0.7%: The 1st World's Hypocrisy

In 1980, many States agreed to use 0.7% of their GDP to develop the Third World. Only four of these States have achieved this objective and Spain, as you might suppose, is not one of them.

Anyway, the only purpose of this measure is to pretend the governments of 1st World are worried about the problems of developing countries. Besides, most of these developing countries are governed by corrupt dictators. I think giving money to them is the worst way to help people who live in these States. And, honestly, I cannot believe our politicians think in the other direction.

On the one hand, our governments give money (our money) to these dictators telling us it's to develop the Third World. On the other hand, they put duties taxing every product from the developing countries and "they" give (actually, it's our money what they give) edowment to our agriculture.

In my opinion, the only way to help these countries is to let them develop themselves. And it will only be possible if the First World removes those duties and subventions. I know it would mean the unemployment of most of our farmers, but it's the only way to let their products become competitive in our market and, besides, it would improve the efficiency and benefit consumers.

After all, I think it's stupid to invest most of the budget of the European Union in subsidizing agricultural products that are going to be burnt. But it's another question we will talk about in the future.

James Wilkinson

The Serious Danger of Deflation

In Spain, inflation is plummeting. If nothing changes, everything points to deflation next months.

At first sight, the fact that prices fall could seem something positive. After all, we would have a higher purchasing power (if we keep our job).

However, if you think about it, you will see it isn't as good as it seems: would you buy something today if you know it will be cheaper tomorrow? Actually, you would buy your most pressing needs, but not a house or a sofa, for example. Other people would do the same and sales will take a nose-dive. So, more people would be fired (increasing the number of unemployed people).

Today, there are more than 3,200,000 unemployed people in Spain. Unemployment increased in 200,000 people last month: it means more than 6,600 people a day. What will happen if our economy gets in deflation?

James Wilkinson

Taking Up my Blog Again

I'm sorry I haven't post anything since November. Other tasks I cannot disclose (in order not to show you who I am) took up my whole time. Anyway, let's resume the blog again.

James Wilkinson

About my Nickname

Let's explain why I chose James Wilkinson as my nickname. It might seem stupid, I know.

I had to choose a nickname in order to start my blog. I was thinking about it when I saw my razor blade, that is made by Wilkinson Sword. I thought it would be a good surname to my nickname and I took it. But I needed a first name... I was testing some names and I thought James was fine... so.. I decided that James Wilkinson would be my new nickname. I assumed it was possible there was someone with the same name in the world, but I didn't think it would matter...

Last week, across the big pond asked me about the cause why I'd taken this nickname. He told me James Wilkinson was a veteran of the American Revolution. It seems he was involved in the Conway Cabal, a conspiracy to replace George Washington with Horatio Gates as commander-in-chief. Furthermore, he opposed the new U.S. Constitution, fought for the Kentuky's separation from Virginia, signed an expatriation declaration and, finally, swore allegiance to the King of Spain... what a conflictive man... what a controversial nickname...

I've been researching into it and I've found another James Wilkinson. His complete name was James Hardy Wilkinson. He was an English scientist and he carried out exceptional contributions on the numerical analysis. The J. H. Wilkinson Prize for Numerical Software and the Wilkinson's polynomial are named in his honour.

To summarize, I chose this name without knowing who James Wilkinson was... so... don't think this nickname has a political connotation or something like that, because probably there are a lot of people with this name in the world.

James Wilkinson

Is the Daylight Saving Time really Beneficial?

As you know (well, I'm sure there's someone who forgot it), last night at 3 a.m., our clocks moved back one hour to 2 a.m.

I want to start a discussion about the time's change. The wintertime represents one hour more of daytime in the morning and one hour less of daytime in the evening.

On the one hand, some studies say that in wintertime energy consumption decreases. I think this decrease is small, by a small margin. After all, main industries work 24 hours a day.

On the other hand, the fact that it becomes dark early causes stress and depression. And both things might decrease the productivity. Besides, if it's dark, people do less exercise and their health gets worse.

It's not worth my while to change the time in winter. I would prefer keeping the summertime all the year. What's your opinion about this?

James Wilkinson

Reflections of an Advanced Democracy

I think there are two main things that demonstrate that the USA, with their virtues and defects, are an advanced democracy.

On the one hand, I think it's really important the fact that someone who has voted for a Party (even he has supported its campaign or has taken part of a government) can change his vote in the next election. The best example is Colin Powell, who was the Secretary of State with George Bush and has said he'll vote Barack Obama. I think it reflects a great citizen responsibility. And it's really inconceivable in Spain.

Besides, every member of both cameras of the Congress is supposed to defend his own principles. He's not subject to the Party's discipline because he has done his individual campaign and he has been elected because of his own ideas. The most recent example is the voting of the plain against the financial crisis, where a lot of members of the Republican Party have voted no to the plain that has suggested his "leader".

On the other hand, I really like the fact that both main Parties discuss the most important reforms. Although one of them has the power to approve the laws without the support of the other, they try to reach an agreement before. So, they make sure the main laws won't be changed in the next session.

It doesn't happen in Spain, where every change of government means the destruction of the work that the last government has done. For example, last government was working last years in an education reform. When it was prepared to be voted, they lose the election an the new government threw away it and made another one completely different. It wouldn't happen if they had discussed it before.

As opposed to Spain, in the United Kingdom, where there is a democracy as advanced as it is in the USA, the ex-leader of the Labour Party Tony Blair went on with some of the policies of the conservative Margaret Thatcher. If something worked, why did they have to change it? Only to get some votes? No, they knew the nation is more important than the fact of win the election, something that Spanish politicians have forgotten time ago.

James Wilkinson

Righteous Kill (2008)

This film is directed by Jon Avnet and stared by Robert De Niro and Al Pacino.

First thing I should tell to you is I'm one of the best fans of both actors. Actually, it's not really true, but they are two of my favorite actors.

During the summer, I heard they were going to star a film together. They have only been in the same film twice before. These two films are The Godfather and Heat. But in the first of them they don't appear together in any scene, and in the second they only share in one of them. So, I was looking forward to watching this film and, in the end, I watched it at the cinema.

The film tells the story of two decorated detectives. It seems that a recent murder is connected with a case they believed to be solved thirty years ago. Maybe they jailed the wrong person. Are they following up a serial killer?

I think the best way to describe this film is to quote Peter Travers, who is a famous film critic. In his review he wrote: Some people think Robert De Niro and Al Pacino would be a kick to watch just reading a phone book. Well, bring on that phone book.

As I've said, I was one of them. But now I really think it would be better to bring on the phone book. The only thing that might save the film is its end and, obviously, I won't explain it here.

In summary, I think it's a bad idea to pay to see this film.

James Wilkinson