Tag: Politics

The Greenwich Meridian

Don’t know what time it is?  Hardly surprising in Spring and Autumn.

Today is exactly one month before the United Kingdom ‘moves’ its clocks forward and enters British Summer Time; 1am (UTC) on Sunday 28th March 2010.  Is that date the same across the world?  One would think so because it makes life, especially international air transport, so much easier.

But no!  In fact the way that time zones are applied and changed for Daylight Saving is a complete hotch-potch.

In the United States of America, daylight saving starts at 2am on March 14th, 2010.  And just three years ago that start time would have been the first Sunday in April.  Changes were made in the US Energy Policy Act of 2005.

From this geographic site comes the following:

Other parts of the world observe Daylight Saving Time as well. While European nations have been taking advantage of the time change for decades, in 1996 the European Union (EU) standardized an EU-wide “summertime period.” The EU version of Daylight Saving Time runs from the last Sunday in March through the last Sunday in October. During the summer, Russia’s clocks are two hours ahead of standard time. During the winter, all 11 of the Russian time zones are an hour ahead of standard time. During the summer months, Russian clocks are advanced another hour ahead. With their high latitude, the two hours of Daylight Saving Time really helps to save daylight. In the southern hemisphere where summer comes in December, Daylight Saving Time is observed from October to March. Equatorial and tropical countries (lower latitudes) don’t observe Daylight Saving Time since the daylight hours are similar during every season, so there’s no advantage to moving clocks forward during the summer.

Of course, someone had to create a web-site to track all these various time zones and changes.  Here it is.

Last year, the BBC News website published an interesting article about the Greenwich Meridian aka The Prime Meridian.  The setting of the Prime Meridian was done just over 125 years ago, in October 1884.  When one thinks of the importance in having a standard meridian, both for time keeping and navigation, I would have guessed that it went back much further in time.

The other aspect that was news to me was that the conference had been convened at the request of the American President Chester Arthur.

From that BBC article:

Until the 19th Century, many countries and even individual towns kept their own local time based on the sun’s passage across the sky and there were no international rules governing when the day would start or finish.

Maps with multiple meridians were confusing

However, with the rapid expansion of the railways and communications networks during the 1850s and 1860s, setting a standard global time soon became essential.

“The world was in a very big mix-up,” explains Dr Avraham Ariel, author of Plotting the Globe. “People had lots of prime meridians. Earlier in Europe there were 20 prime meridians. The Russians had two or three, the Spanish had their own and so on.”

Thus that famous line in the grounds of the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, London is not as old as many might have thought.

Prime Meridian, Greenwich

By Paul Handover

Oh, Irony! The Markets and Obama’s Policies

Where are capital markets heading?

In a recent article, Moody’s announced that it may have to reduce the AAA rating of U.S bonds because of excess spending and historic debt levels of the U.S. government under President Obama.

Moody’s Investors Service Inc. said the U.S. government’s AAA bond rating will come under pressure in the future unless additional measures are taken to reduce budget deficits projected for the next decade.

The U.S. retains its top rating for now because of a “high degree of economic and institutional strength,” the New York- based rating company said in a statement today. The ratios of government debt to the U.S. gross domestic product and revenue have increased “sharply” during the credit crisis and recession. Moody’s expects the ratios to remain higher compared with other AAA-rated countries after the crisis.

What this means in practical terms is that the cost of borrowing by the U.S. government will rise, which will increase spending via more borrowing or higher taxes or more money creation to pay for the higher interest costs.  Sound like a vicious cycle to you?

Has anyone noticed the absolute irony of the world capital market having a seat at the table that assesses the viability of Obama’s policies? Obama, who has spent the last year denigrating free markets and capitalism, and has laid the blame for the credit crisis squarely at the feet of those greedy capitalists, now has to deal with a rating agency, which plays a pivotal role in the functioning of those very capital markets, evaluating the creditworthiness of his policies and those of his budget director, Peter Orszag, pictured here.

Peter Orszag, Obama's Budget Director

How wonderfully ironic!

The U.S. would not be the first.   Ireland was recently downgraded, and Japan lost its AAA rating from Moodys in November of 1998; both faced higher borrowing costs as a result.

By Sherry Jarrell

Every Economist, Mr. President? No, Sir!

Here’s one person who doesn’t agree with the President.

The President seems to believe that he can say whatever he wants and no one will hold him accountable. He now claims that “every economist, from both sides of the aisle, believes that the stimulus program created jobs.”

I am an economist, Mr. President, and I know, based either on simple first principles of economics, or on a more rigorous controlled study of labor markets in each major sector of the economy, that the unemployment rate would have been much lower today had the stimulus program never occurred.

You are either woefully unaware of the facts, Mr. President, or are purposefully distorting the facts. Neither is good.  When are you going to realize that just because you say something does not make it so? The world does not contort itself to support your version of the truth.

Do not put words in my mouth, sir.

By Sherry Jarrell

Rationing – the New Paradigm?

A World War II practice may reappear.

Some little time ago I wrote about the word “fair”, which I tongue-in-cheek referred to as a Word of Mass Destruction (WOMD) insofar as if one REALLY put into place practices that were truly “fair” then western capitalism would break down completely. (The story of the CEO of Goldsmiths and his $100,000,000 bonus is for another day ….)

Well, my OTHER WOMD is “rationing”.

I was drawn to this topic by the words of a British minister about the desirability of introducing rationing into AIR TRAVEL.  The thinking goes (and to be honest it is in fact obvious, isn’t it?) that IF we are serious about reducing climate change (a VERY BIG IF!!) then we cannot continue to hope to fly where and when we want to as in the past. For aviation is a growth industry despite the current crisis, and as people in developing economies in Asia in particular grow more prosperous they will want to travel more and more. I have seen estimates to suggest that within a decade ONE HUNDRED MILLION Chinese will be travelling to Europe EVERY YEAR.

This is of course totally incompatible with any hope of doing anything serious about climate change. The logical conclusion is that (until some boffin invents an emission-free jet) we MUST reduce flying. This is likely for most adults to be about as palatable as denying burgers and chips to British teenagers, but I really cannot see the alternative IF Global Warming is to be taken seriously (which it probably won’t be until it’s too late).

But let’s for the moment remain positive …. supposing it is decided by some courageous government (are there any?) that we must reduce flying then there are two ways to do it.

A) TAX it so highly that only the rich can afford it

B) RATION it – everyone has a quota of air miles per annum.

Now option A is the usual free-market/capitalist way. After all, Ferraris are rationed by their price; otherwise all males over 18 would have one, or in my case several. But – much as I recognize what the free market has done in terms of wealth creation – we are in a new scenario, aren’t we? Can we really hope to say that only the rich can fly? I think not, and therefore rationing is the only way to do this.

Now, there is a minority of people that abuse anything, and no doubt rationing would be abused by some, somewhere, somehow. But it is the only FAIR way to go about it, isn’t it?

In London and other big cities we are now seeing a TAX imposed on driving into the city centres. Yes, very sensible, but of course, the RICH aren’t bothered. In effect, schemes like London’s are simply a way of excluding the masses from the city centre. The same idiocy is seen on French motorways, which are becoming increasingly expensive. The rich are not bothered by the tolls but the less well-off certainly ARE and so drive on other roads which are less safe; survival of the richest …….

No, the free-market is not going to work in the Brave New World which we are entering. If you have a birthday party for your kids then EVERYONE gets an equal share of the cake. This principle is going to have to be applied in other areas of life, otherwise we are going to get serious social unrest. Besides, any other way is just not FAIR, is it?

Of course, once you concede the point on AIR TRAVEL there is – in a world of increasing populations and diminishing resources – no way of limiting the concept purely to air travel, is there?

I am just old enough to remember my Mother’s WWII ration card, which she used up to the very early 50s I believe. Will we soon start to see a modern reincarnation, and not only in carbon credits?

By Chris Snuggs

WWII Ration Card - UK

Organic milk in the USA

The unacceptable face of the big agricultural businesses

Another wonderful link from Naked Capitalism.  This one refers to the way that the definition of ‘organic’ as in organic milk is being twisted and distorted to favour the huge indoor milking herds, up to 10,000 cattle, that in any sensible mind could never be regarded as the organic production of milk.

This to me is a picture of organic production of milk:

An English meadow

This to me is NOT! Yet the milk from these cows is defined as organic!

Organic milk?

This last picture is courtesy of The Cornucopia Institute, another web site worth a visit whether or not you take an interest in farming – after all, one presumes that you do eat!

The article is on the Politics of the Plate website, worth your visit whether or not you are an American, and is, to me, so important that I am taking the liberty of publishing the article in full.
Here it is:
Read this very important article

Franco-American Rapprochement!!

CREDIT WHERE IT’S DUE (from “The Guardian”)

Well done, Sarko. If France and the US, those progenitors of freedom and democracy, cannot get on then what hope is there for us?

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, praised the “essential role” of the US, moving to defuse tension between the US and other countries in the confusing scramble to co-ordinate the enormous relief effort. Sarkozy said France was “fully satisfied” by the co-operation between the US and France, and acknowledged the “exceptional mobilisation of the United States on Haiti’s behalf.”

Read the full article from “The Guardian”.

Harriet Harman in the Commons last month: 'The retirement age is arbitary,' she told the Daily Mail today; 'it bears no relation to people's ability.' Photograph: PA

And in this vein of bonhomie credit also goes to Harriet Harman, British “Equality Minister”. Even if I think she is generally potty she was right on the nail this time in saying that older people should work on if they wished and could be an invaluable part of the workforce.

Too right … there is too much ageism, especially in France, where your chances of getting a job after 50 are pretty remote (except for politicians of course).

Some of the greatest thinkers and artists have been over 70, even centuries ago.  We should always judge people by what they DO, not who they ARE, how PRETTY they are or how OLD they are ….

By Chris Snuggs

UK Iraq Enquiry Update

The UK Iraq enquiry produces some odd insights

I found this on the BBC website last Sunday:

“Gordon Brown was ‘marginalised’ by Tony Blair in the build-up to the Iraq war”, former International Development Secretary Clare Short has said.

“The then chancellor neither opposed nor supported the invasion but was ‘preoccupied’ by other concerns,” she told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

Frankly, it is surreally ludicrous. Is she really saying that while the country was preparing to go to war in extraordinarily-controversial circumstances, with hundreds of thousands marching in protest and all the rest, that

Clare Short

Brown had “other concerns”? And during the whole process these “other concerns” prevented him from AT ANY TIME having an input or indeed an opinion?

Is this some sort of attempt to disassociate him from responsibility? Whatever one thinks about the rights or wrongs of the invasion it was in the end a COLLECTIVE DECISION. Blair could NOT have done it without the support of the British Cabinet, especially Brown and Straw. If they had felt strongly enough about it, they could have resigned, or more likely have told Blair they WOULD resign if he pressed on, and thereby thwarted him.  Now, it isn’t easy to resign, or even threaten to – your bluff could always be called and your career go down the spout – but if you can’t do it when it is a matter of your country going to war when the hell CAN you do it?

Gordon Brown

As for “neither supported nor opposed” the invasion, what a PATHETIC verdict on someone who went on (without an election) to “lead” the country.

“Well, I’m neither supporting nor opposing it since that way I can take either position later depending on how it pans out.”

I can’t recall having seen a more pathetic, fumbling, cowardly shambles. You may love or – more likely – hate Tony Blair, but as with Margaret Thatcher, you certainly knew where he stood.

By Chris Snuggs

Obama’s Farcical Freeze

When is a freeze not a freeze?

President Obama’s proposal to freeze parts of federal government spending over the next three years is a lot like a smoker buying a truckload of cigarettes one year before promising to “freeze spending” on cigarettes the next.  He can keep smoking for years to come without spending another dime.

Federal government spending has increased so much over the last year — by some estimates at a rate of 34% — that in December of 2009 the debt limit had to be raised to $12.4 trillion to help absorb a record-shattering $1.4 trillion deficit.

The promise to freeze spending is actually a guarantee that spending will remain at record high levels for the next three years.  It effectively prevents a reduction in federal spending.

How disingenuous of our President.

By Sherry Jarrell

Fed Sets up unit to Police Itself

Foxes and hen-house?

I’m not quite sure how I feel about this yet.  The Fed recently announced that it has appointed a long-time staffer with the New York Fed to head a newly created branch to oversee the the parts of its balance sheet acquired in efforts to bail out firms like AIG.

These massive asset purchases, orchestrated by Timothy Geithner, the current Treasury Secretary and former New York Fed official, ballooned the Fed’s balance sheet from $800 billion in primarily government bonds to $2.3 trillion in toxic assets.

Now the New York Fed is overseeing the assets brought into the Fed by the Treasury Secretary as he moved from the New York Fed to the Treasury.  All while the Treasury functions are supposed to be isolated from the Federal Reserve’s role in its implementation of monetary policy.Foxhenhouse

Smacks of the fox watching the hen house….

By Sherry Jarrell

Great way to make friends

Maybe it’s me but there must be better ways to manage foreign relationships!

Ahmet Oguz Celikkol

Most people in their private and business lives find that a genuine interest in, and respect for, those that one engages with leads to better outcomes.  Surely that is just common sense.

So a recent report from Stratfor telling of an ‘incident’ between Israel and Turkey leaves me, frankly, speechless.  Here’s how the report reads:

Last week a small crisis with potentially serious implications blew up between Israel and Turkey. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon summoned Turkish Ambassador to Israel Ahmet Oguz Celikkol to a meeting Jan. 11 to protest a Turkish soap opera that depicted Israeli agents kidnapping Palestinian children. When the ambassador arrived, he received a lower seat than Ayalon — and was photographed in that position, making it appear that Ayalon was speaking to an inferior. Ayalon wouldn’t shake hands with him during the televised parts of the meeting, and had an Israeli flag visible on the table. Topping it all off, Ayalon told an Israeli cameraman in Hebrew that the important thing was that people see Celikkol sitting down low “while we’re

Danny Ayalon

up high.”

Turks saw the images as a deliberate Israeli insult, though Ayalon argued that the episode was not meant as an insult but as a reminder that Israel does not take criticism lightly. While it is difficult to see the relative height of seats as an international incident, Ayalon clearly intended to send a significant statement to Turkey. The Turks took that statement to heart, so symbolism clearly matters. Israel’s intent is not so clear, however.

Continue reading “Great way to make friends” →