ELECTRIC CARS
I had my first ride in an electric car today. My sister-in-law's boyfriend has just bought one, a Renault, and he took us out for a short spin in it.
Basically it is just like a normal car, albeit a bit quieter. I thought that its acceleration might be less, but that didn't seem to be the case. However, it does have a big problem with range, which varies between 75km and 150km (depending on the weather and much you thrash it) before you have to change the battery. As well as having a charger at home (which automatically charges the battery during the night, when electricity demand is lower), a company called Better Place is building a network of "battery stations" in Denmark, where you can change your battery. So far, these mainly lie along the motorway network, though presumably Better Place will extend them to areas with less traffic in due course.
We went and watched while the battery was changed. It is fixed under the boot and is quite large, much bigger than a traditional car battery. The station is completely automated, operates 24/7, and looks a bit like a car wash. Having driven in, the floor opens and robots dismantle the existing battery, take it away to the underground storage racks, and install a new one. It takes a bit longer than filling up with petrol, but not that long.
Instead of paying for fuel, you pay a leasing charge, which depends on the number of kilometers you drive a year, and which allows you to change the batteries (which are owned by Better Place, not the owner) as often as you like. This is not cheap, but the price will presumably fall, as more efficient batteries appear on the market. Tesla are apparently about to launch a battery with a range of 400km, which would give a big boost to the market.
I like the idea of electric cars. However, it has to be recognised that the fossil fuel industry has had 150 years to build up the infrastructure necessary to service the internal combustion engine. That means that for at least the rest of this decade, electric cars will be the preserve of the well-off, slightly eccentric, or both.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 31 March 2013
Saturday, 30 March 2013
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Everybody accepts that economic growth is the only sure way out of the financial mess that most developed countries are sitting in. And in order to get growth, it's necessary for at least some people to take a risk. What if they don't want to?
A survey commissioned by the E.U. asked citizens from the 27 Member States and elsewhere whether they would prefer to be self-employed or have a steady job. The results varied enormously, with an entrepreneurial percentage of just over 20% in Sweden compared with over 60% in China and more than 80% in Turkey. The average for the E.U. was around 40%.
Seen with Scandinavian eyes, the outcome is worrying. Because the four countries with the lowest proportion wishing to be self-employed were - in order - Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark. It seems to be indeed true that the bigger the welfare state, the less likely one is to be entrepreneurial. That will make it harder for these countries to adapt and grow in the future.
Walter Blotscher
Everybody accepts that economic growth is the only sure way out of the financial mess that most developed countries are sitting in. And in order to get growth, it's necessary for at least some people to take a risk. What if they don't want to?
A survey commissioned by the E.U. asked citizens from the 27 Member States and elsewhere whether they would prefer to be self-employed or have a steady job. The results varied enormously, with an entrepreneurial percentage of just over 20% in Sweden compared with over 60% in China and more than 80% in Turkey. The average for the E.U. was around 40%.
Seen with Scandinavian eyes, the outcome is worrying. Because the four countries with the lowest proportion wishing to be self-employed were - in order - Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark. It seems to be indeed true that the bigger the welfare state, the less likely one is to be entrepreneurial. That will make it harder for these countries to adapt and grow in the future.
Walter Blotscher
Friday, 29 March 2013
Thursday, 28 March 2013
EASTER
Easter is the most important festival in Christianity. Without the crucifixion and - especially - the resurrection of Jesus, much of the religion would be reduced to the sayings of a nice guy. So it is surprising that Christians rarely celebrate Easter on the same day. This year the west will do so on Sunday, 31 March; the Orthodox Christians of the east will not do so until 5 May.
This is not a new phenomenon. Much of the tensions in early Christianity in Britain between the Irish tradition, which had converted the north of England and the Roman, which had converted the south, hinged on the date of Easter. These tensions were decisively resolved in favour of the latter at the Council of Whitby in 664.
The Irish tradition was in fact already an anomaly. According to the Bible, Jesus held the Last Supper on a Thursday, was crucified the next day and resurrected on the Sunday. But the Last Supper took place as part of the Jewish festival of Passover, which depends on the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. This can be on any day of the week; so, in order to ensure that the celebration of the resurrection always takes place on a Sunday, the Council of Nicaea decided in 325 that Easter would be on the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. Furthermore, the vernal equinox was fixed as 21 March, which it was back in 325, though it now takes place on 20 March. The Council's decision makes the earliest possible date for Easter 22 March, when the full moon is on 21 March and that date is a Saturday; that last happened in 1818 and will next take place in 2285. Similarly, the latest possible date is when there is a full moon on 20 March, so you have to wait until the next one, 29 days later, on 18 April. If 18 April is itself a Sunday, then you have to wait a week until the next Sunday, giving the latest date for Easter as 25 April. This last happened in 1943 and will next happen in 2038.
Since all Christians signed up to the Council of Nicaea, how come there are differences today? The answer lies in the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar promulgated by the Pope in 1582, and gradually introduced to Western Europe over the following centuries. The Orthodox church, which didn't recognise the Pope, still uses the Julian calendar, which is currently 13 days behind. If a new moon appears during that 13 day period, as is the case this year, then you can get a large variation in the dates for Easter between west and east.
Many people have argued for finding a date which is the same the world over, and which doesn't depend on the moon; indeed, in 1928, the British Parliament passed such a law, fixing Easter as the Sunday after the second Saturday in April (though the law has never been implemented). However, one of the enduring features of Christianity is the fact that its various strands have a habit of arguing with each other about various doctrinal and other issues. Don't expect there to be agreement on this one any time soon.
Walter Blotscher
Easter is the most important festival in Christianity. Without the crucifixion and - especially - the resurrection of Jesus, much of the religion would be reduced to the sayings of a nice guy. So it is surprising that Christians rarely celebrate Easter on the same day. This year the west will do so on Sunday, 31 March; the Orthodox Christians of the east will not do so until 5 May.
This is not a new phenomenon. Much of the tensions in early Christianity in Britain between the Irish tradition, which had converted the north of England and the Roman, which had converted the south, hinged on the date of Easter. These tensions were decisively resolved in favour of the latter at the Council of Whitby in 664.
The Irish tradition was in fact already an anomaly. According to the Bible, Jesus held the Last Supper on a Thursday, was crucified the next day and resurrected on the Sunday. But the Last Supper took place as part of the Jewish festival of Passover, which depends on the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. This can be on any day of the week; so, in order to ensure that the celebration of the resurrection always takes place on a Sunday, the Council of Nicaea decided in 325 that Easter would be on the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. Furthermore, the vernal equinox was fixed as 21 March, which it was back in 325, though it now takes place on 20 March. The Council's decision makes the earliest possible date for Easter 22 March, when the full moon is on 21 March and that date is a Saturday; that last happened in 1818 and will next take place in 2285. Similarly, the latest possible date is when there is a full moon on 20 March, so you have to wait until the next one, 29 days later, on 18 April. If 18 April is itself a Sunday, then you have to wait a week until the next Sunday, giving the latest date for Easter as 25 April. This last happened in 1943 and will next happen in 2038.
Since all Christians signed up to the Council of Nicaea, how come there are differences today? The answer lies in the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar promulgated by the Pope in 1582, and gradually introduced to Western Europe over the following centuries. The Orthodox church, which didn't recognise the Pope, still uses the Julian calendar, which is currently 13 days behind. If a new moon appears during that 13 day period, as is the case this year, then you can get a large variation in the dates for Easter between west and east.
Many people have argued for finding a date which is the same the world over, and which doesn't depend on the moon; indeed, in 1928, the British Parliament passed such a law, fixing Easter as the Sunday after the second Saturday in April (though the law has never been implemented). However, one of the enduring features of Christianity is the fact that its various strands have a habit of arguing with each other about various doctrinal and other issues. Don't expect there to be agreement on this one any time soon.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
FILMS ABOUT THE ELDERLY
An interesting cinematic development is the increasing number of films that deal with the elderly. The Iron Lady, Amour, Hope Springs, and the one I showed to the pensioners this morning, the Quartet, have all appeared during the past year. I am sure there are (and will be) others.
What's wrong with that, you may ask? After all, there are a lot of elderly in the world and their numbers are growing; fast. The interest lies in cinema's traditional role of showing the strong, the beautiful, the glamorous, the healthy or the plain fantastical, whereas these films show the weak, the wrinkled, the faded, the demented. Not all of them are brilliant films, but they are certainly better than (say) A Good Day to Die Hard, the fifth instalment in what is now a very tired franchise.
Do I say this merely because I am elderly? Hey I'm 53. About halfway, I should think.
Walter Blotscher
An interesting cinematic development is the increasing number of films that deal with the elderly. The Iron Lady, Amour, Hope Springs, and the one I showed to the pensioners this morning, the Quartet, have all appeared during the past year. I am sure there are (and will be) others.
What's wrong with that, you may ask? After all, there are a lot of elderly in the world and their numbers are growing; fast. The interest lies in cinema's traditional role of showing the strong, the beautiful, the glamorous, the healthy or the plain fantastical, whereas these films show the weak, the wrinkled, the faded, the demented. Not all of them are brilliant films, but they are certainly better than (say) A Good Day to Die Hard, the fifth instalment in what is now a very tired franchise.
Do I say this merely because I am elderly? Hey I'm 53. About halfway, I should think.
Walter Blotscher
Monday, 25 March 2013
DEPOSIT INSURANCE (3)
Plan A to save Cyprus' finances and offshore banking business model was to spread the pain "thinly"; even depositors covered by the Euro100,000 guarantee would be hit for a one-off levy of 6.75%. As I said earlier, this was a terrible idea. If guaranteed deposits in Cypus could be hit unilaterally, then what about guaranteed deposits in other Euro-countries?
After protests by ordinary Cypriots and sagging markets, Plan A was ditched. Plan B, agreed last night between the Cypriot Government and their European colleagues, changes tack and spreads the pain "thickly". Small depositors will now be spared. The country's second biggest bank will be wound up, and the biggest restructured. Shareholders in them will be wiped out; bondholders (of which there are few) and big depositors will have to take a haircut. The exact size, 40%, 50% or more, will be decided within the next couple of days.
Plan B is a much better idea than Plan A. Guarantee now means what it should always have meant, just that. And the problem is tackled at source, namely that Cyprus' banks are essentially bust. Nevertheless, Plan B is not without problems. Not all of those big depositors are shady Russians, they include thrifty individuals and a lot of small businesses. Cutting off the offshore banking business at its knees will depress the Cypriot economy until an alternative is found, and that will take years rather than days. It will be sickly for a long time to come.
The Dutch head of the Euro finance ministers group said that Plan B could have been on offer last week, if only the political will had been there; which it wasn't. This shows starkly just how perniciously intertwined politics and finance have become. The days when a bank was just a place where you deposited money and wrote cheques are a thing of history.
Walter Blotscher
Plan A to save Cyprus' finances and offshore banking business model was to spread the pain "thinly"; even depositors covered by the Euro100,000 guarantee would be hit for a one-off levy of 6.75%. As I said earlier, this was a terrible idea. If guaranteed deposits in Cypus could be hit unilaterally, then what about guaranteed deposits in other Euro-countries?
After protests by ordinary Cypriots and sagging markets, Plan A was ditched. Plan B, agreed last night between the Cypriot Government and their European colleagues, changes tack and spreads the pain "thickly". Small depositors will now be spared. The country's second biggest bank will be wound up, and the biggest restructured. Shareholders in them will be wiped out; bondholders (of which there are few) and big depositors will have to take a haircut. The exact size, 40%, 50% or more, will be decided within the next couple of days.
Plan B is a much better idea than Plan A. Guarantee now means what it should always have meant, just that. And the problem is tackled at source, namely that Cyprus' banks are essentially bust. Nevertheless, Plan B is not without problems. Not all of those big depositors are shady Russians, they include thrifty individuals and a lot of small businesses. Cutting off the offshore banking business at its knees will depress the Cypriot economy until an alternative is found, and that will take years rather than days. It will be sickly for a long time to come.
The Dutch head of the Euro finance ministers group said that Plan B could have been on offer last week, if only the political will had been there; which it wasn't. This shows starkly just how perniciously intertwined politics and finance have become. The days when a bank was just a place where you deposited money and wrote cheques are a thing of history.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 24 March 2013
SERGEI KRIKALYEV
Sergei Krikalyev was a Soviet cosmonaut who went up to the Mir space station in May 1991. At the end of the year he was still circling the globe, since nobody could make a decision to bring him back again. The reason was that while he was up there, the Soviet Union collapsed, being replaced by the Russian Federation and the other sovereign republics of the former union. He couldn't even ask his Russian colleagues to sort things out, since the former Soviet Space Centre found itself in the newly independent republic of Kazakhstan. You wonder if the authorities there demanded a visa when he eventually got back to terra firma.
I rather like that story. Not least because it ended well. Sergei Krikalyev is now the head of human space flight for the international space station.
Walter Blotscher
Sergei Krikalyev was a Soviet cosmonaut who went up to the Mir space station in May 1991. At the end of the year he was still circling the globe, since nobody could make a decision to bring him back again. The reason was that while he was up there, the Soviet Union collapsed, being replaced by the Russian Federation and the other sovereign republics of the former union. He couldn't even ask his Russian colleagues to sort things out, since the former Soviet Space Centre found itself in the newly independent republic of Kazakhstan. You wonder if the authorities there demanded a visa when he eventually got back to terra firma.
I rather like that story. Not least because it ended well. Sergei Krikalyev is now the head of human space flight for the international space station.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
