In spite of the international outrage, the recent North Korean attack on the South Korean Yeonpyeong, 연평도, islands may have been a clumsy mistake. The attack seems so utterly pointless that not even the North Korean leadership perhaps thought of it.
Imagine this scenario. You are a North Korean soldier. You have heard all your life that there are evil countries like South Korea and the US who constantly are trying to attack the country you live in, and where you, in spite of some hardships, have had a fairly decent childhood. Now, this is the real thing. You are a soldier close to the border, and the evil enemies are close by. Suddenly, you see and hear the South firing with canons.
You know that your duty is to defend the country of your family and friends. (You do not have to think about the fact that you defend Kim Jong Il, 김정일, and the communist party as well.) You give alert. "We are under attack." Surely that is the only reason why the South would fire their canons - to attack us. They are, after all, evil - that's what you have heard all your life. Your officers panic. They also want to defend the country of their families and friends. They immediately order retaliation.
This is important. This is to defend the peace of your community, to make sure that nothing harms your parents, your sisters and brothers, your friends and your small innocent nephews and nieces, perhaps your own children. It is such an important task, and you are part of it. Of course you have to fire, fire and fire again, against the evil anonymous enemy out there.
This goes on for about an hour, and 170 shells have been fired. During most of this time, the South shoots, now definitely at you and your friends, who have done nothing worse than trying to defend your near and dear. You finally stop shooting, when a senior officer gets involved and tells you to. About one hour later, the South stops their shooting as well.
You make your report to your command, who send their report to Pyongyang, 평양, where the top leadership has to try to explain the incident to an annoyed international community, without admitting that their country messed up.
I do not know if this is how it happened, but it seems as likely to me, as some well orchestrated North Korean plot to achieve something one does not even know what it might be. My experience is that politicians make a lot of clumsy mistakes. I am willing to believe that the North Korean politicians are as clumsy as the ones in the West.
29 November 2010
The Euro - not that much of a crisis
Ever since Greece got into financial trouble at the beginning of this year, there have been people, mostly from outside the currency union, who predict its sudden demise. I will stick out my usually so agnostic neck here, and say that they are talking utter rubbish.
Is there a crisis? Yes, of course it is. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, all have huge economic difficulties. However, it is not a crisis that is worse than other economic crises in the past. The world economy is a dynamic system, and there are bound to be crises popping up here and there, like in Denmark in 1987, the United Kingdom and Japan in 1992 or Taiwan and Korea in 1997. All those countries had their own currencies, and that did not save them from any crisis at all. Some of them have recovered, like Taiwan and Denmark, and some have not, like the UK and Japan.
The recent crises within the Euro area proves that the Euro is not a fool proof way of keeping a country out of economic troubles, but I do not know anyone who ever claimed it was.
There is a crisis, an issue, a problem, a situation, and now politicians and the market forces are working on solving it. We do not know yet, how good or swift the solution will be, but it is very likely that there will be some solution.
The Euro prevents some traditional ways of solving the problem. Spain cannot devalue its currency to get more competitive. However, devaluations are very blunt instruments. With a devaluation, everyone in a country gets temporarily poorer. Everyone will get less money to buy imported goods - and domestic goods, made of foreign parts. A domestic company which needs foreign parts to sell on the domestic market will be hit by a devaluation, perhaps so much that it actually goes out of business, causing unemployment and further disasters. If Spain would devalue its local currency, it would lower the salary for all those people who work for financially sound companies, as well as the ones that need to become more competitive.
With the Euro, there will be no devaluation, and financially sound Spanish companies will be able to do business as usual. Other companies will have to take some drastic measures, like laying off people or lowering salaries. However, if there had been a devaluation, Spanish companies would get more competitive, and some companies outside Spain would get less competitive in relative terms, and they would run into problems. When there is a shortage of money, someone is inevitably hit. The question is who and how.
The Euro in its present form is a new concept, and no one knows exactly what solutions will emerge, but there will surely be solutions for a lot of the people involved. For some people, there may be no solution, and their living standard will be permanently lowered - just like in other crises in countries with their own currency.
But let's assume for a moment, that the Euro is to be blamed for the current problems, how would one get rid of it?
That is a real problem. It is almost impossible to do so.
A country with a poor economic situation could be tempted to leave the Euro to be able to devalue. The problem is that it inevitably would be known in advance that they would leave, and before the cut-over, everyone would rush to remove their money from the poor country, as everyone would know that the currency was meant to lose value. People would transfer all their savings abroad. Companies would transfer their headquarters and capital abroad. The flow of capital would be immense. The intended effect, a loss of value of perhaps 5-10%, would extend to a drainage of the entire country's resources.
A country with a good economic situation could be tempted to leave, not to be dragged down with the falling value of the Euro. The problem here is the same, but with inverted values. Everyone would know in advance that the country would leave with the intention of pushing up the value. There would be an enormous pressure to buy assets in this country to take advantage of the appreciation to come. This would drive the currency so high, that the salaries in the rich country would become impossibly high. The companies would not be able to afford them, as their products would be too expensive to export, and mass unemployment would follow.
This means that it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, for anyone to leave the Euro - at least for the purpose of fluctuating a local currency up or down.
Besides, there are all the practical costs we paid once when we joined the Euro, that will need to be paid again: transition of accounting systems and software, replacement of all slot machines (like parking meters, vending machines, ATMs), distribution of the new currency and elimination of the old currency (the Euro that is still valid in other countries) and so on.
In addition, for every country leaving the Euro, the old arguments are still valid. International travel would become more expensive, as we would have to start paying exchange fees again when going to neighbour countries. International trade would be more cumbersome and more expensive, as each transaction would have to pay for the risk involved. That would lower the trade volume, and one thing no economist outside North Korea denies today, is that trade is necessary to generate wealth.
Is there a crisis? Yes, of course it is. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, all have huge economic difficulties. However, it is not a crisis that is worse than other economic crises in the past. The world economy is a dynamic system, and there are bound to be crises popping up here and there, like in Denmark in 1987, the United Kingdom and Japan in 1992 or Taiwan and Korea in 1997. All those countries had their own currencies, and that did not save them from any crisis at all. Some of them have recovered, like Taiwan and Denmark, and some have not, like the UK and Japan.
The recent crises within the Euro area proves that the Euro is not a fool proof way of keeping a country out of economic troubles, but I do not know anyone who ever claimed it was.
There is a crisis, an issue, a problem, a situation, and now politicians and the market forces are working on solving it. We do not know yet, how good or swift the solution will be, but it is very likely that there will be some solution.
The Euro prevents some traditional ways of solving the problem. Spain cannot devalue its currency to get more competitive. However, devaluations are very blunt instruments. With a devaluation, everyone in a country gets temporarily poorer. Everyone will get less money to buy imported goods - and domestic goods, made of foreign parts. A domestic company which needs foreign parts to sell on the domestic market will be hit by a devaluation, perhaps so much that it actually goes out of business, causing unemployment and further disasters. If Spain would devalue its local currency, it would lower the salary for all those people who work for financially sound companies, as well as the ones that need to become more competitive.
With the Euro, there will be no devaluation, and financially sound Spanish companies will be able to do business as usual. Other companies will have to take some drastic measures, like laying off people or lowering salaries. However, if there had been a devaluation, Spanish companies would get more competitive, and some companies outside Spain would get less competitive in relative terms, and they would run into problems. When there is a shortage of money, someone is inevitably hit. The question is who and how.
The Euro in its present form is a new concept, and no one knows exactly what solutions will emerge, but there will surely be solutions for a lot of the people involved. For some people, there may be no solution, and their living standard will be permanently lowered - just like in other crises in countries with their own currency.
But let's assume for a moment, that the Euro is to be blamed for the current problems, how would one get rid of it?
That is a real problem. It is almost impossible to do so.
A country with a poor economic situation could be tempted to leave the Euro to be able to devalue. The problem is that it inevitably would be known in advance that they would leave, and before the cut-over, everyone would rush to remove their money from the poor country, as everyone would know that the currency was meant to lose value. People would transfer all their savings abroad. Companies would transfer their headquarters and capital abroad. The flow of capital would be immense. The intended effect, a loss of value of perhaps 5-10%, would extend to a drainage of the entire country's resources.
A country with a good economic situation could be tempted to leave, not to be dragged down with the falling value of the Euro. The problem here is the same, but with inverted values. Everyone would know in advance that the country would leave with the intention of pushing up the value. There would be an enormous pressure to buy assets in this country to take advantage of the appreciation to come. This would drive the currency so high, that the salaries in the rich country would become impossibly high. The companies would not be able to afford them, as their products would be too expensive to export, and mass unemployment would follow.
This means that it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, for anyone to leave the Euro - at least for the purpose of fluctuating a local currency up or down.
Besides, there are all the practical costs we paid once when we joined the Euro, that will need to be paid again: transition of accounting systems and software, replacement of all slot machines (like parking meters, vending machines, ATMs), distribution of the new currency and elimination of the old currency (the Euro that is still valid in other countries) and so on.
In addition, for every country leaving the Euro, the old arguments are still valid. International travel would become more expensive, as we would have to start paying exchange fees again when going to neighbour countries. International trade would be more cumbersome and more expensive, as each transaction would have to pay for the risk involved. That would lower the trade volume, and one thing no economist outside North Korea denies today, is that trade is necessary to generate wealth.
At last someone to talk to
There is an elderly (and charmingly fictitious) lady in our house. She lives on her own, but clearly has a need for company all the time. When you bump into her in the corridor, she will talk about this and that with you, until she suddenly turns around and tries to involve your neighbour in the conversation when he tries to sneak past.
Recently the block got an elevator with a synthetic voice, and the lady adores it:
I can go up and down for ever talking with the elevator. It is so polite.
And it never gets tired of talking with me!
Life is never boring for people who can appreciate a talking elevator. If they only taught people how to do it in school, the world would be a much happier place.
Recently the block got an elevator with a synthetic voice, and the lady adores it:
I can go up and down for ever talking with the elevator. It is so polite.
"You have reached the third floor."
"Yes, that's it, isn't it? Golly, are we there already?""You have reached the fifth floor."
"Are you sure? I could have sworn it was the sixth floor. Yes, look at that. That's where the Duponts live. I recognise their pretty door mat. It is the fifth floor indeed.""You have reached the second floor."
"You are having me on, aren't you? This is the fourth floor. No, there is no use arguing, I'm sure it is. I should know, shouldn't I? I have lived in this house for years. You were installed just a few weeks ago.""You have reached the seventh floor."
"Oh, that is my favourite. Did you know it was? I like the view from the windows here. You can see the roof of the Negresco in the distance. It is so lovely. Thanks for bringing me here..."And it never gets tired of talking with me!
Life is never boring for people who can appreciate a talking elevator. If they only taught people how to do it in school, the world would be a much happier place.
17 November 2010
Me - A Gentle Savage
If you travel in a country where not everyone has access to basic education, you will meet people one could (politically incorrectly) call "savages". Most of them would definitely not be savages in the sense "wild brutes", but in the sense of a gentle savage - a mostly nice person who has limited grasp of civilisation. They will probably speak more languages than you do, but that will be local languages, and they will not be able to write anything down. They will not know basic things about astronomy, quantum physics, banking systems, foreign countries, the theories of relativity or evolution. They will often be nice people, just like you and me, fun to chat with and helpful if they see you have a problem. However, due to their background, they would score low on a typical intelligence test, even one designed for people who cannot read or write or count. Their lack of education and experience would make it difficult for them to fit in the rich part of the world.
Some years ago, a very intelligent little girl asked me "when does the world start?" I did not understand what she meant at the time. She may not have understood it herself. But I think the world soon will start, and it will leave me behind as a gentle savage.
Hardly any adults today have had access to internet all their lives. All adults have been raised by parents and teachers who lived most of their lives without internet. However, there will be more and more adults who do not know of any world without computers and the internet. And they will get children and will teach young people, who have had computers around them since before they were born.
The coming generations will get education and experiences and stimulations that we older people can never catch up with. We will to them be savages, hopefully gentle ones.
Some years ago, a very intelligent little girl asked me "when does the world start?" I did not understand what she meant at the time. She may not have understood it herself. But I think the world soon will start, and it will leave me behind as a gentle savage.
Hardly any adults today have had access to internet all their lives. All adults have been raised by parents and teachers who lived most of their lives without internet. However, there will be more and more adults who do not know of any world without computers and the internet. And they will get children and will teach young people, who have had computers around them since before they were born.
The coming generations will get education and experiences and stimulations that we older people can never catch up with. We will to them be savages, hopefully gentle ones.
01 November 2010
What Camera did Irving Penn use?
There is a good old apocryphal story about the author Ernest Hemingway and the photographer Irving Penn.
Ernest Hemingway to Irving Penn:
“Your photos are really good. What camera do you use?”
Irving Penn to Ernest Hemingway:
“Your novels are excellent. What typewriter do you use?”
The problem with the story is of course that it does not give the important information, which camera did Penn actually use? Luckily, the National Portrait Gallery in London can inform us that he used Rolleiflex, Deardorff V8 and Hasselblad. And certainly a bunch of others during his long life.
Ernest Hemingway used a Corona #3 typewriter when he want to Europe in 1921. Thanks to this blog for finding references about this in Carlos Baker, Ernest Hemingway: A Life Story, 1969, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons. He is also supposed to have used a Royal Arrow, Underwood and Halda. Three of his typewriters allegedly still are at the Hemingway villa Finca Vigia in Cojimar Cuba.
Ernest Hemingway to Irving Penn:
“Your photos are really good. What camera do you use?”
Irving Penn to Ernest Hemingway:
“Your novels are excellent. What typewriter do you use?”
The problem with the story is of course that it does not give the important information, which camera did Penn actually use? Luckily, the National Portrait Gallery in London can inform us that he used Rolleiflex, Deardorff V8 and Hasselblad. And certainly a bunch of others during his long life.
Ernest Hemingway used a Corona #3 typewriter when he want to Europe in 1921. Thanks to this blog for finding references about this in Carlos Baker, Ernest Hemingway: A Life Story, 1969, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons. He is also supposed to have used a Royal Arrow, Underwood and Halda. Three of his typewriters allegedly still are at the Hemingway villa Finca Vigia in Cojimar Cuba.
A similar story is told about the Venetian painter Giovanni Bellini (c. 1430 – 1516) who is supposed to have asked Albrecht Dürer (1471 - 1528) for the brush by which Dürer managed to paint so realistic beards. Dürer gave him a perfectly ordinary brush; it was his own skill that made the beards lifelike.
The Corona typewriter in this picture was probably not used by Hemingway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)