Tuesday, February 17, 2009

I had three years at a Catholic school, and I scored three on this quiz. Have a go, tell me how you get on.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Eddie Izzard is touring in the winter, which I think is the first time he's doing so since around 2003. I know it's not 1997 anymore, but I figure it's still got to be a good night out.

Monday, February 09, 2009

I posted some unused material from the show over on Project Brainstorm. I think, actually, it works much better written down than performed.

Imps show tonight - 7.45pm at the Wheatsheaf. Time to see if I can still do comedy without writing it down first.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Cath and I went to the Vineyard at Stockcross yesterday and last night. We were upgraded on arrival to a larger, nicer suite (and the basic suite I'd ordered wasn't all that dilapidated to start with), because it was for Cath's birthday. We spent the afternoon in the spa, and ate at the restaurant in the evening. I don't write often about food, but the meal we had last night was spectacular (as you would expect at a 2 Michelin . Started with scallops, which were served with with an artichoke puree, watercress and hazelnuts - but the really amazing part was a chicken skin crisp that is one of the cleverest ideas I've ever had on a plate. Then I had turbot with pork belly and a langoustine (and other little bits like lemongrass puree and a ginger foam), which was similarly excellent, and proved conclusively that fish and pig co-exist. The desert was called a hazulnut sponge, but it was actually three small squares of sponge, with a chocolate and hazelnut ice cream topping, and two strips of caramel.

I record all this now, because it will be good to look back, in a couple years, on the exact day when food stopped being satisfying, by comparison. Damn you, Executive Chef John Campbell. DAMN YOU.

Speaking of Mr Campbell, Cath bumped into him on the way out of the restaurant, looking for the ladies room. He came across, said hello and took her on a tour of the kitchens. All the while, I sat in the bar, with a drink, wondering what was taking so long. Please see aforementioned damnation.

Friday, February 06, 2009

The Daily Mail this morning is filled with hysterics about many savings accounts now facing zero interest rates, accusing the government of targetting help for borrowers (the reckless young people who created this whole mess in the first place because they don't care about morals or the family or the rule of law) by penalising the savers (the sensible old people who fought and died for this country, and had to scrape together everything they own with their own frail fingers).

Firstly, there are always winners and losers. If there were anyway of helping people without hurting others then it would already have been done. In times of crisis, those in control have to make an assessment of who needs help, and where is best to transfer that help from (whether its greater benefits paid for taxes, or great regulation which incurs costs to firms or whatever). The role of monetary policy (basically setting short-term interest rates) is to alter behaviour to control shocks to demand in the hope of maintaining steady (or equilibrium) levels of inflation and employment.

If demand-side inflationary pressures become strong, then interest rates will increase. This affects demand - people find it more costly to borrow, have less disposable income after mortgage payments have been removed, and find saving more beneficial. All of these things reduce the amount of money there is being spent, which eases inflationary pressures.

Currently, in the midst of the a downturn, where demand is falling, lower interest rates work along these same channels to achieve to opposite effects - more disposable income, easier borrowing, less incentive to save. While it is still effective (and with base nominal rates getting close to zero, it is reaching that limit) it is generally considered to most effect way of managing macroeconomic shocks.

The crucial point is that these are all short term changes. Once real variables are stabilised, interest rates will rise again. The issue that is getting confused here is that general idea that it is a good idea for people to save for retirement. It is, and and is also something that should be encouraged more as a long term goal. However, a government operates at the macro level, and while many individuals may suddenly find that their savings haven't grown as much as they expect this year and next year, they will also find (if they looked) that the recession that we are in, which will affect everyone, isn't as deep as it would be if governments (or central banks) had taken no action at all. Plus, savers have benefitted from higher interest rates during the last ten years when the economy has been doing well, which has come at the expense of borrowing and mortgage payers.

Plus, borrowers and savers aren't two different breeds of human. People borrow and people save over the course of their lifetime. In fact, many people do both at the same time, let alone during the lifecycle. Few people are Polonius. There will be times when interest rates benefit you and times when they don't. Overall, you probably do OK, given the long term nature of major borrowing and saving, and the short term volatility of interest rates.

So please, stop twisting sensible policy choices into a story about the government's attacks on the old and weak. Instead, go report on something you are well informed on, like the snow or some celebrity's battle with cancer.