I have set up a new blog.
We are indeed living in a very exciting age. According to FT Europe (20 Aug 2008, page 7), some countries are buying agricultural lands abroad to secure their own food market. This will completely reform the primary sector of the developing countries which are rich of fertile soil and poor of capital and technology. Inefficient small-scaled farming will be replaced by high-yielding industrial production.
Resources will flow to Sudan, Ethiopia from Saudi Arabia, and to Central Asia from China. It is a good thing, right? — I am only afraid the deeds are not done for the sake of the free market, nor to help the poor.
Break down the trade barriers of the EU and the US, abolish the subsidies, privatise the agriculture in the developing countries (which are — I guess — mostly in the private hands of small land-owners, unless the government decides differently), strengthen the property rights, and open the market for foreign investments. That is a simple recipe to cure the world poverty.
Instead the new approach seems to be a new version of mercantilism. Grains produced on foreign soils will be transported back into a protected market. The brighter side: if the bilateral agreements materialise, new technologies will swap the primary sector and supply the market with more and cheaper food, just not the world market. Or maybe it does?
The fairness and balancedness of FoxNews strongly resemble the corresponding virtues of the CCTV, the Chinese Central TV.
… is a “contract” between two (or possibly more) people. People agree to live together and abide by certain rules (like caring for children, no adultery etc.), many of which are often unknown to the married but uphelp spontaneously.
Why is the state involved in its regulation? — Can we no simply have a system where marriage is lived and ended within the rules of the society or the court system instead of codifying every single aspect of human interaction?
Let’s assume that two (or several) people without regard to their genders want to live together, and let’s call this form of cohabitation “marriage”. They can draw a contract governing their relations which can be brought to (common law) court in case of dispute. Alternatively, they can go into marriage following customary or religious laws, for example, by swearing some silly oath in front of some respected senile old men, and judged by some religious institution in case of dispute.
There is absolutely no need for a legislative body to command with one form of “marriage” is the correct and state-sanctioned one.
I’d rather spend all the time watching Bill O’Reilly, George Carlin and Super Bowl Commercials on Youtube than doing work. It that because it’s holidays, or am I intrinsically predestined to end up in a train station?
I was eating out with a friend at Los Caballero’s on Saturday. It is a busily frequented restaurant situated almost hidden behind an arcade on the Landstraße, Linz. The decor is not as extravagant as Papa Joe’s, the menu on the other hand is more diversified.
I ordered a dish, “chilaquiles verdes”, which according to the menu consists of toasted tortilla strips with overbaked cheese and chicken strips in tomato sauce. It was salty and acidic, as if only salt and vinegar was used to season the dish instead of tomato sauce.
My main course was chilli con carne. It came quite liquid, very much like a goulash soup, garnished with some tortilla chips and served with a garlic bread. It was well spiced and of good taste, although I do not appreciate its consistence.
My friend ordered the “beef potato” which was two pieces of potatoes wrapped in foil and topped with corn, peas, pinto beans and some beef strips. I tasted it. Neither he nor I were thrilled.
There were plenty guests in the garden. As optimistic as I am, I’ll probably come back and taste something different.
… to Adam Smith report by Marc Sidwell.
Admittedly, the Sidwell report is only 30-page-slim which is far below the 1,200 page limit that is needed in today’s academic sphere to be acknowledged as a report. But it contains very convincing criticisms against the Fairtrade movement.
The response of the Fairtrade Foundation is 860 words long and answered, inter alia, the following criticisms:
That Fairtrade producers only benefit at the expense of other producers outside the system. No evidence is cited for this other than two economists who say that “this must happen because free market theory says so”. In fact, Fairtrade farmers say their co-operatives often bring competition into local markets for coffee for the first time, forcing other traders to match their prices so that more farmers benefit.
That is indeed interesting. They are saying that traders are willing to pay more voluntarily to other farmers who are not part of the collectives. I guess, it’s because the traders compete to buy the crops. Why would they do so? I have only heard of prices going down because of competition, but never going up.
That Fairtrade helps farmers in Mexico (a relatively prosperous country) while ignoring the plight of very poor countries like Ethiopia. Leaving aside the fact that the coffee producing regions of Chiapas in Mexico are some of the poorest in Central America, anyone who has seen the film “Black Gold”[2] will know that Fairtrade through partnerships with people like Tadesse Meskela of the Oromia Co-operative Union is working with thousands of small farmers across Ethiopia.
Quoting Sidwell, page 10-11 [emphasis added]:
According to some estimates, Mexico produces 25% of Fairtrade coffee. Mexico has the largest number of Fairtrade certified producer organisationsin the world: fifty-one. The whole of India has just forty-nine; South Africa has thirty-eight; Colombia has thirty-four. Most of the subsistence
economies that people think of as central to Fairtrade have far, far fewer. Burundi has no Fairtrade certified producers; Ethiopia has four; Rwanda has ten. In Ethiopia, 80% of the population work in agriculture, with an average income of $700 a year. In Mexico, 18% work in the fields, and the
average salary is $9000. In practice, then, Fairtrade pays to support relatively wealthy Mexican coffee farmers at the expense of poorer nations.
The response does not answer the criticisms of
- corruption (see page 16 of the Sidwell report),
- the fact that only 10% of the retailer price goes to the producer (page 11),
- the fact that many Fairtrade-certified crops are not paid the fairtrade prices (page 11),
- the fact that it is shutting out the poorest, the unpropertied labourers (page 15).
Those who follow Austrian politics (and read Den/Der Standard) notice that there was some discussion concerning immigrants and their habitation last week. The concentration of immigrants in some areas has a) driven out the natives from certain areas (10th and 11ths districts), b) led to a majority of non-native speakers in the schools of the given areas lowering the educational quality, c) nourish the resentment amongst the population and the fear of ethnic ghettos. Wish them to have a look over the border.
Although much of the problems are exaggerated, the SPÖ/Socialists who ruled Vienna as long as there was universal suffrage, were very much to blame for the situation now and the forecoming disasters if no better planning takes place. They badly allocated the counsel estates which still make up 30% of the housing market in Vienna, and masterly ignored the issue while blaming the conservative parties for inciting the citizens.
Actually, I guess it is a brilliant strategy for the leftists. They generate an (artificial) problem to feed the fascists (that’s what the F in their name stands for) and ream out the ÖVP/Conservatives. The only way the Conservatives can keep profile in Vienna is to profile themselves as a liberal force.
I don’t really know why. What is the share of voters who are entrepreneurs or merchants? They have been voting for the Conservatives anyway. Maybe, Austria is a hopeless case. If the youngsters grow up socialist and accept governmental intervention as generally acceptable, it is almost impossible to argue why freedom is a good - or indeed the only justified political philosophy. If socialism has grown in you as a conscience, you’ll see any kind of deregulation or low tax as a kind of betrayal to the society which is equated with the state. People who approve these policies are seen as selfish (which is — I guess — mostly true) without realising that some of them believe in these measures for the sake of the common wealth.
We were in Papa Joe’s in Linz on Wednesday. I had a Turkey con pina, 12.50 EUR. It was a filling serving with lot of curry rice, some pieces of turkey slices and pineapple. Topped with a single grape and a pineapple leaf. The rice was delicious. It was blended with tropical fruits, especially pineapple, thus delightly sweet.
First time I was at Papa Joe’s, never thought that Linz would harbour such a large restaurant within the centre. The flair was a blend of Mexican and American diner, with lots of posters and pictures on the wall and antique accessoirs placed around. It is definitely worth a second time.
Sorry, no pictures.
To be present at the play, I took the coach to train station in the afternoon, got to Vienna at five or so and couldn’t get a ticket until 7.30 (standing room only as I in my infinite wealth was not willing to pay 62 EUR for the rest places). So I went to Sezession to escape the cloudy and rainy weather where I saw, not willingly, the bloody exhibition by Thomas Hirschmann.
After the play I narrowly missed the train at 22.20 because I had to wait 8 minutes for the f. tube. So I sat there for the next one (a Romanian train, jugding by my völkisch-beobachter skills it was filled with Asians) at 23.45 which was half an hour late, rendering me impossible to catch the taxi I ordered for 2.30. Was it all worth the suffering?
Orpheus and Eurydice. The performance was a citation, an excerpt, not a tale. Occasionally, it was intended funny. The leitmotif of speech and articulation, symbolised by acts of pulling continuously thin air out of the mouth and unintelligible rumbling sounds, was repeated through play. The dancing was good, although I did not feel intrigued.
Fazit: a) Good, although not worth ten hours of train and waiting in the frozen cold. b) Reviewing a performance is for sure not my talent. On the other hand, if I read a “professional” review, then I wonder what of it is related to performance? I guess, the substance of the whole play is no more than contained in the two paragraphs.
Another proof of the tabloidness of the Times as reported by Schneier on an article.
As you might have noticed the Times morphed into a tabloid. A TABLOID! A TABLOID! How did Murdoch dare to mutilate an once glorious paper in such a way! (Btw, I have no idea whether it was glorious. I just assume.)
Like Panda bears this is a species which God wants to wipe out from the surface of earth. But men are blasphemous and rejoice in their existence.
