SLIPSTREAMING
Cycling is all about slipstreaming. Sitting out of the wind in the middle of a bunch of riders is easier than riding at the front, and creating the "hole", you use 30-40% less energy. Birds do the same when they fly in V-formations.
Until recently, I used to go cycling mainly on my own. The nearest club was more than 15km away, and I didn't fancy riding 15km (and possibly 15km back) just to ride with other people. So the setting up of a cycling club in my home town earlier this year was a great development. There are training sessions three times a week, on Tuesday and Thursday evenings and Sunday mornings, though I don't go to them all. And you get to ride in a bunch, with all those slipstreaming advantages.
On Thursday evening we did 50km in less than 2 hours. It was a very windy day, so doing it on my own would have been a nightmare. Coming back at the end with the wind behind us, I was doing 50km/hr on the flat without really trying. Very satisfying.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 30 April 2011
Friday 29 April 2011
THE ROYAL WEDDING
What is one to make of all that?
Well, it certainly showed Britain at its best. The precision timing of the various arrivals, the Household Cavalry and the Guards on parade, the trumpeters, choir and music, the clergy in their robes, the fantastic church (if you want to know what inspired mediæval man, then visit Westminster Abbey). There were too many television shots of Elton John, Posh and Becks, and David Cameron. But there were also some good ones; Rowan Williams as an avuncular Archbishop of Canterbury, Prince William looking like the cat that had got the cream, and - best of all - that political bruiser and current Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke lurking in the choir stalls.
In the fashion stakes, some of the women had dreadful dress sense; Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, William's cousins, spring to mind. The bride looked lovely, of course, all brides do. Apart from her, the best-dressed females were Kate Middleton's bridesmaid and younger sister Philippa in a figure-hugging white dress, and the Queen, resplendent in a very simple yellow number. Sometimes it takes an 85-year old to show what elegance means.
I watched the whole thing live on Danish TV. Although Denmark has had a continuous monarchy since before 1066, Danes also go nuts about other countries' weddings and coronations. DR1's lead commentator was mortified when she got William's uniform wrong; it's hard to imagine the BBC's being as interested in Scandinavian heraldry.
Walter Blotscher
What is one to make of all that?
Well, it certainly showed Britain at its best. The precision timing of the various arrivals, the Household Cavalry and the Guards on parade, the trumpeters, choir and music, the clergy in their robes, the fantastic church (if you want to know what inspired mediæval man, then visit Westminster Abbey). There were too many television shots of Elton John, Posh and Becks, and David Cameron. But there were also some good ones; Rowan Williams as an avuncular Archbishop of Canterbury, Prince William looking like the cat that had got the cream, and - best of all - that political bruiser and current Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke lurking in the choir stalls.
In the fashion stakes, some of the women had dreadful dress sense; Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, William's cousins, spring to mind. The bride looked lovely, of course, all brides do. Apart from her, the best-dressed females were Kate Middleton's bridesmaid and younger sister Philippa in a figure-hugging white dress, and the Queen, resplendent in a very simple yellow number. Sometimes it takes an 85-year old to show what elegance means.
I watched the whole thing live on Danish TV. Although Denmark has had a continuous monarchy since before 1066, Danes also go nuts about other countries' weddings and coronations. DR1's lead commentator was mortified when she got William's uniform wrong; it's hard to imagine the BBC's being as interested in Scandinavian heraldry.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 28 April 2011
RUBBISH SERVICE (2)
I borrowed a trailer today to take stuff up to the dump. Notably those big doors that I have taken out from the barn.
Even though I had chopped them up, the resulting chunks were still pretty heavy. It wasn't too difficult getting them onto the waist-high trailer; but taking them out and putting them up in the head-high container at the dump would be another matter. After struggling with the first - and smallest - one, one of the municipal employees came up to me, and asked me if I needed any help. This was not, as I first thought, picking up the other end of a door and helping me throw it into the container. It was turning the ignition key in his huge JCB digger that is used to flatten stuff in the containers when they get too full. So I simply put all the chunks in his shovel, and puff, into the container they all went.
As I said earlier, rubbish rubbish service has been replaced by good rubbish service.
Walter Blotscher
I borrowed a trailer today to take stuff up to the dump. Notably those big doors that I have taken out from the barn.
Even though I had chopped them up, the resulting chunks were still pretty heavy. It wasn't too difficult getting them onto the waist-high trailer; but taking them out and putting them up in the head-high container at the dump would be another matter. After struggling with the first - and smallest - one, one of the municipal employees came up to me, and asked me if I needed any help. This was not, as I first thought, picking up the other end of a door and helping me throw it into the container. It was turning the ignition key in his huge JCB digger that is used to flatten stuff in the containers when they get too full. So I simply put all the chunks in his shovel, and puff, into the container they all went.
As I said earlier, rubbish rubbish service has been replaced by good rubbish service.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 27 April 2011
GOODS AND SERVICES (2)
A month or so ago, I said that I thought that goods had become too cheap, and that services had become too expensive.
Yesterday I bought some socks for kr.69.79 (or just over £8). However, not one pair, but ten pairs. How people can grow cotton, make a pair of socks in Bangladesh or wherever, ship them halfway around the world, and then sell them for kr.5.58 ex-VAT is beyond me.
By contrast, my mother-in-law wanted a gardening job done. She has a beech hedge which surrounds her house. In amongst the hedge, at regular intervals, are 10-12 young trees, about the size of our apple tree in the photo below. Having reached head height, the trees needed pruning and shaping, so that from now on they grow straight and symmetrically. Not a particularly demanding job, if you know what you are doing (I offered to do it for free, but she wanted a professional). It cost kr.6,000 + VAT for a day's work.
I rest my case.
Walter Blotscher
A month or so ago, I said that I thought that goods had become too cheap, and that services had become too expensive.
Yesterday I bought some socks for kr.69.79 (or just over £8). However, not one pair, but ten pairs. How people can grow cotton, make a pair of socks in Bangladesh or wherever, ship them halfway around the world, and then sell them for kr.5.58 ex-VAT is beyond me.
By contrast, my mother-in-law wanted a gardening job done. She has a beech hedge which surrounds her house. In amongst the hedge, at regular intervals, are 10-12 young trees, about the size of our apple tree in the photo below. Having reached head height, the trees needed pruning and shaping, so that from now on they grow straight and symmetrically. Not a particularly demanding job, if you know what you are doing (I offered to do it for free, but she wanted a professional). It cost kr.6,000 + VAT for a day's work.
I rest my case.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 26 April 2011
THE RESILIENCE OF TREES
There is an apple tree outside our back door. The old tree was quite large (you can see the thickness of the old trunk in the picture). But bits of it were dead, and the rest was hanging over the hedge in a lop-sided sort of way; so I cut it down two years ago.
I quite expected that to be that. However, far from rotting into nothing, up popped 10-12 new shoots last spring. Since I didn't want a dozen trees where one had stood before, I chopped down all but two of them last autumn. These two are doing well, and have just burst out into bud this week (see below).
You would think that something that has had its head (and arms and legs) vigorously chopped off would find it difficult to survive, let alone bounce back. But this tree has done so, and I am impressed. All it needs to do now is to produce apples this autumn, and we'll have a nice tree with fruit, and at a height where they can be easily picked.
Walter Blotscher
There is an apple tree outside our back door. The old tree was quite large (you can see the thickness of the old trunk in the picture). But bits of it were dead, and the rest was hanging over the hedge in a lop-sided sort of way; so I cut it down two years ago.
I quite expected that to be that. However, far from rotting into nothing, up popped 10-12 new shoots last spring. Since I didn't want a dozen trees where one had stood before, I chopped down all but two of them last autumn. These two are doing well, and have just burst out into bud this week (see below).
You would think that something that has had its head (and arms and legs) vigorously chopped off would find it difficult to survive, let alone bounce back. But this tree has done so, and I am impressed. All it needs to do now is to produce apples this autumn, and we'll have a nice tree with fruit, and at a height where they can be easily picked.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 25 April 2011
HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA (2)
The "Obamacare" healthcare bill, which was signed into law last spring, has already been subject to legal challenges. In particular, the courts have been asked to rule whether the universal obligation to take out some sort of health insurance is unconstitutional, on the grounds that Congress is exceeding its powers (the basic principle is that powers are reserved to the states unless the constitution specifically says otherwise, and it is felt by many that the interstate commerce clause does not cover the matter). Five federal judges have considered this question, three Democrat appointees and two Republican, and their decisions represent the party line. The Democrats in Michigan, Virginia and Washington D.C. have decided that the mandate is constitutional; the Republicans in Florida and Virginia have decided that it is not.
These decisions are now wending their way up through the appellate system, and will almost inevitably reach the Supreme Court at some point. Given that, isn't there much to be said for shortening the process and getting the Supreme Court to decide now? After all, if the mandate is unconstitutional, then a lot of what is currently happening "on the ground" is going to be made redundant. No, decided the Supreme Court today. Fast track procedures take place only rarely, in times of war or constitutional crisis; and this is not one of those.
A victory for legal punctiliousness. But is also leaves that legal uncertainty. Until the Supreme Court definitively gives its view - and that is not expected for at least another year - it will not be known whether Obamacare will survive in its current form.
Walter Blotscher
The "Obamacare" healthcare bill, which was signed into law last spring, has already been subject to legal challenges. In particular, the courts have been asked to rule whether the universal obligation to take out some sort of health insurance is unconstitutional, on the grounds that Congress is exceeding its powers (the basic principle is that powers are reserved to the states unless the constitution specifically says otherwise, and it is felt by many that the interstate commerce clause does not cover the matter). Five federal judges have considered this question, three Democrat appointees and two Republican, and their decisions represent the party line. The Democrats in Michigan, Virginia and Washington D.C. have decided that the mandate is constitutional; the Republicans in Florida and Virginia have decided that it is not.
These decisions are now wending their way up through the appellate system, and will almost inevitably reach the Supreme Court at some point. Given that, isn't there much to be said for shortening the process and getting the Supreme Court to decide now? After all, if the mandate is unconstitutional, then a lot of what is currently happening "on the ground" is going to be made redundant. No, decided the Supreme Court today. Fast track procedures take place only rarely, in times of war or constitutional crisis; and this is not one of those.
A victory for legal punctiliousness. But is also leaves that legal uncertainty. Until the Supreme Court definitively gives its view - and that is not expected for at least another year - it will not be known whether Obamacare will survive in its current form.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 24 April 2011
THE APOSTLES' CREED
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth ..." is the first sentence of the Apostles' Creed. As the earliest creed, or statement of belief, in the Christian Church, it is silent on some issues, which later caused huge doctrinal problems, and which were made explicit in subsequent creeds such as the Nicene. Notably questions about the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. As such, the Apostles' Creed is accepted by Christian denominations, who otherwise disagree with each other about lots of other things.
The Danish Lutheran church uses the Apostles' Creed, albeit with one modification. At the beginning Danes add the sentence "I renounce the devil and all his works and all his ways". This change is mainly due to Nikolai Grundtvig, the 19th century theologian, who is one of the most influential people in Danish history.
I have always thought it a bit odd to start a creed, which is a summary of what one believes in, with a firm statement of what one rejects. I was reminded of that oddity, as I went to church on a beautifully sunny morning this Easter Sunday.
Walter Blotscher
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth ..." is the first sentence of the Apostles' Creed. As the earliest creed, or statement of belief, in the Christian Church, it is silent on some issues, which later caused huge doctrinal problems, and which were made explicit in subsequent creeds such as the Nicene. Notably questions about the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. As such, the Apostles' Creed is accepted by Christian denominations, who otherwise disagree with each other about lots of other things.
The Danish Lutheran church uses the Apostles' Creed, albeit with one modification. At the beginning Danes add the sentence "I renounce the devil and all his works and all his ways". This change is mainly due to Nikolai Grundtvig, the 19th century theologian, who is one of the most influential people in Danish history.
I have always thought it a bit odd to start a creed, which is a summary of what one believes in, with a firm statement of what one rejects. I was reminded of that oddity, as I went to church on a beautifully sunny morning this Easter Sunday.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 22 April 2011
GOOD FRIDAY
Why is Good Friday called "good", when the day commemorates the death of Jesus, the most important figure in the Christian religion?
The short answer is that it is only called that in the English language. In the Orthodox Church, it is known as Holy and Great Friday. In Germany it is called Karfreitag, meaning "mourning Friday". Here in Denmark it is "lang fredag", or long Friday. Indeed, that was apparently the name for it in Anglo-Saxon times as well.
Most people think that the current name is a bastardisation of God's Friday, in the same way as goodbye is a bastardisation of God be with ye.
The tradition of the Easter bunny (well, hare, really) is thought to come from pagan times, since hares represented the fertility and rebirth of spring. The pagan hare then got mixed up with the egg, the Christian symbol of resurrection. Which is why we have Easter egg hunts for children, to find the eggs left by the Easter bunny/hare. And for adults; I'll be taking part in one on Sunday at my sister-in-law's.
Walter Blotscher
Why is Good Friday called "good", when the day commemorates the death of Jesus, the most important figure in the Christian religion?
The short answer is that it is only called that in the English language. In the Orthodox Church, it is known as Holy and Great Friday. In Germany it is called Karfreitag, meaning "mourning Friday". Here in Denmark it is "lang fredag", or long Friday. Indeed, that was apparently the name for it in Anglo-Saxon times as well.
Most people think that the current name is a bastardisation of God's Friday, in the same way as goodbye is a bastardisation of God be with ye.
The tradition of the Easter bunny (well, hare, really) is thought to come from pagan times, since hares represented the fertility and rebirth of spring. The pagan hare then got mixed up with the egg, the Christian symbol of resurrection. Which is why we have Easter egg hunts for children, to find the eggs left by the Easter bunny/hare. And for adults; I'll be taking part in one on Sunday at my sister-in-law's.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 21 April 2011
BUYING FERTILITY
Should childless couples have to pay for fertility treatment, or should the state's health service provide it for free?
This is a tough one, since two objects of public policy are pulling in opposite directions. On the one hand, we know that healthcare costs will continue to rise almost exponentially, as we all get older, and the medical profession finds more and more ways to keep us alive. Against that background, health authorities are increasingly refusing to allow patients to receive certain types of treatment for free. Dentistry is a good example. Even in Denmark, where healthcare is tax-funded and generally free, you have to pay part of the cost of dental treatment, unless you are a child and it is a medical necessity. In other countries, dentistry is completely privatised. And where dentistry leads, other treatments may follow; cosmetic surgery, liposuction (fat removal) etc etc. For many people, fertility treatment is more of a lifestyle problem than a health problem, and shouldn't, therefore, be free.
On the other hand, we also know that rich societies are not producing enough babies, who will grow up and generate the tax revenues needed to pay for all those healthcare costs (and other things). It is estimated that roughly 8% of all babies in Denmark are born after some sort of fertility assistance. But if health authorities charge for fertility treatment, then fewer couples will seek it, so fewer babies will be born than would otherwise be the case. Leading to fewer revenues for the state in 20-50 years' time.
What to do? In essence, this is an investment decision. And like any other investment decision, the costs (in terms of free treatment) are up-front and certain, while the benefits (in terms of tax revenues) are in the future and uncertain. Given today's economic situation, it is perhaps not so surprising that the cost arguments have won out. The Danish Government started charging for fertility treatment from 1 January this year, at kr.15.000 (roughly £1,750) a throw. It is already clear, after a couple of months, that demand has fallen, and at a rate which will lead to perhaps 500 fewer babies being born this year than otherwise. The current Finance Minister may well view this as a good idea; I am not sure the Finance Minister in 2040 will.
Walter Blotscher
Should childless couples have to pay for fertility treatment, or should the state's health service provide it for free?
This is a tough one, since two objects of public policy are pulling in opposite directions. On the one hand, we know that healthcare costs will continue to rise almost exponentially, as we all get older, and the medical profession finds more and more ways to keep us alive. Against that background, health authorities are increasingly refusing to allow patients to receive certain types of treatment for free. Dentistry is a good example. Even in Denmark, where healthcare is tax-funded and generally free, you have to pay part of the cost of dental treatment, unless you are a child and it is a medical necessity. In other countries, dentistry is completely privatised. And where dentistry leads, other treatments may follow; cosmetic surgery, liposuction (fat removal) etc etc. For many people, fertility treatment is more of a lifestyle problem than a health problem, and shouldn't, therefore, be free.
On the other hand, we also know that rich societies are not producing enough babies, who will grow up and generate the tax revenues needed to pay for all those healthcare costs (and other things). It is estimated that roughly 8% of all babies in Denmark are born after some sort of fertility assistance. But if health authorities charge for fertility treatment, then fewer couples will seek it, so fewer babies will be born than would otherwise be the case. Leading to fewer revenues for the state in 20-50 years' time.
What to do? In essence, this is an investment decision. And like any other investment decision, the costs (in terms of free treatment) are up-front and certain, while the benefits (in terms of tax revenues) are in the future and uncertain. Given today's economic situation, it is perhaps not so surprising that the cost arguments have won out. The Danish Government started charging for fertility treatment from 1 January this year, at kr.15.000 (roughly £1,750) a throw. It is already clear, after a couple of months, that demand has fallen, and at a rate which will lead to perhaps 500 fewer babies being born this year than otherwise. The current Finance Minister may well view this as a good idea; I am not sure the Finance Minister in 2040 will.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 20 April 2011
THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE
The wheels of justice grind slowly, 'tis said. So it was heartening to read last week that two retired Croatian generals have been convicted by a U.N. war crimes tribunal in the Hague of various crimes, and sentenced to long periods in prison (18 and 24 years respectively). A third general was acquitted on all counts.
The events in question took place during the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1995, some 16 years ago. The Serbs had occupied a part of Croatia called Krajina since the start of the war in 1991, and the Croatians eventually hatched a plan to take it back. Around 200,000 ethnic Serbs were driven from their homes, and at least 150 killed. Various atrocities were committed by the military against the civilian population, including murder and forced deportation.
It was accepted that the two generals, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac, had not committed the crimes personally. However, Operation Storm was ordered by former President Franjo Tudjman, and they were involved in its planning and execution. As such, they were part of a "joint criminal enterprise", and therefore guilty.
The men are widely viewed as heroes in Croatia, so the verdict went down very badly in Zagreb. It may also be adjusted or overturned on appeal. However, it was vital to send a clear message to Croatia (and, waiting in the wings, both Serbia and Bosnia) that if it wants to join the E.U., then the boils from the Yugoslavian conflict need to be lanced. Even if they took place a long time ago.
Walter Blotscher
The wheels of justice grind slowly, 'tis said. So it was heartening to read last week that two retired Croatian generals have been convicted by a U.N. war crimes tribunal in the Hague of various crimes, and sentenced to long periods in prison (18 and 24 years respectively). A third general was acquitted on all counts.
The events in question took place during the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1995, some 16 years ago. The Serbs had occupied a part of Croatia called Krajina since the start of the war in 1991, and the Croatians eventually hatched a plan to take it back. Around 200,000 ethnic Serbs were driven from their homes, and at least 150 killed. Various atrocities were committed by the military against the civilian population, including murder and forced deportation.
It was accepted that the two generals, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac, had not committed the crimes personally. However, Operation Storm was ordered by former President Franjo Tudjman, and they were involved in its planning and execution. As such, they were part of a "joint criminal enterprise", and therefore guilty.
The men are widely viewed as heroes in Croatia, so the verdict went down very badly in Zagreb. It may also be adjusted or overturned on appeal. However, it was vital to send a clear message to Croatia (and, waiting in the wings, both Serbia and Bosnia) that if it wants to join the E.U., then the boils from the Yugoslavian conflict need to be lanced. Even if they took place a long time ago.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 19 April 2011
NORDIC NATIONALISM
A new political development has taken hold in the cold north of Europe; the rise of right-wing, anti-immigrant parties.
For most of the twentieth century, Nordic politics was pretty dull. A succession of mildly left-of-centre Social Democratic Governments across the region created prosperous societies, based on a compact of high taxes in return for generous welfare. Citizens were highly educated, and pretty uniform; there were very few black or brown faces against the snow.
However, the noughties have seen the end of those cosy arrangements. It started in Denmark, where the Danish People's Party has supported the minority right-of-centre coalition since 2001, and increased its share of the vote relentlessly since then. Last year, the Sweden Democrats entered the Riksdag for the first time, after getting over the 5% threshold. And last week, in Finland, the True Finns took 19% of the vote, just behind the two leading parties, and up from a meagre 4% in 2007.
Only Norway has managed to buck the trend of new parties, perhaps because of the continued success of the Progress Party. This was founded as an anti-tax movement in the 1970's, which spawned a number of such parties. However, whereas the Danish DPP rose like a phoenix from the ashes of a similar anti-tax movement, which imploded, the Progress Party has continued, adding resistance to immigration as yet another policy.
Across the region, the basic theme of these new parties is that the old compact doesn't work any more. Taxes are far too high, and far too many of the benefits are going to undeserving people, immigrants at home and wastrels elsewhere in the E.U. (eg Greece). That message appeals particularly to pensioners, worried that the state will not be able to support them, and the jobless, who think the money should be spent on helping them find employment.
Nationalism is not a new phenomenon. But the fact that it is taking hold in what has traditionally been one of the most tolerant parts of the world is worrying.
Walter Blotscher
A new political development has taken hold in the cold north of Europe; the rise of right-wing, anti-immigrant parties.
For most of the twentieth century, Nordic politics was pretty dull. A succession of mildly left-of-centre Social Democratic Governments across the region created prosperous societies, based on a compact of high taxes in return for generous welfare. Citizens were highly educated, and pretty uniform; there were very few black or brown faces against the snow.
However, the noughties have seen the end of those cosy arrangements. It started in Denmark, where the Danish People's Party has supported the minority right-of-centre coalition since 2001, and increased its share of the vote relentlessly since then. Last year, the Sweden Democrats entered the Riksdag for the first time, after getting over the 5% threshold. And last week, in Finland, the True Finns took 19% of the vote, just behind the two leading parties, and up from a meagre 4% in 2007.
Only Norway has managed to buck the trend of new parties, perhaps because of the continued success of the Progress Party. This was founded as an anti-tax movement in the 1970's, which spawned a number of such parties. However, whereas the Danish DPP rose like a phoenix from the ashes of a similar anti-tax movement, which imploded, the Progress Party has continued, adding resistance to immigration as yet another policy.
Across the region, the basic theme of these new parties is that the old compact doesn't work any more. Taxes are far too high, and far too many of the benefits are going to undeserving people, immigrants at home and wastrels elsewhere in the E.U. (eg Greece). That message appeals particularly to pensioners, worried that the state will not be able to support them, and the jobless, who think the money should be spent on helping them find employment.
Nationalism is not a new phenomenon. But the fact that it is taking hold in what has traditionally been one of the most tolerant parts of the world is worrying.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 18 April 2011
DENMARK AND GERMANY (4)
18 April is the anniversary of Denmark's catastrophic defeat to Prussia at Dybbøl Banke in southern Jutland. Bismarck decided to solve the famous Schleswig-Holstein question by force, and the combined Prussian-Austrian forces quickly overran the whole of Jutland. Dybbøl did not represent the end of the war (peace was not formally signed until 30 October), but it did mean that Denmark wouldn't win. Under the terms of the peace, Denmark lost Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg, roughly two fifths of its land mass; and the population was reduced from 2.6m to 1.6m. Though some land and people were recovered through the 1920 plebiscite, which returned the northern half of Schleswig to Denmark.
Although Dybbøl represented a defeat, it is commemorated each year with a parade. This year, for the first time ever, German soldiers also took part. However, it is a sign of Denmark's difficult relationship with its bigger southern neighbour that some local residents objected. For some, Germany is still not welcome, nearly 150 years after the event.
Walter Blotscher
18 April is the anniversary of Denmark's catastrophic defeat to Prussia at Dybbøl Banke in southern Jutland. Bismarck decided to solve the famous Schleswig-Holstein question by force, and the combined Prussian-Austrian forces quickly overran the whole of Jutland. Dybbøl did not represent the end of the war (peace was not formally signed until 30 October), but it did mean that Denmark wouldn't win. Under the terms of the peace, Denmark lost Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg, roughly two fifths of its land mass; and the population was reduced from 2.6m to 1.6m. Though some land and people were recovered through the 1920 plebiscite, which returned the northern half of Schleswig to Denmark.
Although Dybbøl represented a defeat, it is commemorated each year with a parade. This year, for the first time ever, German soldiers also took part. However, it is a sign of Denmark's difficult relationship with its bigger southern neighbour that some local residents objected. For some, Germany is still not welcome, nearly 150 years after the event.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 17 April 2011
A CYCLING WEEKEND
This weekend has had a strong 2-wheeled flavour. Yesterday I gave my bicycle a good spring clean, getting rid of the winter dust, cleaning off all the muck and grease from the chain and gears (a used, bendy toothbrush is the best tool for that, I find) and oiling it thoroughly. I also changed the brake pads on the back wheel, as the old ones were worn out. Today, after doing some building in the morning, I watched the last 60km of the Amstel Gold race in Holland, before going out for my first serious spin of the year.
There were only two problems. The first was a total lack of fitness in the legs that had me gasping when the gradient was more than 2 degrees; the second was their alarming whiteness, after a Scandinavian winter. However, with dry weather and 20 degrees predicted up to, and including, Easter, I should be able to do something about both during the coming week.
Walter Blotscher
This weekend has had a strong 2-wheeled flavour. Yesterday I gave my bicycle a good spring clean, getting rid of the winter dust, cleaning off all the muck and grease from the chain and gears (a used, bendy toothbrush is the best tool for that, I find) and oiling it thoroughly. I also changed the brake pads on the back wheel, as the old ones were worn out. Today, after doing some building in the morning, I watched the last 60km of the Amstel Gold race in Holland, before going out for my first serious spin of the year.
There were only two problems. The first was a total lack of fitness in the legs that had me gasping when the gradient was more than 2 degrees; the second was their alarming whiteness, after a Scandinavian winter. However, with dry weather and 20 degrees predicted up to, and including, Easter, I should be able to do something about both during the coming week.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 16 April 2011
ELIZABETH TAYLOR
Elizabeth Taylor died last month. I never cared much for all the marriages (how can you marry the same man twice?), the jewels and rehab, the odd friendships. What I liked about her was that although she made some real howlers (Cleopatra springs to mind), she was also a great actress in some very good films.
She won an Oscar twice, for Butterfield 8 in 1960 and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in 1966. Her other good films were A Place in the Sun; Suddenly, Last Summer; Giant; and my favourite, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, where she was terrific. In the first two she starred with Montgomery Clift, another actor I like a lot.
I watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? last night. It's a film adaption of a stage play, and takes place in the course of a single night, from about 2.00am until dawn. The four characters have all been to a party before the film starts, and they drink hard liquour almost continuously throughout the film's two hours, so they are either drunk, getting drunk, or sobering up. It's very difficult to act convincingly as a drunk, but both Taylor and her husband (both on- and off-screen at the time) Richard Burton do it brilliantly. Her Oscar was well-deserved.
She will be missed.
Walter Blotscher
Elizabeth Taylor died last month. I never cared much for all the marriages (how can you marry the same man twice?), the jewels and rehab, the odd friendships. What I liked about her was that although she made some real howlers (Cleopatra springs to mind), she was also a great actress in some very good films.
She won an Oscar twice, for Butterfield 8 in 1960 and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in 1966. Her other good films were A Place in the Sun; Suddenly, Last Summer; Giant; and my favourite, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, where she was terrific. In the first two she starred with Montgomery Clift, another actor I like a lot.
I watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? last night. It's a film adaption of a stage play, and takes place in the course of a single night, from about 2.00am until dawn. The four characters have all been to a party before the film starts, and they drink hard liquour almost continuously throughout the film's two hours, so they are either drunk, getting drunk, or sobering up. It's very difficult to act convincingly as a drunk, but both Taylor and her husband (both on- and off-screen at the time) Richard Burton do it brilliantly. Her Oscar was well-deserved.
She will be missed.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 15 April 2011
THE 2011 PROJECT (2)
The 2011 Project has finally got going. Ole Milkman turned out not to have access to the right machines; but he put me in touch with Claus, who does. Today he turned up with a "stubfræser", a large machine for dealing with the roots and stumps of all those sycamore trees I felled in the autumn. Imagine one of those big lawnmowers you sit on, with a ferocious-looking circular saw attached to the back. You back the machine up to the tree stump, and the saw just chews everything up to sawdust.
Having dealt with the tree stumps, he will come back next week with an ordinary "fræser", and get rid of all the weeds and other stuff that have popped up out of nowhere during the past month or so (see above). He will also do the 50 sq m in the paddock, so I can get going with the kitchen garden. Around 1 May I should be sowing grass, and making potato beds.
Walter Blotscher
The 2011 Project has finally got going. Ole Milkman turned out not to have access to the right machines; but he put me in touch with Claus, who does. Today he turned up with a "stubfræser", a large machine for dealing with the roots and stumps of all those sycamore trees I felled in the autumn. Imagine one of those big lawnmowers you sit on, with a ferocious-looking circular saw attached to the back. You back the machine up to the tree stump, and the saw just chews everything up to sawdust.
Having dealt with the tree stumps, he will come back next week with an ordinary "fræser", and get rid of all the weeds and other stuff that have popped up out of nowhere during the past month or so (see above). He will also do the 50 sq m in the paddock, so I can get going with the kitchen garden. Around 1 May I should be sowing grass, and making potato beds.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 14 April 2011
WINTER HOBBIES
During the winter I play badminton on Monday nights and bridge on Tuesday nights. Both of these hobbies have just stopped, and won't start up again for another five months.
Both bridge and badminton are played indoors, so there is in principle no reason why we shouldn't play both throughout the summer. However, in Denmark, that is not done. Winter hobbies are strictly for cold, wet winter evenings, on Mondays to Thursdays; not Fridays, not at the weekends. They stop around the end of March, Easter at the latest. Then they start up again in the autumn, around 1 September or just before.
When I ask my fellow participants why this should be so, they merely shrug their shoulders and say "sådan er det bare" (that's just how it is). Very Danish.
Walter Blotscher
During the winter I play badminton on Monday nights and bridge on Tuesday nights. Both of these hobbies have just stopped, and won't start up again for another five months.
Both bridge and badminton are played indoors, so there is in principle no reason why we shouldn't play both throughout the summer. However, in Denmark, that is not done. Winter hobbies are strictly for cold, wet winter evenings, on Mondays to Thursdays; not Fridays, not at the weekends. They stop around the end of March, Easter at the latest. Then they start up again in the autumn, around 1 September or just before.
When I ask my fellow participants why this should be so, they merely shrug their shoulders and say "sådan er det bare" (that's just how it is). Very Danish.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 13 April 2011
BLOG RIGHTS
Should people who contribute to a blog have the right to a share of the blog's revenues and/or sales proceeds if it makes money in some way? This is, admittedly, a hypothetical question in the case of this blog. But it is not hypothetical elsewhere in the blogosphere.
The Huffington Post, perhaps the world's most widely read blog, was recently purchased by AOL for the princely sum of US$315 million. It is now being sued in a class action lawsuit by journalist Jonathan Tasini, acting on behalf of all unpaid contributors. Boiling the case down to its essence, he maintains that a large part of the value of HuffPost is the contributions made by readers; so when that value is realised, as it now has been, the contributors should get a proportion of it.
The mechanics of any such share-out would be horrendously complicated; what proportion would go to contributors, and how would the contributors divide it amongst themselves (by comment, by marked comment, by number of fans etc etc)? But assuming these issues could be finessed, there remains the question whether they should get anything at all. I would say no, even though I have myself begun to comment on HuffPost. My reasoning is that commenting is a totally voluntary activity, there is no prior agreement with the blog, which could in any sense be construed as having the characteristics of a contract. When you collect on behalf of a charity - another totally voluntary activity - you don't expect the charity to pay you afterwards for your efforts. Commenting on a blog is essentially the same.
Having said that, the U.S. legal system never ceases to spring surprises. This case will be worth watching.
Walter Blotscher
Should people who contribute to a blog have the right to a share of the blog's revenues and/or sales proceeds if it makes money in some way? This is, admittedly, a hypothetical question in the case of this blog. But it is not hypothetical elsewhere in the blogosphere.
The Huffington Post, perhaps the world's most widely read blog, was recently purchased by AOL for the princely sum of US$315 million. It is now being sued in a class action lawsuit by journalist Jonathan Tasini, acting on behalf of all unpaid contributors. Boiling the case down to its essence, he maintains that a large part of the value of HuffPost is the contributions made by readers; so when that value is realised, as it now has been, the contributors should get a proportion of it.
The mechanics of any such share-out would be horrendously complicated; what proportion would go to contributors, and how would the contributors divide it amongst themselves (by comment, by marked comment, by number of fans etc etc)? But assuming these issues could be finessed, there remains the question whether they should get anything at all. I would say no, even though I have myself begun to comment on HuffPost. My reasoning is that commenting is a totally voluntary activity, there is no prior agreement with the blog, which could in any sense be construed as having the characteristics of a contract. When you collect on behalf of a charity - another totally voluntary activity - you don't expect the charity to pay you afterwards for your efforts. Commenting on a blog is essentially the same.
Having said that, the U.S. legal system never ceases to spring surprises. This case will be worth watching.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 12 April 2011
EFTERLØN
Efterløn (literally "after wage") is the third rail of Danish politics; conventional wisdom is that if you touch it, you die. It is also a salutary tale both of how difficult it is to dismantle entitlements once they have taken hold, and of how politicians can be hoist with their own petard, if they try to finesse issues by being economical with the truth.
Efterløn was originally proposed by the unions during the mid-1970's, when the state pension age in Denmark was 67. Some workers doing hard manual work got "worn out" well before then, and should be allowed to retire early at 60 on efterløn. It was, therefore, a specific proposal to deal with a small-ish problem. However, that decade was also a time of widespread unemployment, particularly amongst young people. The cross-party Government of the day saw efterløn as a way of getting older people out of the labour market and replacing them with younger people, and thereby massaging the official unemployment figures downwards. The 1979 reform which introduced efterløn for those aged 60-67 made no mention of having to be physically worn out in order to be entitled to it. It was, in effect, officially sanctioned early retirement.
Not surprisingly, it quickly became clear that efterløn was hugely expensive. It was originally expected that some 17,000 people would take advantage of it (today, the figure is around 130,000, compared with a total workforce of around 2.6-2.7 million). Yes, some worn-out manual workers were rewarded for their lifetime of physical effort. But Denmark has never really had lots of heavy industry (there are no coal fields or mines, very few steelworks etc). It turned out that many ordinary workers, particularly those who had paid off their 30-year mortgages by the time they were 60, were opting for early retirement and a life of bridge and golf and other pleasures. In 1999, the then Social Democratic Government introduced a reform, which reduced the state pension age to 65, but required people wishing to take advantage of efterløn to pay a monthly premium in the preceding years. This reduced the cost of the entitlement, but also gave it its third rail reputation. It was widely held that a key factor in the subsequent defeat of the Social Democrats in 2001 was the fact that they had won the previous election on a platform which categorically promised - inter alia - no changes whatsoever to the efterløn regime.
Since then, demographics have reared their ugly head. Denmark is already in a situation where for every five who retire from the labour market, only four enter it; having lots of otherwise able 60-year olds retiring just makes things worse. A tinkering in 2006 accepted that the state pension age is now too low and will have to rise, first back up to 67 and then in line with life expectancy; efterløn will follow suit. However, that reform is not scheduled to kick in before 2019, and people are retiring now. My bridge partner, for example, who has just turned 62. When I asked him how much the premium had been, in order to qualify, I was astounded by how low it is. It costs roughly 3-4 months' worth of efterløn, spread over many years, to get the full whack for 36 months (from the age of 62 to 65). As a financial investment, it must be one of the best in the world. No wonder it costs the state some kr.18 billion a year.
Something had to give. In his New Year's Day address to the nation, Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen called for the total abolition of efterløn for anyone currently under 45. But now politics enters the picture. It might be expected that the left of centre opposition would be against the proposal, and put itself forward as the champion of all those worn-out workers (mental wear and tear has now been added to the mix, even though, as I say, many of those efterlønners are not worn out at all, in any sense). The big problem for the minority Government is the opposition of the very right-wing Danish People's Party. They were the big beneficiary in 2001 of the shift in the working class away from the perfidious Social Democrats, and they have particularly appealed to older people worried about the supposed drowning of Danish culture by all of those dastardly immigrants. They have vowed to retain efterløn, come what may. Without the necessary 90 votes in Parliament, the Prime Minister's proposal is dead in the water.
But the Government is not giving up, not least because it needs to find kr.47 billion a year if it is to balance the public finances by 2020. Roughly half of that will come from a measure already passed, which cuts the right to unemployment benefit from 4 years to 2. In presenting its proposals this morning for filling up the rest of the hole, the Government again called for the abolition of efterløn and a bringing forward from 2019 of the start of the increased retirement age for the state pension.
With a new election due within the next six months, that puts everyone on the spot. All parties agree that the hole will have to be filled (in contrast to - say - America, no political party wants to be held up as economically irresponsible by running a budget deficit). And there are basically only three ways to do that. Higher taxes are ruled out, since Denmark already has the world's highest taxes. Freezing public spending is pretty well ruled out, since that will have to rise in real terms (because of all those elderly retirees requiring more healthcare and old people's homes). Which leaves entitlements. Against that background, you can keep efterløn if you raise the state pension age earlier and more sharply; however, that will then irritate almost half a million people in their 50's instead of the much lower number affected by changes to efterløn.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The political horsetrading of the next few months will make for interesting viewing.
Walter Blotscher
Efterløn (literally "after wage") is the third rail of Danish politics; conventional wisdom is that if you touch it, you die. It is also a salutary tale both of how difficult it is to dismantle entitlements once they have taken hold, and of how politicians can be hoist with their own petard, if they try to finesse issues by being economical with the truth.
Efterløn was originally proposed by the unions during the mid-1970's, when the state pension age in Denmark was 67. Some workers doing hard manual work got "worn out" well before then, and should be allowed to retire early at 60 on efterløn. It was, therefore, a specific proposal to deal with a small-ish problem. However, that decade was also a time of widespread unemployment, particularly amongst young people. The cross-party Government of the day saw efterløn as a way of getting older people out of the labour market and replacing them with younger people, and thereby massaging the official unemployment figures downwards. The 1979 reform which introduced efterløn for those aged 60-67 made no mention of having to be physically worn out in order to be entitled to it. It was, in effect, officially sanctioned early retirement.
Not surprisingly, it quickly became clear that efterløn was hugely expensive. It was originally expected that some 17,000 people would take advantage of it (today, the figure is around 130,000, compared with a total workforce of around 2.6-2.7 million). Yes, some worn-out manual workers were rewarded for their lifetime of physical effort. But Denmark has never really had lots of heavy industry (there are no coal fields or mines, very few steelworks etc). It turned out that many ordinary workers, particularly those who had paid off their 30-year mortgages by the time they were 60, were opting for early retirement and a life of bridge and golf and other pleasures. In 1999, the then Social Democratic Government introduced a reform, which reduced the state pension age to 65, but required people wishing to take advantage of efterløn to pay a monthly premium in the preceding years. This reduced the cost of the entitlement, but also gave it its third rail reputation. It was widely held that a key factor in the subsequent defeat of the Social Democrats in 2001 was the fact that they had won the previous election on a platform which categorically promised - inter alia - no changes whatsoever to the efterløn regime.
Since then, demographics have reared their ugly head. Denmark is already in a situation where for every five who retire from the labour market, only four enter it; having lots of otherwise able 60-year olds retiring just makes things worse. A tinkering in 2006 accepted that the state pension age is now too low and will have to rise, first back up to 67 and then in line with life expectancy; efterløn will follow suit. However, that reform is not scheduled to kick in before 2019, and people are retiring now. My bridge partner, for example, who has just turned 62. When I asked him how much the premium had been, in order to qualify, I was astounded by how low it is. It costs roughly 3-4 months' worth of efterløn, spread over many years, to get the full whack for 36 months (from the age of 62 to 65). As a financial investment, it must be one of the best in the world. No wonder it costs the state some kr.18 billion a year.
Something had to give. In his New Year's Day address to the nation, Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen called for the total abolition of efterløn for anyone currently under 45. But now politics enters the picture. It might be expected that the left of centre opposition would be against the proposal, and put itself forward as the champion of all those worn-out workers (mental wear and tear has now been added to the mix, even though, as I say, many of those efterlønners are not worn out at all, in any sense). The big problem for the minority Government is the opposition of the very right-wing Danish People's Party. They were the big beneficiary in 2001 of the shift in the working class away from the perfidious Social Democrats, and they have particularly appealed to older people worried about the supposed drowning of Danish culture by all of those dastardly immigrants. They have vowed to retain efterløn, come what may. Without the necessary 90 votes in Parliament, the Prime Minister's proposal is dead in the water.
But the Government is not giving up, not least because it needs to find kr.47 billion a year if it is to balance the public finances by 2020. Roughly half of that will come from a measure already passed, which cuts the right to unemployment benefit from 4 years to 2. In presenting its proposals this morning for filling up the rest of the hole, the Government again called for the abolition of efterløn and a bringing forward from 2019 of the start of the increased retirement age for the state pension.
With a new election due within the next six months, that puts everyone on the spot. All parties agree that the hole will have to be filled (in contrast to - say - America, no political party wants to be held up as economically irresponsible by running a budget deficit). And there are basically only three ways to do that. Higher taxes are ruled out, since Denmark already has the world's highest taxes. Freezing public spending is pretty well ruled out, since that will have to rise in real terms (because of all those elderly retirees requiring more healthcare and old people's homes). Which leaves entitlements. Against that background, you can keep efterløn if you raise the state pension age earlier and more sharply; however, that will then irritate almost half a million people in their 50's instead of the much lower number affected by changes to efterløn.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The political horsetrading of the next few months will make for interesting viewing.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 11 April 2011
U.K. HEALTH REFORM
Before last year's general election, David Cameron promised to ring-fence spending on the National Health Service, even though it was well-known that other public spending programmes would be getting the post-election chop. However, any impression the electorate might have had that healthcare would not be touched by the new Coalition Government has been dispelled by its plans to shake up the way the NHS is run. Roughly 60% of total spending will be taken away from Primary Care Trusts, local bodies essentially charged with purchasing healthcare from providers for the populations within their area, and giving it to general practitioners, the doctors who are the gatekeepers to the whole healthcare system. PCT's would then be abolished.
Back in 1988, Margaret Thatcher unilaterally announced a fundamental review of the NHS. As a young Treasury official assigned to the review team, I was naturally excited at being involved in such a cutting edge policy review. Until I was put to rights by a rather laconic economist on secondment from the Ministry of Health, who cheerfully told me that he was on his fourth fundamental review, and fully expected to see a few more during his career. He also told me that he would accept virtually any reform of the then system, except one; GP budgets.
Having budgets for people who are responsible for taking spending decisions is, in principle, a very good idea. However, as recent events in America and the E.U. have clearly shown, two things need to be present to make them work. The first is credible sanctions if the budgets are breached (I personally don't consider shutting down the Federal Government a credible sanction). Since the Coalition has already said that there will be no sanctions against GP's who breach their budgets, a major building block is missing. Indeed, it is not at all clear at the moment what would happen if a GP overspent. Note that this could be for both good and bad reasons. An example of the former would be if a new diagnostic machine were purchased, which could bring long-term savings, but which was not in the budget at the beginning of the financial year. An example of the latter would be if the GP were simply hopeless at matters financial.
The second requirement for budgets is to have skilled people running them. There are not many people in the U.K. healthcare system, who believe that GP's are underutilised, so when exactly would they find the time to manage them? And if you are a 60-year old doctor, who has never had to run a financial or legal system, how likely is it that you will be able to navigate your way through the morass of financial data and contracts that the current structure generates every day. True, some GP's already work together in large practices, that may well have someone with a financial or commercial background; but many don't, and what then? The chances are either that doctors will send patients to the people they have always sent them to (so where is the freedom of choice for patients?) or they will hire one of those newly laid-off PCT managers to do the non-medical bits for them (so where are the efficiency savings?). In the meantime, there will be huge costs involved in such a large managerial revolution.
The Coalition retorts that it is merely trying to improve the market mechanisms within the existing structure. But the big problem with healthcare systems the world over is that they suffer from two crucial market failures. The first is that what consumers want (demand) is good health; what the system hopefully delivers (supply) is good healthcare. In many cases, good healthcare leads directly to good health; childhood vaccinations, for instance, or fixing broken bones. But in a sizeable minority of cases, the healthcare provided does not lead to good health. This is not necessarily because it is not good, though that does happen (one vaccination in a zillion causes a horrible reaction, a bone is sometimes set wrongly). But mainly because quality healthcare doesn't guarantee good health. Some people recover from cancer, some don't; many illnesses can't be cured, but merely contained; some medicines don't work on some people; and so on.
The second market failure concerns the development of new technologies. In most markets, technological developments tend to lead to reductions in prices, even though demand rises; think of reductions in unit transport costs throughout the ages, or reductions in unit communications or computer costs. But in healthcare, technological developments tend to lead to increases in prices. Saving a baby born at 26 weeks costs vastly more than saving one born at 33 weeks; giving someone a liver transplant is vastly more expensive than the alternative (probably death). The founder of the NHS, Aneurin Bevan, thought that health spending would fall over time as people's health improved. This was about as wrong a prediction as it is possible to make, since the share of the economy devoted to healthcare has risen in all countries, even as their economies have grown spectacularly. In America, admittedly the extreme example, more than one dollar in six currently goes on healthcare.
As my laconic economist colleague once remarked, healthcare spending is a bit like a balloon; try and squeeze it in one place, and it simply expands somewhere else. The Coalition is trying to squeeze unit spending by using the standard private sector tool of giving GP's fixed budgets and then expecting them to manage the money more efficiently. However, my prediction is that there would be an offsetting expansion elsewhere in the balloon from administrative costs, as doctors hire financial managers and/or make financial mess-ups that others have to come and sort out.
The Coalition has just announced a 2-month "listening period", where it asks for people's criticisms of the proposed reforms. My advice would be for it to get hold of that health economist, and ask him to write a 2-page briefing note on why GP budgets are not a good idea.
Walter Blotscher
Before last year's general election, David Cameron promised to ring-fence spending on the National Health Service, even though it was well-known that other public spending programmes would be getting the post-election chop. However, any impression the electorate might have had that healthcare would not be touched by the new Coalition Government has been dispelled by its plans to shake up the way the NHS is run. Roughly 60% of total spending will be taken away from Primary Care Trusts, local bodies essentially charged with purchasing healthcare from providers for the populations within their area, and giving it to general practitioners, the doctors who are the gatekeepers to the whole healthcare system. PCT's would then be abolished.
Back in 1988, Margaret Thatcher unilaterally announced a fundamental review of the NHS. As a young Treasury official assigned to the review team, I was naturally excited at being involved in such a cutting edge policy review. Until I was put to rights by a rather laconic economist on secondment from the Ministry of Health, who cheerfully told me that he was on his fourth fundamental review, and fully expected to see a few more during his career. He also told me that he would accept virtually any reform of the then system, except one; GP budgets.
Having budgets for people who are responsible for taking spending decisions is, in principle, a very good idea. However, as recent events in America and the E.U. have clearly shown, two things need to be present to make them work. The first is credible sanctions if the budgets are breached (I personally don't consider shutting down the Federal Government a credible sanction). Since the Coalition has already said that there will be no sanctions against GP's who breach their budgets, a major building block is missing. Indeed, it is not at all clear at the moment what would happen if a GP overspent. Note that this could be for both good and bad reasons. An example of the former would be if a new diagnostic machine were purchased, which could bring long-term savings, but which was not in the budget at the beginning of the financial year. An example of the latter would be if the GP were simply hopeless at matters financial.
The second requirement for budgets is to have skilled people running them. There are not many people in the U.K. healthcare system, who believe that GP's are underutilised, so when exactly would they find the time to manage them? And if you are a 60-year old doctor, who has never had to run a financial or legal system, how likely is it that you will be able to navigate your way through the morass of financial data and contracts that the current structure generates every day. True, some GP's already work together in large practices, that may well have someone with a financial or commercial background; but many don't, and what then? The chances are either that doctors will send patients to the people they have always sent them to (so where is the freedom of choice for patients?) or they will hire one of those newly laid-off PCT managers to do the non-medical bits for them (so where are the efficiency savings?). In the meantime, there will be huge costs involved in such a large managerial revolution.
The Coalition retorts that it is merely trying to improve the market mechanisms within the existing structure. But the big problem with healthcare systems the world over is that they suffer from two crucial market failures. The first is that what consumers want (demand) is good health; what the system hopefully delivers (supply) is good healthcare. In many cases, good healthcare leads directly to good health; childhood vaccinations, for instance, or fixing broken bones. But in a sizeable minority of cases, the healthcare provided does not lead to good health. This is not necessarily because it is not good, though that does happen (one vaccination in a zillion causes a horrible reaction, a bone is sometimes set wrongly). But mainly because quality healthcare doesn't guarantee good health. Some people recover from cancer, some don't; many illnesses can't be cured, but merely contained; some medicines don't work on some people; and so on.
The second market failure concerns the development of new technologies. In most markets, technological developments tend to lead to reductions in prices, even though demand rises; think of reductions in unit transport costs throughout the ages, or reductions in unit communications or computer costs. But in healthcare, technological developments tend to lead to increases in prices. Saving a baby born at 26 weeks costs vastly more than saving one born at 33 weeks; giving someone a liver transplant is vastly more expensive than the alternative (probably death). The founder of the NHS, Aneurin Bevan, thought that health spending would fall over time as people's health improved. This was about as wrong a prediction as it is possible to make, since the share of the economy devoted to healthcare has risen in all countries, even as their economies have grown spectacularly. In America, admittedly the extreme example, more than one dollar in six currently goes on healthcare.
As my laconic economist colleague once remarked, healthcare spending is a bit like a balloon; try and squeeze it in one place, and it simply expands somewhere else. The Coalition is trying to squeeze unit spending by using the standard private sector tool of giving GP's fixed budgets and then expecting them to manage the money more efficiently. However, my prediction is that there would be an offsetting expansion elsewhere in the balloon from administrative costs, as doctors hire financial managers and/or make financial mess-ups that others have to come and sort out.
The Coalition has just announced a 2-month "listening period", where it asks for people's criticisms of the proposed reforms. My advice would be for it to get hold of that health economist, and ask him to write a 2-page briefing note on why GP budgets are not a good idea.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 10 April 2011
ICELAND
What is one to make of the Icelandic people? In a referendum last March, they overwhelmingly (93% said no) rejected a deal agreed with the U.K. and the Netherlands to sort out the Icesave mess. Their Government went back and negotiated more favourable terms. It appears that they too have just been rejected in a new referendum.
Icesave, run by Landsbanki, one of Iceland's three major banks, offered savings accounts paying high rates of interest. When all three of those banks went bust within weeks of each other in October 2008, Iceland hit an economic black hole, and 400,000 British and Dutch Icesave savers lost around Euros4 billion. Since they were not covered by the normal deposit insurance rules, their respective Governments decided to stump up the money themselves, and get the Icelandic Government (which had nationalised Landsbanki) to refund them. The original deal was to pay the money back between 2016 and 2024, at an interest rate of 5.5%; the revised terms extended the payment period to 2046, and reduced the interest rate to 3.0% or 3.3%. That was a major improvement; Icelanders still said no (albeit not so fiercely, a little under 60%).
Why should we bail out the stupid decisions of private banks, they asked? A reasonable question. There are however some good answers. The first one is that although the Icelandic Government would have assumed a large debt, it has also taken over Landbanki's assets, which could have been realised and thereby provided most of the necessary wherewithal to service that debt. The consensus is that the net cost to the country would have been less than 10% of the gross debt.
The second answer is that Iceland has major economic problems, and needs the international community to manage, and eventually solve, them. In particular, it would like to join the E.U. in a hurry, a process over which both the U.K. and the Netherlands have a veto. That veto looks more likely today than it did a week ago; in the meantime, the two countries will make do with taking Iceland to court.
This story shows the depth of the ordinary voter's frustration and anger with the financial crisis of the past few years. Icelanders live in a small island community highly dependent on foreigners, are one of the most educated groups of people on the planet, and are well aware of the likely consequence of their decision, namely ostracism by the international financial community. Yet they still said no. What will poorer and less knowledgeable voters do elsewhere in the world?
Walter Blotscher
What is one to make of the Icelandic people? In a referendum last March, they overwhelmingly (93% said no) rejected a deal agreed with the U.K. and the Netherlands to sort out the Icesave mess. Their Government went back and negotiated more favourable terms. It appears that they too have just been rejected in a new referendum.
Icesave, run by Landsbanki, one of Iceland's three major banks, offered savings accounts paying high rates of interest. When all three of those banks went bust within weeks of each other in October 2008, Iceland hit an economic black hole, and 400,000 British and Dutch Icesave savers lost around Euros4 billion. Since they were not covered by the normal deposit insurance rules, their respective Governments decided to stump up the money themselves, and get the Icelandic Government (which had nationalised Landsbanki) to refund them. The original deal was to pay the money back between 2016 and 2024, at an interest rate of 5.5%; the revised terms extended the payment period to 2046, and reduced the interest rate to 3.0% or 3.3%. That was a major improvement; Icelanders still said no (albeit not so fiercely, a little under 60%).
Why should we bail out the stupid decisions of private banks, they asked? A reasonable question. There are however some good answers. The first one is that although the Icelandic Government would have assumed a large debt, it has also taken over Landbanki's assets, which could have been realised and thereby provided most of the necessary wherewithal to service that debt. The consensus is that the net cost to the country would have been less than 10% of the gross debt.
The second answer is that Iceland has major economic problems, and needs the international community to manage, and eventually solve, them. In particular, it would like to join the E.U. in a hurry, a process over which both the U.K. and the Netherlands have a veto. That veto looks more likely today than it did a week ago; in the meantime, the two countries will make do with taking Iceland to court.
This story shows the depth of the ordinary voter's frustration and anger with the financial crisis of the past few years. Icelanders live in a small island community highly dependent on foreigners, are one of the most educated groups of people on the planet, and are well aware of the likely consequence of their decision, namely ostracism by the international financial community. Yet they still said no. What will poorer and less knowledgeable voters do elsewhere in the world?
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 9 April 2011
ARAB DEMOCRACY (4)
In my last post on this, I said that it was unclear how Egypt would find its way to democracy, if indeed it would. Today's report that the Egyptian army last night had cleared Cairo's Tahrir Square of demonstrators, killing at least one person in the process and injuring many others, seems to confirm my pessimism.
The protesters have moved on from demanding the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak to demanding that he and his family be put on trial for corruption. For the entrenched elite, this is a dangerous development. It is one thing to change the country's figurehead; it's another to hold him to account for his actions. Since if he can be held to account, then so can other members of the former regime.
As in China, the army in Egypt has long had its fingers in many pies, some of which are highly lucrative. President Mubarak has been replaced at the top by the army. If demonstrators push too hard, then they will push back, as they did last night. It is still a very open question whether Egypt manages the transition to democracy.
Walter Blotscher
In my last post on this, I said that it was unclear how Egypt would find its way to democracy, if indeed it would. Today's report that the Egyptian army last night had cleared Cairo's Tahrir Square of demonstrators, killing at least one person in the process and injuring many others, seems to confirm my pessimism.
The protesters have moved on from demanding the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak to demanding that he and his family be put on trial for corruption. For the entrenched elite, this is a dangerous development. It is one thing to change the country's figurehead; it's another to hold him to account for his actions. Since if he can be held to account, then so can other members of the former regime.
As in China, the army in Egypt has long had its fingers in many pies, some of which are highly lucrative. President Mubarak has been replaced at the top by the army. If demonstrators push too hard, then they will push back, as they did last night. It is still a very open question whether Egypt manages the transition to democracy.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 7 April 2011
BRANSTON PICKLE
Branston pickle. For those who don't know what I am talking about, read on. For those who do, I can almost hear your lips salivating, as you say the magic words.
Branston pickle is one of the most delicious things in this world. It's a savoury pickle, made up of onions, other vegetables, vinegar, apples, dates and a mass of other things, including politically incorrect extracts and preservatives (the recipe has been the same since 1922, even if nutrition policy has changed in the meantime). It goes best on cheese, pate, salami, baked potatoes, pork pie, ham, and similar. Most things, really. It is widely available in any supermarket in the U.K., but very difficult to find abroad. In Denmark, it's impossible.
In my family, there are divergent opinions about it. My two sons and I think it is "wicked"; my wife and daughter think it's a bit yukkie. Despite that, my wife brought back two jars of it for me the last time she was in England. One has already gone, and I don't think the second will last very long. In fact, I know it won't.
Walter Blotscher
Branston pickle. For those who don't know what I am talking about, read on. For those who do, I can almost hear your lips salivating, as you say the magic words.
Branston pickle is one of the most delicious things in this world. It's a savoury pickle, made up of onions, other vegetables, vinegar, apples, dates and a mass of other things, including politically incorrect extracts and preservatives (the recipe has been the same since 1922, even if nutrition policy has changed in the meantime). It goes best on cheese, pate, salami, baked potatoes, pork pie, ham, and similar. Most things, really. It is widely available in any supermarket in the U.K., but very difficult to find abroad. In Denmark, it's impossible.
In my family, there are divergent opinions about it. My two sons and I think it is "wicked"; my wife and daughter think it's a bit yukkie. Despite that, my wife brought back two jars of it for me the last time she was in England. One has already gone, and I don't think the second will last very long. In fact, I know it won't.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 6 April 2011
POTENTIAL MELTDOWN
It is possible that a meltdown will take place this week. No, not at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan (though it may still go that way in time). I am talking about the U.S. Federal Government, one of the largest spending organisations in the world.
The U.S. federal fiscal year runs from 1 October to 30 September. The normal procedure is that an overall budget is agreed and passed in Congress, followed by detailed appropriation bills for various departments. The snag is that no budget was agreed for the current fiscal year, so Government agencies have been surviving on a series of ad hoc measures of ever increasing desperation. These will come to an end at midnight on Friday; if a budget is not agreed by that deadline, then large parts of the Government will have to shut down.
President Obama met with Congressional leaders yesterday, but could not reach agreement. Discussions are ongoing, but the gap between the various parties is still large.
At bottom, this is all about politics and not money. The Republicans in Congress, and in particular the first-timer Tea Party elements elected in last November's landslide, want to slash Government spending, and are prepared to paralyse the workings of Government in order to get their way. The Democrats are willing to countenance some reductions, but not as many as the Republicans want. This is not the first time that the Federal Government has shut down; the last time it did so was in 1995, under President Clinton. Then it was the Republicans who lost out in the forum of public opinion and took the blame for being intransigent, but they think it will be different this time around.
A European Government that failed to have its budget passed by Parliament would resign, leading to Government by the opposition or fresh elections. That is exactly what will happen in Portugal, where Parliament recently refused to pass the minority Government's proposed spending cuts; elections will now take place on 5 June. Yet in the U.S., politicians are elected for fixed terms and stay there, come what may. In the event of deadlock, what "gives" is not the politicians, but the very Government they are supposed to be running.
It is weird to think that in 2 days' time, the world's most powerful elected body might well shut down; but it could happen.
Walter Blotscher
It is possible that a meltdown will take place this week. No, not at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan (though it may still go that way in time). I am talking about the U.S. Federal Government, one of the largest spending organisations in the world.
The U.S. federal fiscal year runs from 1 October to 30 September. The normal procedure is that an overall budget is agreed and passed in Congress, followed by detailed appropriation bills for various departments. The snag is that no budget was agreed for the current fiscal year, so Government agencies have been surviving on a series of ad hoc measures of ever increasing desperation. These will come to an end at midnight on Friday; if a budget is not agreed by that deadline, then large parts of the Government will have to shut down.
President Obama met with Congressional leaders yesterday, but could not reach agreement. Discussions are ongoing, but the gap between the various parties is still large.
At bottom, this is all about politics and not money. The Republicans in Congress, and in particular the first-timer Tea Party elements elected in last November's landslide, want to slash Government spending, and are prepared to paralyse the workings of Government in order to get their way. The Democrats are willing to countenance some reductions, but not as many as the Republicans want. This is not the first time that the Federal Government has shut down; the last time it did so was in 1995, under President Clinton. Then it was the Republicans who lost out in the forum of public opinion and took the blame for being intransigent, but they think it will be different this time around.
A European Government that failed to have its budget passed by Parliament would resign, leading to Government by the opposition or fresh elections. That is exactly what will happen in Portugal, where Parliament recently refused to pass the minority Government's proposed spending cuts; elections will now take place on 5 June. Yet in the U.S., politicians are elected for fixed terms and stay there, come what may. In the event of deadlock, what "gives" is not the politicians, but the very Government they are supposed to be running.
It is weird to think that in 2 days' time, the world's most powerful elected body might well shut down; but it could happen.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 5 April 2011
BADEN-WÜRTTEMBERG (2)
The Baden-Württemberg election has claimed its first major casualty. Guido Westerwelle, leader of the FDP, the junior partner in the federal coalition, has resigned as party leader and Vice-Chancellor, though he will carry on as Foreign Minister.
Since polling almost 15% in the 2009 federal election, which allowed them to replace the Social Democrats as Mrs Merkel's partners, the FDP have gone relentlessly downhill. In Baden-Württemberg they just managed to get over the 5% threshhold needed to get into Parliament; but in the Rheinland-Pfalz election held on the same day, they failed. Mr. Westerwelle is taking responsibility for these defeats by falling on his sword.
Yet another example of how difficult it is to be both Foreign Minister and party leader. The former requires you to be abroad a lot, hobnobbing with foreigners; the latter at home a lot, hobnobbing with the troops. It is almost impossible for a mere mortal to do both jobs well.
Walter Blotscher
The Baden-Württemberg election has claimed its first major casualty. Guido Westerwelle, leader of the FDP, the junior partner in the federal coalition, has resigned as party leader and Vice-Chancellor, though he will carry on as Foreign Minister.
Since polling almost 15% in the 2009 federal election, which allowed them to replace the Social Democrats as Mrs Merkel's partners, the FDP have gone relentlessly downhill. In Baden-Württemberg they just managed to get over the 5% threshhold needed to get into Parliament; but in the Rheinland-Pfalz election held on the same day, they failed. Mr. Westerwelle is taking responsibility for these defeats by falling on his sword.
Yet another example of how difficult it is to be both Foreign Minister and party leader. The former requires you to be abroad a lot, hobnobbing with foreigners; the latter at home a lot, hobnobbing with the troops. It is almost impossible for a mere mortal to do both jobs well.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 4 April 2011
IVORY COAST (3)
The stalemate in Ivory Coast appears close to being broken. Instead of a stand-off in the country's main city Abidjan between former, but refusing-to-budge, President Laurent Gbagbo's supporters and those of won-the-election-but-not-yet-in-office President Alassane Ouattara, the latter's main forces have swept down from their stronghold in the north to force the issue once and for all. This has taken place relatively quickly, but also (it appears) at the cost of dirty fighting, if not massacres, underway. What happens in Abidjan is unlikely to be as straightforward, so expect lots more casualties.
I have said it before, but will say it again, the world's differing reactions to this conflict and that in Libya are thought-provoking. The main justification for intervening in Libya was to prevent a massacre in Benghazi. The non-intervention of the same countries in Ivory Coast has not prevented massacres there, despite the fact that U.N. forces are already in the country. It must make the average Ivorian both puzzled and seriously pissed off.
Walter Blotscher
The stalemate in Ivory Coast appears close to being broken. Instead of a stand-off in the country's main city Abidjan between former, but refusing-to-budge, President Laurent Gbagbo's supporters and those of won-the-election-but-not-yet-in-office President Alassane Ouattara, the latter's main forces have swept down from their stronghold in the north to force the issue once and for all. This has taken place relatively quickly, but also (it appears) at the cost of dirty fighting, if not massacres, underway. What happens in Abidjan is unlikely to be as straightforward, so expect lots more casualties.
I have said it before, but will say it again, the world's differing reactions to this conflict and that in Libya are thought-provoking. The main justification for intervening in Libya was to prevent a massacre in Benghazi. The non-intervention of the same countries in Ivory Coast has not prevented massacres there, despite the fact that U.N. forces are already in the country. It must make the average Ivorian both puzzled and seriously pissed off.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 3 April 2011
CRICKET WORLD CUP
Yesterday, in front of an ecstatic home crowd in Mumbai, India beat Sri Lanka to win the 2011 cricket World Cup. Captain Mahendra Dhoni hit a brilliant 91 not out in chasing down a difficult target of 275 with 10 balls to spare; and fittingly won the game with a six high into the stands.
This year's tournament was split between the South Asian nations, with India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh all hosting matches (Pakistan was scheduled to do so as well, but pulled out because of security reasons). Home support obviously helped, since the four semi-finalists were India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. England, South Africa, and winners of the past three events Australia, all flattered at various times, but came up short when the matches entered the knock-out phase.
It was a good tournament. England and India played a tie. Minnows Ireland beat England after an amazing hundred by Kevin O'Brien. And the semi-final between India and Pakistan in Mohali was both a great match and a reminder of how sport can transcend even the most difficult political problems.
The final was set up to provide a number of fairytale endings. India's great batsman Sachin Tendulkar had the possibility of scoring his 100th international century (he has 51 in five-day tests and 48 in the one-day version of the game played in the World Cup) in his home city, after he had come close in the semi-final with 85. And Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan, the spinner who is the leading international wicket-taker of all time, was playing his last match before retiring. Yet both had poor matches, Tendulkar going for a meagre 18 after looking in great form, and Muralitharan not taking a wicket in his eight overs. Instead it was left to others to shine. Sri Lanka's former captain Mahela Jayawardene hit a brilliant century, and thereby became the only centurion in a World Cup final to end up on the losing side; while Gautam Gambhir rescued India from a poor start with 97 before Dhoni took over in the later stages.
The only disappointment was the fact that Danes don't like cricket. Most of the time I had to watch on myp2p; though luckily I could watch the final on Norwegian TV.
Walter Blotscher
Yesterday, in front of an ecstatic home crowd in Mumbai, India beat Sri Lanka to win the 2011 cricket World Cup. Captain Mahendra Dhoni hit a brilliant 91 not out in chasing down a difficult target of 275 with 10 balls to spare; and fittingly won the game with a six high into the stands.
This year's tournament was split between the South Asian nations, with India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh all hosting matches (Pakistan was scheduled to do so as well, but pulled out because of security reasons). Home support obviously helped, since the four semi-finalists were India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. England, South Africa, and winners of the past three events Australia, all flattered at various times, but came up short when the matches entered the knock-out phase.
It was a good tournament. England and India played a tie. Minnows Ireland beat England after an amazing hundred by Kevin O'Brien. And the semi-final between India and Pakistan in Mohali was both a great match and a reminder of how sport can transcend even the most difficult political problems.
The final was set up to provide a number of fairytale endings. India's great batsman Sachin Tendulkar had the possibility of scoring his 100th international century (he has 51 in five-day tests and 48 in the one-day version of the game played in the World Cup) in his home city, after he had come close in the semi-final with 85. And Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan, the spinner who is the leading international wicket-taker of all time, was playing his last match before retiring. Yet both had poor matches, Tendulkar going for a meagre 18 after looking in great form, and Muralitharan not taking a wicket in his eight overs. Instead it was left to others to shine. Sri Lanka's former captain Mahela Jayawardene hit a brilliant century, and thereby became the only centurion in a World Cup final to end up on the losing side; while Gautam Gambhir rescued India from a poor start with 97 before Dhoni took over in the later stages.
The only disappointment was the fact that Danes don't like cricket. Most of the time I had to watch on myp2p; though luckily I could watch the final on Norwegian TV.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 2 April 2011
TERRY JONES
The Reverend Terry Jones is the pastor of a small evangelical church in Florida.
Last year Terry Jones wanted to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Thankfully, he was persuaded not to.
On 20 March another pastor set fire to a copy of the Koran after a mock trial presided over by Terry Jones had found that the Koran was "guilty" of crimes against humanity. This event has led to a predictably bloody response in Afghanistan over the past couple of days.
Terry Jones is a very, very stupid man.
Walter Blotscher
The Reverend Terry Jones is the pastor of a small evangelical church in Florida.
Last year Terry Jones wanted to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Thankfully, he was persuaded not to.
On 20 March another pastor set fire to a copy of the Koran after a mock trial presided over by Terry Jones had found that the Koran was "guilty" of crimes against humanity. This event has led to a predictably bloody response in Afghanistan over the past couple of days.
Terry Jones is a very, very stupid man.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 1 April 2011
POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK
Microsoft is apparently filing an anti-competition complaint against Google at the European Commission, the body charged under E.U. law with keeping the internal market competitive. Google has allegedly used its dominant position in the search engine market to make life difficult for Microsoft's alternative, Bing.
This is, to put it mildly, somewhat ironic. After destroying Netscape's Navigator browser with its own Internet Explorer brand, Microsoft spent most of the late 1990's and early noughties fighting the Commission over other supposedly anti-competitive practices, notably the way its media player was automatically bundled into its Windows operating system. In March 2004, the Commission levied a fine on Microsoft of Euro497million, at the time the largest ever made, a decision that was upheld by the courts some three years later.
Against that background, and noting that today is April Fool's Day, I originally thought that the report was a joke. Apparently not. The old arch-monopolist must really be under pressure from the new arch-monopolist.
Walter Blotscher
Microsoft is apparently filing an anti-competition complaint against Google at the European Commission, the body charged under E.U. law with keeping the internal market competitive. Google has allegedly used its dominant position in the search engine market to make life difficult for Microsoft's alternative, Bing.
This is, to put it mildly, somewhat ironic. After destroying Netscape's Navigator browser with its own Internet Explorer brand, Microsoft spent most of the late 1990's and early noughties fighting the Commission over other supposedly anti-competitive practices, notably the way its media player was automatically bundled into its Windows operating system. In March 2004, the Commission levied a fine on Microsoft of Euro497million, at the time the largest ever made, a decision that was upheld by the courts some three years later.
Against that background, and noting that today is April Fool's Day, I originally thought that the report was a joke. Apparently not. The old arch-monopolist must really be under pressure from the new arch-monopolist.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
