Nothing much has been said about the interaction between HS2 and IEP. The latter provides for 27 years from 2015 - which brings us up to 2042. If HS2 goes ahead at all, a substantial amount of it will be built by then, and there will also be significant running of trains on both HS2, at around 300 kph and the classic network at 200 kph. HS2 will be constructed to a wider European envelope to accept trains such as the French TGV and the German ICE.
How does IEP fit into this scheme of things?
måndag 30 juli 2012
IEP discrepancy in figures?
According to Agility Trains, the £4.5 billion package covers the supply of 596 carriages. The Railway Gazette report refers to an "overall package", with "financial close" covering the supply of 369 vehicles, and "commercial close" for a further 227 vehicles for the ECML. So presumably the £4.5 billion is for 596 vehicles, but this is not exactly clear.
söndag 29 juli 2012
IEP value for money?
I have done a bit of research of my own on whether the IEP is not such bad value for money as it appears at first sight. The initial figure appears to £7.5 million per vehicle, but of course it is substantially less, since it is a supply-and-maintain contract and also includes a lot of infrastructure work to accommodate the 26 metre long vehicles. Presumably, also, it includes a major half-life overhaul and two other refurbishments in between, over the 27.5 year contract period.
Nevertheless, the figure is probably on the high side, though not outrageous. On the other hand, if a decision had been taken to hold to the present 23 metre standard vehicle length or even slightly shorter, much of the infrastructure work would not have been needed. If a further decision had been taken to retain locomotive haulage, existing depots would, with some upgrading, have largely sufficed.
According to a report by Arup as part of the McNulty Value for Money Review, published in 2011, "capital costs account for 31% of the whole life costs for an illustrative fleet on an undiscounted basis. However, translating that figure into lease costs whereby the capital costs are financed over (typically) the life of the asset, can take that figure up to around 60% - depending on how the costs are discounted." That the first costs are critical is important therefore, especially taking into account the cost of finance. But getting at comparative figures is not an easy task in view of all the things that have been included in the package deal.
The alternative would have been a locomotive hauled fleet of about 600 vehicles and 100 locomotives, which would have amounted to about £900 million, ie £1.5 million a piece. This is slightly lower than the cost of an EMU fleet, because these have traction equipment in most vehicles and control equipment in at least half of them. ETMS boxes, for instance, are expensive items which have to go into each unit. In reality, however, 600 hauled vehicles would not have been needed now because the fleet of mark 3 vehicles could have been retained for the residue of their 60-year life, to between 2035 and 2045. And it looks as if the IC225 stock, which entered service in 1992, will also pay an early visit to the scrapyard.
So the Foster review of the IEP project was right after all. The disgraceful thing is that it was shelved and the project pushed through regardless. One of the difficulties is that MPs and ministers seem to have little understanding of the issues involved. But put plainly, it looks as if the same amount of money could have paid for a larger fleet and enabled existing stock to continue in use to the end of its service life. One has to ask what is the use of appointing expensive consultancies to produce reports and then ignoring what they state with perfect clarity?
Nevertheless, the figure is probably on the high side, though not outrageous. On the other hand, if a decision had been taken to hold to the present 23 metre standard vehicle length or even slightly shorter, much of the infrastructure work would not have been needed. If a further decision had been taken to retain locomotive haulage, existing depots would, with some upgrading, have largely sufficed.
According to a report by Arup as part of the McNulty Value for Money Review, published in 2011, "capital costs account for 31% of the whole life costs for an illustrative fleet on an undiscounted basis. However, translating that figure into lease costs whereby the capital costs are financed over (typically) the life of the asset, can take that figure up to around 60% - depending on how the costs are discounted." That the first costs are critical is important therefore, especially taking into account the cost of finance. But getting at comparative figures is not an easy task in view of all the things that have been included in the package deal.
The alternative would have been a locomotive hauled fleet of about 600 vehicles and 100 locomotives, which would have amounted to about £900 million, ie £1.5 million a piece. This is slightly lower than the cost of an EMU fleet, because these have traction equipment in most vehicles and control equipment in at least half of them. ETMS boxes, for instance, are expensive items which have to go into each unit. In reality, however, 600 hauled vehicles would not have been needed now because the fleet of mark 3 vehicles could have been retained for the residue of their 60-year life, to between 2035 and 2045. And it looks as if the IC225 stock, which entered service in 1992, will also pay an early visit to the scrapyard.
So the Foster review of the IEP project was right after all. The disgraceful thing is that it was shelved and the project pushed through regardless. One of the difficulties is that MPs and ministers seem to have little understanding of the issues involved. But put plainly, it looks as if the same amount of money could have paid for a larger fleet and enabled existing stock to continue in use to the end of its service life. One has to ask what is the use of appointing expensive consultancies to produce reports and then ignoring what they state with perfect clarity?
fredag 27 juli 2012
High Court grants HS2 opponents hearing
Opponents to HS2 have been granted a hearing by the High Court, and the right to seek a judicial review against the scheme. Unfortunately, the grounds for the appeal relate to compensation and environmental issues rather than the economics of the project itself. The latter, however, has already been brought into question by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in a report published earlier in the month.
onsdag 25 juli 2012
IEP contract now awarded
The IEP contract has now been awarded to Hitachi. No surprise there. It just shows the power of civil servants to push through a project even when, as in this case, it was conclusively shown to be poor value for money. The alternative to the IEP might have been this - a fleet of conventional hauled vehicles and up-to-date Euro-locomotives such as the TRAXX, seen above in on-hire service. This would have bought the flexibility which the IEP investment does not.
Details of the contract for the first tranche of the Hitachi fleet are given here on the website of Railway Gazette International. The initial deployment of 369 vehicles on the Great Western, from 2017, will be as follows:
- London - Swansea
- London - Oxford - Hereford
- London - Gloucester - Cheltenham
- London - Bristol
- London - Leeds
- London - Edinburgh - Aberdeen/Inverness
Great Western:
- London - Penzance
- Replacement of IC225 sets
- London - Cambridge - King's Lynn
- London - Northampton
As part of the contract, Hitachi will provide 596 carriages of electric and bi-mode trains for the Great Western Main Line (Phase 1) and the East Coast Main Line (Phase 2). The fleet of 595 vehicles, made up into 92 trains, will be maintained in newly built and upgraded facilities, including new depots in Swansea, Bristol, west London and Doncaster.
Because the contract is to supply and maintain the trains and also includes a lot of infrastructure work, it is difficult to compare with supply-only costs, which are typically between one half and one third of lifetime costs. No doubt someone like Roger Ford will be putting the numbers through his crunching machine and will come up with an assessment which will give some indication of where this is value for money.
But whilst it is not directly comparable, it is worth pointing out that a fleet of 600 hauled go-anywhere vehicles and 100 locomotives would have had a first cost of, say, £600 million for the vehicles and another £300 million for the locomotives - that is a total of around £900 million. It would also have avoided the need for spending to adapt the infrastructure to accommodate longer 26 metre vehicles, and existing depots could have been upgraded. It is also what many in the industry actually wanted.
In principle, therefore, the decision seems unfortunate. It looks like bad value for money. It would also have been a good thing if the new generation of trains could have broken away from the practice of fixed formation trains and recovered the flexibility provided by locomotives and carriages, enabling the continued use of older vehicles to provide peak capacity. As it is, with a "tight-fit" solution, this order commits the railway to retaining its bizarrely complex fares structure because yield management becomes so critical to the economics of the operation.
Worse still, the length of the vehicles means that in due course the opportunities for cascading the stock onto other routes will be almost non-existent. A fleet of shorter hauled vehicles, around 22 metres in length, could have been wider, at 2.78 metres, and operated over pretty much the whole system.
Some of the proposed later deployments, such as London to Oxford, Northampton and Cambridge , are strange since these are essentially commuter routes, and the Oxford line forms part of the recently upgraded route to Worcester and Hereford. The 26 metre end-door vehicles are going to be highly unsuitable for commuter services, whilst the Cotswold line is not a high speed route anyway and would be best served by detaching part of the train at Oxford and running in push-pull mode to Hereford.
The replacement of the IC225 sets from 2018 is premature. They came into service in the early 1990s. The mark 4 fleet of just over 200 vehicles ought to have a 40 year life which would see them running at least until around 2030. But this order also implies the premature withdrawal of the mark 3 fleet of well over 1000 vehicles built between 1975 and 1985 and now known to have a 60-year life. That is throwing away a lot of resources. At a time when funds for the railways are supposedly scarce and there is a long list of projects crying out to be done, this looks as if the authorities have, yet again, got their priorities badly mixed up.
Don't miss the video simulation, by the way, nicely done.
onsdag 18 juli 2012
Being open about abortion
This is my abortion is a project by American "feminists" to be frank about their abortions. Be warned, it is very unpleasant. As unpleasant as the material put around by anti-abortion campaigners. A few minutes previously the bright red muck in the jam jar was a very small child attached to its mother by its umbilical cord. It was not a blob of jelly.
This campaign could have the opposite effect to that intended.
This campaign could have the opposite effect to that intended.
tisdag 17 juli 2012
Another £4 billion to be invested
The proposals announced yesterday add another £4.2 billion to the already committed £5.2 billion of rail investment for 2014 to 2019.
The new schemes envisage the electrification of the Midland Main Line as part of a high-capacity 'electric spine' passenger and freight route from Yorkshire and the West Midlands to Southampton. Routes to be electrified at 25 kV 50 Hz as part of the electric spine are:
This makes a great deal of sense, since it consolidates the electrified network. The reopening of Oxford to Bletchley as an electrified line from the outset is a welcome surprise. In addition to these are the extension of the GW proposals to take in Swansea, the Welsh Valleys, the Windsor, Henley, and Marlow branches, and the connecting link between Acton and Willesden.
Inevitably, however, these schemes point to fresh possibilities. Why not electrify from Leamington to Birmingham, and the routes out of Marylebone, including those to Aylesbury and Banbury? This would re-create a second electrified route between London and Birmingham. Adding in the short stretch of former Great Western main line from Old Oak Common to Northolt Junction would then make it possible to reinstate the old GW main line service from Paddington to Birmingham, taking the pressure off overcrowded Marylebone.
There are other possibilities as well. Bristol-Birmingham-Derby makes sense as an electrified route. And why not reinstate and electrify the Peak Forest line from Ambergate to Buxton, thereby re-creating a second main line from London to Manchester.
With two main lines between London and Manchester and London and Birmingham, what need would there be for HS2?
The projects also casts further doubt on the Inter-City Express project. With London to Swansea fully electrified, what need is there of bi-mode trains when conventional EMUS will do the job perfectly well? And with proposals for converting the class 220/221 to dual mode or straight electric traction, there would appear to be little requirement for more.
Uncertainties of this kind suggest also that a more prudent rolling stock option would be to purchase more locomotives and hauled vehicles. This gives both flexibility and spare capacity at relatively lower cost, since older vehicles such as the mark 3 fleet can be used to provide back up at peak periods.
The proposal for 25kv overhead electrification between Basingstoke and Southampton has probably raised a few eyebrows because the line is already electrified on the third rail system. Conversion of the Basingstoke - Southampton route from 750 V DC third rail to overhead electrification will 'test the business case for the wider conversion of the third rail network south of the Thames'.
The third rail system is of course an anomalous legacy. It is inefficient and special measures are needed to keep it running in ice and snow. On the other hand, maintenance costs are low, and it is not prone to the widespread dislocation that occurs when overhead wiring is damaged, which is not so very uncommon. With the need to provide additional clearances, the cost of conversion could be high. The figures are worth establishing but this proposal sounds like whim rather than well-considered policy. The changeover costs on the system as a whole would be astronomical.
Even re-electrification between Basingstoke and Southampton would be problematical. Unless both systems of electrification are to remain in place for the foreseeable future, dual voltage trains would have to run out of Waterloo on services to Southampton and Weymouth, which sounds expensive and inefficient. Even with the most carefully planned and phased changeover, the Southern would be plagued with two systems of electrification for a decade or two. It is hard to see how this could ever be justified. Whilst less than ideal, the class 92 locomotives could be used in third-rail mode south of Basingstoke, and it might be possible to boost the power supply with additional feeder stations along the route.
Looking at the overall picture, this is welcome news. But it damages still further the business case for HS2. As suggested above, it would be a better investment to consolidate the electrified network so as to eliminate diesel traction south of Manchester and east of Bristol, which is where the vast majority of the population live and work.
The new schemes envisage the electrification of the Midland Main Line as part of a high-capacity 'electric spine' passenger and freight route from Yorkshire and the West Midlands to Southampton. Routes to be electrified at 25 kV 50 Hz as part of the electric spine are:
- Southampton port - Basingstoke;
- Basingstoke - Reading;
- Oxford - Leamington - Coventry;
- Coventry - Nuneaton;
- Oxford - Bletchley - Bedford;
- Bedford - Nottingham/Derby;
- Derby - Sheffield; Kettering - Corby
This makes a great deal of sense, since it consolidates the electrified network. The reopening of Oxford to Bletchley as an electrified line from the outset is a welcome surprise. In addition to these are the extension of the GW proposals to take in Swansea, the Welsh Valleys, the Windsor, Henley, and Marlow branches, and the connecting link between Acton and Willesden.
Inevitably, however, these schemes point to fresh possibilities. Why not electrify from Leamington to Birmingham, and the routes out of Marylebone, including those to Aylesbury and Banbury? This would re-create a second electrified route between London and Birmingham. Adding in the short stretch of former Great Western main line from Old Oak Common to Northolt Junction would then make it possible to reinstate the old GW main line service from Paddington to Birmingham, taking the pressure off overcrowded Marylebone.
There are other possibilities as well. Bristol-Birmingham-Derby makes sense as an electrified route. And why not reinstate and electrify the Peak Forest line from Ambergate to Buxton, thereby re-creating a second main line from London to Manchester.
With two main lines between London and Manchester and London and Birmingham, what need would there be for HS2?
The projects also casts further doubt on the Inter-City Express project. With London to Swansea fully electrified, what need is there of bi-mode trains when conventional EMUS will do the job perfectly well? And with proposals for converting the class 220/221 to dual mode or straight electric traction, there would appear to be little requirement for more.
Uncertainties of this kind suggest also that a more prudent rolling stock option would be to purchase more locomotives and hauled vehicles. This gives both flexibility and spare capacity at relatively lower cost, since older vehicles such as the mark 3 fleet can be used to provide back up at peak periods.
The proposal for 25kv overhead electrification between Basingstoke and Southampton has probably raised a few eyebrows because the line is already electrified on the third rail system. Conversion of the Basingstoke - Southampton route from 750 V DC third rail to overhead electrification will 'test the business case for the wider conversion of the third rail network south of the Thames'.
The third rail system is of course an anomalous legacy. It is inefficient and special measures are needed to keep it running in ice and snow. On the other hand, maintenance costs are low, and it is not prone to the widespread dislocation that occurs when overhead wiring is damaged, which is not so very uncommon. With the need to provide additional clearances, the cost of conversion could be high. The figures are worth establishing but this proposal sounds like whim rather than well-considered policy. The changeover costs on the system as a whole would be astronomical.
Even re-electrification between Basingstoke and Southampton would be problematical. Unless both systems of electrification are to remain in place for the foreseeable future, dual voltage trains would have to run out of Waterloo on services to Southampton and Weymouth, which sounds expensive and inefficient. Even with the most carefully planned and phased changeover, the Southern would be plagued with two systems of electrification for a decade or two. It is hard to see how this could ever be justified. Whilst less than ideal, the class 92 locomotives could be used in third-rail mode south of Basingstoke, and it might be possible to boost the power supply with additional feeder stations along the route.
Looking at the overall picture, this is welcome news. But it damages still further the business case for HS2. As suggested above, it would be a better investment to consolidate the electrified network so as to eliminate diesel traction south of Manchester and east of Bristol, which is where the vast majority of the population live and work.
måndag 16 juli 2012
Neo-libs, Georgists and the bigger picture
The neo-libertarian narrative is not one that was being peddled in the 1970s but is widespread today. One has only to look on the newspaper websites and read the comments. It is mainstream in the politics of the right. It has soaked widely into popular consciousness. It has important elements of truth, which are easy to recognise. The left has no answers. One is obliged to take the yes-but view. Our task is not to convert the "right" except to the extent that we alone within the world of political economy can expose the underlying fallacy, as we alone are aware of the nature of property rights. The bigger task is to move the left, as they are stuck in old discredited paradigms which have been proved to fail. The left is pretty much defenceless against the neo-libs, anarcho-caps and other political economies at that end of the spectrum.
The neo-lib analysis is well supported in the background by the extremely wealthy and powerful, who will be the main, probably sole, beneficiaries of the policies that are being argued for. The weakness of the left means defeat for them. They might win elections, as in France, but they have no effective policies or even a narrative that is remotely realistic. Neither has the mainstream right. There is a pressure to prevent civil unrest and efforts have to be made to contain it. I don't think that anyone anywhere on the mainstream political spectrum has solutions.
In the face of the ongoing and intractable problems with finance and the economy, the widening gap between super-rich and the rest, the banking scandals, family breakdown, drug abuse and Islamic extremism, we are in for a difficult century. The political economy we are proposing could help in the realm of economics, and we need to sharpen our game. However, these movements exist under the higher dispensation of a civilisation, and it is at that level that a breakdown is occurring as well.
This is worth a further look. Christianity is now coming to the end of its second millenium, having suffered a grave challenge with the rise of Islam, a damaging split with the schism, a catastrophic one at the reformation. Each of these events falls, rather too tidily, at 500 year intervals.
At the same time there was Gnosticism. Christianity is itself Gnostic but in a different sense. Common to Gnosticisms is the notion that one can reach perfection and do it by one's own efforts through following some kind of path, in which each step is revealed once the individual has reached a certain point on the path, and not before.
The revival of Gnosticism seems to have coincided with the Renaissance and gathered force with the Enlightenment. Important fruits were modern science (nothing wrong with it until it becomes a religion in its own right), empiricism, the French Revolution, Marxism, Socialism, Fascism and its relative, Nazi-ism, Freemasonry, and, in part, Calvinism.
The protestant churches have run their course and have nothing to offer. The bible-believing protestants persist because they have a lot of money behind them and are now being used to promote the neo-lib message. For the rest, protestantism has descended into vagueness to the point that it is impossible to establish what the protestant churches are actually teaching.
The only body that has stood, and stands, reasonably consistently (though not consistently enough) against all of this has been the orthodox group of Christian churches ie Catholic/Eastern Orthodox. These too have been going through their own traumas during the past 100 years, what with outright corruption in high places, scandals all over and liturgical reforms which have obscured the fundamental teachings. In my view the only real hope is with the renewal movement that is currently taking place within the Catholic church.
From a bigger perspective it offers a solid critique of neo-liberalism, objectivism, Marxism, socialism and all the other false -isms that have dominated western thinking for the past three centuries.
The neo-lib analysis is well supported in the background by the extremely wealthy and powerful, who will be the main, probably sole, beneficiaries of the policies that are being argued for. The weakness of the left means defeat for them. They might win elections, as in France, but they have no effective policies or even a narrative that is remotely realistic. Neither has the mainstream right. There is a pressure to prevent civil unrest and efforts have to be made to contain it. I don't think that anyone anywhere on the mainstream political spectrum has solutions.
In the face of the ongoing and intractable problems with finance and the economy, the widening gap between super-rich and the rest, the banking scandals, family breakdown, drug abuse and Islamic extremism, we are in for a difficult century. The political economy we are proposing could help in the realm of economics, and we need to sharpen our game. However, these movements exist under the higher dispensation of a civilisation, and it is at that level that a breakdown is occurring as well.
This is worth a further look. Christianity is now coming to the end of its second millenium, having suffered a grave challenge with the rise of Islam, a damaging split with the schism, a catastrophic one at the reformation. Each of these events falls, rather too tidily, at 500 year intervals.
At the same time there was Gnosticism. Christianity is itself Gnostic but in a different sense. Common to Gnosticisms is the notion that one can reach perfection and do it by one's own efforts through following some kind of path, in which each step is revealed once the individual has reached a certain point on the path, and not before.
The revival of Gnosticism seems to have coincided with the Renaissance and gathered force with the Enlightenment. Important fruits were modern science (nothing wrong with it until it becomes a religion in its own right), empiricism, the French Revolution, Marxism, Socialism, Fascism and its relative, Nazi-ism, Freemasonry, and, in part, Calvinism.
The protestant churches have run their course and have nothing to offer. The bible-believing protestants persist because they have a lot of money behind them and are now being used to promote the neo-lib message. For the rest, protestantism has descended into vagueness to the point that it is impossible to establish what the protestant churches are actually teaching.
The only body that has stood, and stands, reasonably consistently (though not consistently enough) against all of this has been the orthodox group of Christian churches ie Catholic/Eastern Orthodox. These too have been going through their own traumas during the past 100 years, what with outright corruption in high places, scandals all over and liturgical reforms which have obscured the fundamental teachings. In my view the only real hope is with the renewal movement that is currently taking place within the Catholic church.
From a bigger perspective it offers a solid critique of neo-liberalism, objectivism, Marxism, socialism and all the other false -isms that have dominated western thinking for the past three centuries.
torsdag 12 juli 2012
"I am an Objectivist"
Only joking. But why would anyone become an anything-ist when the -ism in question was invented just a few decades ago by an embittered person who had suffered from horrible experiences early in life and never come to terms with them?
Isms invariably have antecedents. Most of the atheist -isms come out of the Enlightenment and a thread can be traced from there back to the re-discovery of ancient Gnostic texts that came to Italy with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, and their subsequent translation into Latin and then into modern languages. Objectivism seems also to have a Calvinist strand, whence comes its particularly repellent individualism. It is not, then, so very new. And why would anyone so close themselves off to further thinking by defining themselves in such a way?
The question raises further ones about -isms in general. When analysed, most of them can be shown to be heresies of orthodox ie Catholic Christianity. Now the defining feature of a heresy is either that it takes one or more component of Catholicism and elevates it above all the others, or that it strongly denies one of those components. Thus all Protestants deny the supremacy of the Pope. Members of the Orthodox churches also question the supremacy of the Pope but that does not make them Protestants, since their formal status is of being schismatic.
Because Anglo-Catholics accept all Catholic doctrines except the supremacy of the Pope, they tended to view the Anglican church as the Catholic church in England - as some kind of English rite Catholic church. Recent events within the Anglican church has brought many Anglo-Catholics to the realisation that if authority is not vested in the Pope, the way is open to all sorts of aberrations such as the defining of doctrine by democratic decision.
Protestants generally take the view that scripture should be interpreted according to individual judgement, whilst, on the way taking scripture and editing it more or less heavily with large chunks being omitted altogether. One way another, hundreds of sects have been spawned in this way: Annabaptists, Mennonites, Seventh Day Adventists, Presbyterians of every hue, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Salvationists, Irvingites, Mormonites, Agapemonites, etc. Even quite respectable sects such as the Quakers have arisen from this movement away from orthodox Christianity.
Before the coming of Protestantism there were other heresies - a spate of them in the first five centuries of Christianity. Arians denied the divinity of Jesus Christ and Arianism eventually gave rise to Islam, which Belloc described as "the great and enduring heresy".
Most sects flare up for a few decades and then fade away, though a few have been more persistent, usually because they have had some wealthy adherents who have fed them with funds.
The ancient Eastern religions are of course not heresies. Whilst orthodox Christians would regard them as being in error in one way or other, and conversely, these are at least well-grounded positions. During the past hundred years, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, for instance, have attracted many followers from the west and have to be regarded as major spiritual paths.
Taking all of this into account, one has to ask, first, why anyone would follow a movement which has not stood the test of time - I mean a millenium or two - and second, why anyone would follow any movement at all without taking a good look at the handful which have demonstrated real staying power over a millennium or two?
Isms invariably have antecedents. Most of the atheist -isms come out of the Enlightenment and a thread can be traced from there back to the re-discovery of ancient Gnostic texts that came to Italy with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, and their subsequent translation into Latin and then into modern languages. Objectivism seems also to have a Calvinist strand, whence comes its particularly repellent individualism. It is not, then, so very new. And why would anyone so close themselves off to further thinking by defining themselves in such a way?
The question raises further ones about -isms in general. When analysed, most of them can be shown to be heresies of orthodox ie Catholic Christianity. Now the defining feature of a heresy is either that it takes one or more component of Catholicism and elevates it above all the others, or that it strongly denies one of those components. Thus all Protestants deny the supremacy of the Pope. Members of the Orthodox churches also question the supremacy of the Pope but that does not make them Protestants, since their formal status is of being schismatic.
Because Anglo-Catholics accept all Catholic doctrines except the supremacy of the Pope, they tended to view the Anglican church as the Catholic church in England - as some kind of English rite Catholic church. Recent events within the Anglican church has brought many Anglo-Catholics to the realisation that if authority is not vested in the Pope, the way is open to all sorts of aberrations such as the defining of doctrine by democratic decision.
Protestants generally take the view that scripture should be interpreted according to individual judgement, whilst, on the way taking scripture and editing it more or less heavily with large chunks being omitted altogether. One way another, hundreds of sects have been spawned in this way: Annabaptists, Mennonites, Seventh Day Adventists, Presbyterians of every hue, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Salvationists, Irvingites, Mormonites, Agapemonites, etc. Even quite respectable sects such as the Quakers have arisen from this movement away from orthodox Christianity.
Before the coming of Protestantism there were other heresies - a spate of them in the first five centuries of Christianity. Arians denied the divinity of Jesus Christ and Arianism eventually gave rise to Islam, which Belloc described as "the great and enduring heresy".
Most sects flare up for a few decades and then fade away, though a few have been more persistent, usually because they have had some wealthy adherents who have fed them with funds.
The ancient Eastern religions are of course not heresies. Whilst orthodox Christians would regard them as being in error in one way or other, and conversely, these are at least well-grounded positions. During the past hundred years, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, for instance, have attracted many followers from the west and have to be regarded as major spiritual paths.
Taking all of this into account, one has to ask, first, why anyone would follow a movement which has not stood the test of time - I mean a millenium or two - and second, why anyone would follow any movement at all without taking a good look at the handful which have demonstrated real staying power over a millennium or two?
onsdag 11 juli 2012
On usury and other dishonest profit
ON USURY AND OTHER DISHONEST PROFIT is the title of Vix Pervenit, an Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on November 1, 1745. It was in fact the first Papal Encyclical.
What would banking and finance look like if the principles set out in that document were held to? The question lies behind an article in the FT today, with the headline, The City must get rid of banks’ top brass.
The author of the article blames it on culture and values. That is a superficial analysis. It will not do to blame the top brass. These are the sort of people, whom, as class mates, one would not trust with one's pocket money to buy a bar of chocolate at the school tuck shop. If they are reaching the most exalted positions in the banking profession, there is something seriously amiss.
The problem is systemic and structural. It has nothing to do with culture and values, at least not within the banking profession alone. The structures that society creates, of course, are a product of culture and values. It is not possible to clear up little corners alone. The fact that it is possible to refer to a banking "industry" without an eyebrow being raised is an indication of how far things have fallen.
The entire contemporary economic system needs to be re-examined, not from a Marxist perspective but from that of orthodox morality. It must begin with a definition of terms. What is "Capital"? What is "Capitalism"? Both terms are used so loosely as to be almost meaningless.
Is money capital? Is credit capital? Is land capital? Or people? Or slaves? What do you call that which was capital in the original meaning of the term ie wealth used for the production of further wealth eg tools, machines, ships, etc? Conflation of all these terms under the heading "capital" is a recipe for confusion from the outset.
And that is only the start of the difficulty. What is yours? What is mine? How do property rights arise? What is the function of banking? What are the proper and improper uses of credit? What claims does the state have on private property? What IS private property?
These questions tend to be avoided. Problems like corruption of the banking system are bound to arise if they are never addressed.
What would banking and finance look like if the principles set out in that document were held to? The question lies behind an article in the FT today, with the headline, The City must get rid of banks’ top brass.
The author of the article blames it on culture and values. That is a superficial analysis. It will not do to blame the top brass. These are the sort of people, whom, as class mates, one would not trust with one's pocket money to buy a bar of chocolate at the school tuck shop. If they are reaching the most exalted positions in the banking profession, there is something seriously amiss.
The problem is systemic and structural. It has nothing to do with culture and values, at least not within the banking profession alone. The structures that society creates, of course, are a product of culture and values. It is not possible to clear up little corners alone. The fact that it is possible to refer to a banking "industry" without an eyebrow being raised is an indication of how far things have fallen.
The entire contemporary economic system needs to be re-examined, not from a Marxist perspective but from that of orthodox morality. It must begin with a definition of terms. What is "Capital"? What is "Capitalism"? Both terms are used so loosely as to be almost meaningless.
Is money capital? Is credit capital? Is land capital? Or people? Or slaves? What do you call that which was capital in the original meaning of the term ie wealth used for the production of further wealth eg tools, machines, ships, etc? Conflation of all these terms under the heading "capital" is a recipe for confusion from the outset.
And that is only the start of the difficulty. What is yours? What is mine? How do property rights arise? What is the function of banking? What are the proper and improper uses of credit? What claims does the state have on private property? What IS private property?
These questions tend to be avoided. Problems like corruption of the banking system are bound to arise if they are never addressed.
tisdag 10 juli 2012
Objectivist illusionism
I have come across a few enthusiasts for Ayn Rand lately and got involved in discussions with them. They would be of no importance but for the fact that her ideas have taken a firm hold on the political right. Supporters of Rand's philosophy might be found amongst the young people at Conservative Central Office who are responsible for developing party policies.
Rand invented a philosophy she called "objectivism". It has a set of fallacies at the heart of it, the principal one being that there is an objective reality which the human mind can apprehend through reason. There is, it is true, an objective reality and objective truth, but the human mind is unable to apprehend it.
It is true also that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception. The senses can, however, play nasty tricks on us at times - optical illusions are a good example. The meanings that are given to the raw data that the senses present to the mind are dependent on the state of mind of the individual observer. It will be so coloured by moods, emotions, theories, opinions, beliefs, levels of attention and the physical condition of the observer as to be anything but objective. We know this from reflection on our own personal experience. Recent understandings in neuroscience support this view.
This fuzziness is unavoidable and we deceive ourselves if we imagine that we are, or can be, objective.
If human knowledge is anything but objective, what of value can come from objectivism?
Rand invented a philosophy she called "objectivism". It has a set of fallacies at the heart of it, the principal one being that there is an objective reality which the human mind can apprehend through reason. There is, it is true, an objective reality and objective truth, but the human mind is unable to apprehend it.
It is true also that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception. The senses can, however, play nasty tricks on us at times - optical illusions are a good example. The meanings that are given to the raw data that the senses present to the mind are dependent on the state of mind of the individual observer. It will be so coloured by moods, emotions, theories, opinions, beliefs, levels of attention and the physical condition of the observer as to be anything but objective. We know this from reflection on our own personal experience. Recent understandings in neuroscience support this view.
This fuzziness is unavoidable and we deceive ourselves if we imagine that we are, or can be, objective.
If human knowledge is anything but objective, what of value can come from objectivism?
lördag 7 juli 2012
Breakdown, Swedish style
Swedish X2000 train breakdown, originally uploaded by Henry░Law.
Five hours in a forest in a broken down train. Both pantographs had been wrecked by a fault in the overhead wire. It took over three hours to get a rescue locomotive from Hallsberg, and another hour and a half to couple it (a freight shunter) to the train, after which it was dragged to Hallsberg, by then about five hours late.
The good thing was that SJ staff handled the incident well. The adjacent track was secured and passengers were allowed off, everyone was kept informed, arrangements were made to ensure that every single passenger reached their destination, and food was laid on free of charge at Hallsberg. You could not have asked for more.
However, it shows yet again that overhead electrification is less robust than third rail except in icy weather, and that there is also a need to standardise coupling and braking systems, so that breakdowns can be dealt with efficiently, when they happen. Whether this supports the case for bi-mode trains is another matter. Perhaps there is a need for more stand-by locomotives but in a big, sparsely populated country like Sweden they are always likely to be a fair distance from the average breakdown.
Damage to overhead electrification equipment is not unusual and when they happen they cause widespread disruption. One has to wonder why anyone has suggested, as they did earlier this year, that Britain's extensive third rail system need re-electrified with overhead wire.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)