nearly 3% in the past year, said Mike Harris in The Guardian. Labour says the policy will raise £1.6bn to pay for more state school teachers. But every child who leaves a private school, so their parents can avoid £3,000 of VAT, will cost the schools budget £8,000. So Labour's plan risks being "counterproductive".
https://theweek.com/education/vat-on-private-schools
****************************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)