SYCAMORE TREES
Sycamore trees are really irritating. They are very thin and boring, and they sprout from their boles almost like shrubs. They are also very fast-growing, so they quickly take over a wood if you are not careful.
The reason I am thinking about them is that I am heavily engaged in the 2012 Project, pruning the apple trees down in the orchard. The orchard abuts the wood, so one of my tasks is to cut back the wood a bit, so that the fruit trees on its edge have room to breathe. That means cutting down lots of sycamore trees that are springing up all around my beloved apple trees, and causing them to grow at awkward angles.
Fortunately, thin, fast-growing sycamore trees are easy to chop down, and can be felled with a few strokes of a hand-held saw. In ancient times, the rule for a village wood was that you were allowed to chop down a tree if it was as thick as a man's arm. Between you and me, I have been ignoring that rule rather a lot this weekend.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday, 31 March 2012
Thursday, 29 March 2012
DANISH AGRICULTURE (2)
Denmark is very good at farming. But in today's world, even the best have problems to deal with. The big difficulty is the price of land, which is the normal security for farmers' debts. In the noughties, those debts soared on the back of ever rising land prices. At their peak in the summer of 2008, they reached around kr.280.000 a hectare; today they are around kr.150.000 a hectare, having fallen 13% since the fourth quarter of last year. Experts say that the market has reached bottom, but they were also saying that in 2010.
Falling asset values mean that farmers either have to put up more security (difficult, if you've borrowed up to your eyeballs) or have their loans called. Danish farmers may be efficient, but they are no match for tightened credit rules.
Walter Blotscher
Denmark is very good at farming. But in today's world, even the best have problems to deal with. The big difficulty is the price of land, which is the normal security for farmers' debts. In the noughties, those debts soared on the back of ever rising land prices. At their peak in the summer of 2008, they reached around kr.280.000 a hectare; today they are around kr.150.000 a hectare, having fallen 13% since the fourth quarter of last year. Experts say that the market has reached bottom, but they were also saying that in 2010.
Falling asset values mean that farmers either have to put up more security (difficult, if you've borrowed up to your eyeballs) or have their loans called. Danish farmers may be efficient, but they are no match for tightened credit rules.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA (4)
The nine justices of the Supreme Court are this week hearing arguments in a case, which is without doubt the most important to be decided for a generation. At stake is the healthcare reform passed two years ago, which represents the biggest domestic achievement of Barack Obama's presidency. If it survives judicial scrutiny, then he will go into November's election in a strong position; conversely, if it does not, then he might well lose.
There are four legal questions to be decided, but by far the most important one is the constitutionality or not of the so-called "mandate". Under the reform, everybody in America will soon have to take out healthcare insurance, or pay a fine; those too poor to be able to afford it will be subsidised. This will do nothing to remedy America's colossally expensive healthcare system (indeed, it may even make things worse in the short term), but will address one of the biggest problems associated with that system, namely that millions of people currently have no healthcare insurance. According to the reform's supporters, the mandate merely extends existing arrangements to those who didn't have them beforehand; according to its opponents, forcing citizens to buy something they perhaps don't want is an unwarranted intrusion into personal freedom and so unconstitutional.
Since the U.S. constitution does not actually mention healthcare insurance, the arguments concern proxies. Much of the federal Government's expansion into social matters has been based on its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Healthcare insurance is undoubtedly an interstate commerce matter; furthermore, the uninsured are already heavily involved in it, since although they can't pay, hospitals often treat them anyway. This in turn creates a "free rider" problem, since insurance premiums rise for everybody else in order to cover this extra unfunded cost. In economic terms, therefore, the mandate internalises an unfortunate externality (an action which is generally considered to be a good thing).
The antis look at the same set of facts, but interpret them differently. For them, it is right and proper for the Government to regulate interstate commerce. However, the uninsured are - by definition - not engaged in the healthcare insurance business, so there is nothing to regulate. What the Government is proposing will force people into commercial activity, an activity which it then regulates. Such coercion is not allowed by the constitution and has no legal precedent.
Judges faced with a tricky legal problem with massive political consequences often try to find a compromise. However, in this particular case, it is hard to see one. What is more important, the freedom of the individual, even if it means the freedom to choose not to purchase health insurance; or the right of the Government, acting on behalf of its citizens, to regulate a public service that every one of those citizens will need, even if only at the end of one's life? We'll discover the answer to that question in June, when the Supreme Court delivers its judgment.
Walter Blotscher
The nine justices of the Supreme Court are this week hearing arguments in a case, which is without doubt the most important to be decided for a generation. At stake is the healthcare reform passed two years ago, which represents the biggest domestic achievement of Barack Obama's presidency. If it survives judicial scrutiny, then he will go into November's election in a strong position; conversely, if it does not, then he might well lose.
There are four legal questions to be decided, but by far the most important one is the constitutionality or not of the so-called "mandate". Under the reform, everybody in America will soon have to take out healthcare insurance, or pay a fine; those too poor to be able to afford it will be subsidised. This will do nothing to remedy America's colossally expensive healthcare system (indeed, it may even make things worse in the short term), but will address one of the biggest problems associated with that system, namely that millions of people currently have no healthcare insurance. According to the reform's supporters, the mandate merely extends existing arrangements to those who didn't have them beforehand; according to its opponents, forcing citizens to buy something they perhaps don't want is an unwarranted intrusion into personal freedom and so unconstitutional.
Since the U.S. constitution does not actually mention healthcare insurance, the arguments concern proxies. Much of the federal Government's expansion into social matters has been based on its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Healthcare insurance is undoubtedly an interstate commerce matter; furthermore, the uninsured are already heavily involved in it, since although they can't pay, hospitals often treat them anyway. This in turn creates a "free rider" problem, since insurance premiums rise for everybody else in order to cover this extra unfunded cost. In economic terms, therefore, the mandate internalises an unfortunate externality (an action which is generally considered to be a good thing).
The antis look at the same set of facts, but interpret them differently. For them, it is right and proper for the Government to regulate interstate commerce. However, the uninsured are - by definition - not engaged in the healthcare insurance business, so there is nothing to regulate. What the Government is proposing will force people into commercial activity, an activity which it then regulates. Such coercion is not allowed by the constitution and has no legal precedent.
Judges faced with a tricky legal problem with massive political consequences often try to find a compromise. However, in this particular case, it is hard to see one. What is more important, the freedom of the individual, even if it means the freedom to choose not to purchase health insurance; or the right of the Government, acting on behalf of its citizens, to regulate a public service that every one of those citizens will need, even if only at the end of one's life? We'll discover the answer to that question in June, when the Supreme Court delivers its judgment.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
GOOD NEIGHBOURS
A man in Holbæk has just shot dead his neighbour's 10-year old labrador dog, Balder. Balder had got out of the enclosure that was supposed to keep him in, and had run over to the neighbour's property.
A bit of an overreaction, you might think. But what is really surprising is that the enraged gunowner had the law on his side. Under the relevant legislation, which dates from 1872, a property owner has the right to shoot any animal being a nuisance on their property. Although the law was originally intended to apply more to wild animals, it does include pets, provided that the pet owner is warned that the animal is being a nuisance and of the consequences if he doesn't do something about it (which he was). So the police can do nothing.
Which still leaves one dead dog, and one grieving family. I suspect that relations between neighbours in this particular part of Denmark will be strained for some time to come.
Walter Blotscher
A man in Holbæk has just shot dead his neighbour's 10-year old labrador dog, Balder. Balder had got out of the enclosure that was supposed to keep him in, and had run over to the neighbour's property.
A bit of an overreaction, you might think. But what is really surprising is that the enraged gunowner had the law on his side. Under the relevant legislation, which dates from 1872, a property owner has the right to shoot any animal being a nuisance on their property. Although the law was originally intended to apply more to wild animals, it does include pets, provided that the pet owner is warned that the animal is being a nuisance and of the consequences if he doesn't do something about it (which he was). So the police can do nothing.
Which still leaves one dead dog, and one grieving family. I suspect that relations between neighbours in this particular part of Denmark will be strained for some time to come.
Walter Blotscher
Monday, 26 March 2012
INFLUENCE PEDDLING
The video revelations that foreign businessmen (or, indeed, anyone else) can get "face time" access to Prime Minister David Cameron over dinner in return for a £200,000 contribution to his Conservative Party don't look good. True, the party treasurer and video star has resigned his post, and Mr. Cameron has said that that is not the way things work in his party. But as a lady famously said in the 1960's, he would say that, wouldn't he? Accepting Mr. Cameron's position means accepting that the said treasurer has formal meetings with potential donors, at which he mouths complete nonsense. That is just not credible.
British politicians of all parties have got themselves into a mess over expenses and party funding. Remember Tony Blair and the payments from Formula 1? Nothing seems to have changed in the intervening 15 years.
The basic problem in my view - and this is not going to be a popular one - is that British politicians are badly paid. And because they are badly paid, they look for extra cash on the side. The decline set in under Mrs. Thatcher, who wanted to set an example of pay restraint. However, having forced everyone to be miserly, MP's are now hoist with their own petard. It will take a brave one to do something serious about it.
Walter Blotscher
The video revelations that foreign businessmen (or, indeed, anyone else) can get "face time" access to Prime Minister David Cameron over dinner in return for a £200,000 contribution to his Conservative Party don't look good. True, the party treasurer and video star has resigned his post, and Mr. Cameron has said that that is not the way things work in his party. But as a lady famously said in the 1960's, he would say that, wouldn't he? Accepting Mr. Cameron's position means accepting that the said treasurer has formal meetings with potential donors, at which he mouths complete nonsense. That is just not credible.
British politicians of all parties have got themselves into a mess over expenses and party funding. Remember Tony Blair and the payments from Formula 1? Nothing seems to have changed in the intervening 15 years.
The basic problem in my view - and this is not going to be a popular one - is that British politicians are badly paid. And because they are badly paid, they look for extra cash on the side. The decline set in under Mrs. Thatcher, who wanted to set an example of pay restraint. However, having forced everyone to be miserly, MP's are now hoist with their own petard. It will take a brave one to do something serious about it.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 25 March 2012
THE 2012 PROJECT (3)
I got started on the 2012 Project today, pruning the fruit trees in the orchard. I was a bit late, I know; but they haven't blossomed yet, so I think we'll be OK.
I only managed to do three trees this morning, two apple and a pear. Most of them are big, 8 metres high or more, and it is not easy pruning such large trees. If, indeed, "pruning" is the right word, when you're chopping something from 8 metres down to 2. Anyway, I will finish the rest of the trees in the course of the coming week.
What I already do know is that this project will be a multi-year one. I will prune half the tree, wait for some new shoots, and then prune the other half next winter.
Walter Blotscher
I got started on the 2012 Project today, pruning the fruit trees in the orchard. I was a bit late, I know; but they haven't blossomed yet, so I think we'll be OK.
I only managed to do three trees this morning, two apple and a pear. Most of them are big, 8 metres high or more, and it is not easy pruning such large trees. If, indeed, "pruning" is the right word, when you're chopping something from 8 metres down to 2. Anyway, I will finish the rest of the trees in the course of the coming week.
What I already do know is that this project will be a multi-year one. I will prune half the tree, wait for some new shoots, and then prune the other half next winter.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday, 24 March 2012
MOLES AND MOWING
A number of readers have asked me what has happened to the moles. I have been asking myself the same question, since they have been absent for much of the winter.
I think the main reason is that the water table has been so high, a result of the unusually mild weather. Moles don't like damp ground, which is not surprising, and there have been a lot of soggy lawns around the house. I know that there has been a mole in the wood, since he merrily makes some of the largest molehills I have ever seen. But I've no problem with him running around in there, just so long as he doesn't attack my lawn. Over the past couple of days, he has been coming closer, so I have set up a couple of traps. Let's see how he copes with them.
Today I got my lawnmower out of the barn and did my first mow of the year. I know it's early, but my mother-in-law - whose view on this matter I respect - says that grass grows at 7 degrees centrigrade, and it's been much higher than that here in Denmark this week. It was not a serious mow, more a kind of "wake up, winter's finished" message. And yes, it was very satisfying.
Walter Blotscher
A number of readers have asked me what has happened to the moles. I have been asking myself the same question, since they have been absent for much of the winter.
I think the main reason is that the water table has been so high, a result of the unusually mild weather. Moles don't like damp ground, which is not surprising, and there have been a lot of soggy lawns around the house. I know that there has been a mole in the wood, since he merrily makes some of the largest molehills I have ever seen. But I've no problem with him running around in there, just so long as he doesn't attack my lawn. Over the past couple of days, he has been coming closer, so I have set up a couple of traps. Let's see how he copes with them.
Today I got my lawnmower out of the barn and did my first mow of the year. I know it's early, but my mother-in-law - whose view on this matter I respect - says that grass grows at 7 degrees centrigrade, and it's been much higher than that here in Denmark this week. It was not a serious mow, more a kind of "wake up, winter's finished" message. And yes, it was very satisfying.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
