BARVENNON.COM
19th-29th August 2004
AUSTRALIAN DIARY
IN EUROPE
-
VENICE.IT -
Venice (Venetzia) is a small island with canals dividing
it, connected by a causeway to Italy. Venetzia is located in the
north of the Adriatic near to where the Po drains Italy's largest
agricultural plain. It took about two hours to dawdle to get from
one end of Venice to the other. Before settlement
Venetzia would probably have consisted of two largish marshy islands
divided by
a channel, with a
scattering of other smaller islands nearby. Further channels were
probably excavated in an effort
to drain marshes and/or facilitate trade.
During Italy's warring states period Venetzia was a free trading port,
governed by an oligarchy of merchant princes. The wealth
generated by trading was used to build beautifully frescoed churches,
grand residences and magnificent opera houses.
Regrettably
many of those buildings are now crumbling masonry. There are
problems with subsidence.
I found Italy to be cheaper than anywhere else in Western
Europe. Italians queue for just about everything.
Perhaps
because there are so many queues people have become inured; everybody
seems to know what they want, and they obtain it with a minimum of
fuss, in
contradistinction to the queues in Germany, where a Frau might engage
in
a lengthy cross examination of the attendant, much to the unexpressed
annoyance
of myself (following). I
suspect that queues are part of the low cost structure in Italy.
I had to
queue for my hostel accommodation at Campo Roma. It was much
cheaper (10
Euros)
than anywhere else I had been in Europe, although still expensive
(for what was provided) compared to the USA except NY & Boston.
Any good fast food outlet in
Italy has a
queue. (After
a
bad experience, I actually would not want to try food in Italy if
there was not a queue.) There are queues for the
purchase of travel tickets, but that happens everywhere in Europe,
however, in
Italy they seem to use most of the ticket selling windows, as opposed
to other countries (Paris & London are noteworthy) where they seem
to only ever use about two of 10 windows available.
Unlike Amsterdam, the waterways of Venice had a lot of privately owned
high powered
boats. On the other hand, there were no
houseboats. (On reflection, I suppose the one would tend to
exclude the
other). The canals of
Venice have a different
quality to those in Amsterdam, which were fairly obviously dug
out. Venice uses canals for goods transport. There are no
cars or trucks. Sometimes the entrance to a Venice
residence is across a bridge which bridge is the porch and finishes at
the
front
door. Some of the footpaths, even along the Grand Canal, are
privately owned, and not open to the public.
During my perambulations I noticed a church. Inside the
atmosphere was a transformation.
There were brilliantly colored paintings. The ceiling was arched
and
very high. There was recorded organ music. A family
and a sister of the church were the only other occupants in a church
that
would have seated
hundreds.
- BUSES
IN EUROPE -
Eurostar
nationally franchised buses seem to be the cheapest way to travel
internationally
inside Europe, however there are a few traps. Tickets must be
purchased from the franchisee in the country of departure. APEX
(advanced purchase) fares (one month prepaid) are definitely
recommended, being up to 50% cheaper. Unlike Greyhound in the
USA, the
passenger does not have one month to complete the journey, so you
cannot alight at intermediate stops (as I did at LA and Dallas on my
US$100 journey from San Francisco to New Orleans.) And, of
course,
travel is far more expensive (I would estimate more than double) per
kilometer traveled than in the USA. The English franchisee
holders
operate an excellent service, the French and Netherlands services are
very good, and the German franchisee might be the best, unfortunately
they were totally booked out when I attempted to use them.
On the
other hand the Italian franchise of the Eurostar line is particularly
hopeless,
the prices posted on their web site were wrong and the address given
for their ticket agencies was
wrong, and of the two buses that I traveled on, neither had a
functional toilet. (However the staff were friendly and we
stopped
frequently). The Spanish franchise was also an unknown, I did not
have
the opportunity to find out because their web site was incomprehensible
and I could not discover whether they actually operated any
buses at all.
-
ROME.IT -
Rome is about five hours by fast electric train from Venice, the
journey cost about 37 Euros. Italian metro (city) trains are
often
covered by
graffiti, but it is a different form of vandalism to that which I found
in
Frankfurt. The trains I rode in Frankfurt had most of their
windows opaqued by scratches. Italian trains have
colorful "protest" graffiti. The message in Frankfurt was
nihilistic
destruction. In
Italy the message was discontent about not getting enough (in life).
In olden times Rome was known as the city of the seven hills.
I think I have climbed all twenty of them. Perhaps those hills
are why modern Romans use scooters rather than
bicycles. The old city of Rome was enclosed by a wall that
forms an irregular shape about 6 or 7 kilometers across. The
Tiber traverses the city from north to south somewhat west
of center. The Vatican is built against the west
wall. Most of the archaeologically significant ruins are east of
the Tiber in the southern part of the city. The ruins, which are
undergoing considerable archaeological
restoration, are mostly near the east side of the Tiber. The
Fashion district seems to be in the region around the Trevi
Fountain, the Pantheon and the Spanish Steps. This region
is NW of the archaeological digs, and across the Tiber from the
Vatican.
The Tiber is to Rome what the Seine is to Paris & the Thames to
London. The water
level was about five to seven meters below the banks. The many
bridges
across the
Tiber are mostly arched stone, the two near the Vatican have
statues. As
in
Paris, there is an island in the middle of the Tiber near the center of
Rome. One pleasant aspect of Rome is the hundreds of public
drinking fountains scattered
throughout the city. Being able to
find clean cool drinking water was a major plus in the August heat of
Rome. These fountains
are
probably a
proud heritage from the era of the Roman empire. I understand
that Rome was the
first world city with free public aqueducts supplying clean water to
the
residents, (and incidentally scouring out the wastes.)
The Roman civilization started circa 700BC with
the founding of
Rome although recent archaeological evidence indicated settlement as
early as 1000BC. The Roman empire was a military
civilization, built on conquest and good government, in which it was
unlike the Muslim Turkic empire, which was built on conquest and
oppressive discrimination.
Roman conquest was based on two crucial military discoveries, which
were
military discipline and road building. (According to the
information bureau in Rome, the word "emperor" originated as the
honorary title given to a successful Roman general.)
An
undisciplined army may consist of excellent fighters, but they fight as
individuals. Each individual requires (say) six feet (1.8
meters)
of battlefront space to swing his ax or sword or whatever. Thus
undisciplined troops present one
fighting
unit per 1.8 meters of attacking frontage, or if we divide the fighting
units by the frontage, we get something we might call an attack
equivalent, which would be
(1/1.8) which gives 0.56 attack equivalent units per meter of
battlefront. On the
other hand, soldiers in a disciplined army are taught to fight close
together, and fighting units could be spaced at say one meter,
and although the proximity of other soldiers might require the use of
certain weapons because of the limited space, (the spear and short
sword were favoured weapons in Roman armies) and so reduce the fighting
efficiency of each unit (say by about 15%, meaning they fight at only
85% effectiveness), the disciplined fighters would have an attack
equivalent of (1 * 85%) which gives 0.85 attack equivalent units per
meter of battlefront. To computer gamers this
would mean that the
disciplined army has an attack rate of 0.85, but the undisciplined
army has an attack rate of 0.56. The disciplined
force would consequently win battlefront fights in the ratio of
(0.86/0.56 =) 3 : 2 (on
dice throws) against the
undisciplined force in an otherwise even
battle. It is on
such advantages at the battlefront that victory often depends.
With
equal morale, the side suffering greater battlefield losses will
frequently break
and the battle rapidly turn into route, at which point losses go
exponential.
Good communication & military transport was obtained by the Roman
road networks. These were so well made that many are still in
existence. Communication
is important in a military civilization because it allows intelligence
information about
enemy activity to be rapidly obtained & disseminated, thus
permitting small units scattered throughout the empire
to
be rapidly united into larger
forces. The basis of tactics is to have your larger force
demolish smaller enemy forces, (preferably from ambush). So if
you have 100,000 men, and your enemy has 150,000 men, then if you can
engage his forces before they have united and fight only 75,000 men
twice, then you will have a much better chance of winning each battle,
hence the war.
Originally Rome was a Republic governed by a senate. (It might
have been more accurate to describe the senate as a large oligarchy of
middle
class families.) In its early expansionary stage Rome conquered
most
of Italy, and eventually came into conflict with the maritime
Phoenician colony
of Carthage. Rome started it's course into greatness when
Hannibal the
Carthaginian failed to conquer Italy circa a few hundred years
BC. I suppose that the Romans must have had some sort of a wall
even in those
days. In that era I believe that military engineers had not yet
utilized arrows or siege
machinery.
Hannibal would have found archers to be very useful in giving covering
fire to troops
who
stormed a Roman walls with ladders. The current Roman wall is up
to
about fifteen meters high and was
reputedly built
by Marcus Aurelius circa 300AD, who was known as the philosopher
emperor.
One of the greatest ancient Romans must have been Julius Caesar.
Julius
conquered Britain circa 44BC, and was murdered shortly thereafter
because he was suspected of attempting to subvert the
constitution. After his death the republic became a quasi kingdom
when his second nephew the self styled "Emperor Caesar Augustus" took
control.
(Caesar was
taken as
a title honoring Rome's greatest general Julius, and Augustus meant
"plentiful, beneficial to all".) Augustus had a forty year reign
starting 27 BC. He
later said "I came to a city of brick and left a city of Marble".
Following Augustus a series of relatives governed Rome, many of whose
names
are now recognized for the excesses they committed. Nero &
Caligula had a bad press, although Claudius got a good
review by Robert Graves. Then came a period when successful
soldiers were chosen as leaders, and two Spaniards were emperor,
followed eventually by Marcus Aureleus. After Marcus the seat of empire
was moved
by Constantine to Constantinople.
I found the Colosseum to be the most impressive structure in
Rome. It is four stories high, and although some of it is
missing, (apparently it was used as a stone quarry circa 18th century)
what
remains is impressive. There is a legend from the middle ages
that when
the
Colosseum falls, so will Rome,
and western civilization will follow.
The beggars of Rome were an unexpected surprise. One
day I was standing near the Colosseum, attempting to
read a map to discover the best way to lythe Tiber. A
"rattle - shuffle - shuffle - rattle -shuffle - shuffle - rattle"
approached from
behind, and shortly thereafter what appeared to be a raggedy, bent
over, crippled old
woman shuffled past. Her head bent over by (presumably) a
hunched back, her gait an uneven a shuffle because of (what
looked like) a
crippled foot. After limping two steps, she would pause and
rattle the polystyrene cup in which were a few coins. I
instinctively reached for a coin.
Before I could act a youngish woman ran from behind and furtively
threw a coin
into
the plastic cup. In acknowledgment of the gift the pitiful
creature slowly increased the curvature of her spine, then, without
looking up, continued her course. For some reason my gaze drifted
to
her foot, and after a few moments I realized that it was not deformed
in the slightest. Rather the shoe had been cleverly engineered to
make
it look at a cursory glance as though the enclosed ankle was hideously
twisted. From
that moment I observed all the beggars of Rome much more closely.
That
mother in Termini with a six month old sickly child, with the word
"poverty"
on a sign, who looked
so pale, who nodded so wanly when given a coin? Her paleness was
makeup, not pallor. That child was not breathing. It was a
doll. (I discovered that by chance, she broke character when she stood
up,
dangling the "child" by it's arm). That proud patrician
gentleman, in threadbare
but clean clothes, standing without acknowledging passers bye, a
classic image of nobility met with misfortune. I don't anymore
believe it
for an instant! I
now see the beggars of
Rome as in
a class of their own. They are the professionals; the Hollywood
stars of the world
of beggars. The beggars of Paris, NY or LA are mere
provincial
amateur actors. It would not surprise me if the beggars of Rome
had a union and professional training at a beggar's school
which taught "makeup"
and "image projection to evoke sympathy", and the various
engineering & stagecraft technologies necessary to
simulate incapacity. I also began to notice that the Roman
shopkeepers
treated the beggars like vagabonds, rather than the piteous creatures
that
they portrayed. I have noticed
that the beggars of Rome seem unerringly to know who are the strangers
to Rome.
I found tented bed accommodation for ten Euros a night about 30 minutes
from the center of
Rome, at a place called Campo Roma. It was the same deal as
Venice, but in Campo Roma it was near impossible to find a hot
shower.
There is cold and "not so cold". (If one arose at 5AM in Campo
Roma, the water was hot.) These two camping grounds are
part of a chain, started by an Irish company. The basic
accommodation is cheap, but their services (restaurant & internet
etc) are not so cheap.
In Rome near Termini a Cappuccino can be had
for as little as 80 cents (there are 100 cents to the Euro), and
Croissants for around
45 cents. Termini is the central
railway
terminal of Rome. A more normal (tourist) price is about E1.50,
near the Trevi fountain I paid Euro 2.90.
Public
transport in Rome is an integrated subway/bus/tram
system, a ticket costing one Euro entitles one to 75 minutes of travel
near Rome,
including one ride on the subway. The central subway is two
crossed
lines, each about 12 kilometers long, intersecting at Termini.
Other electric trains operate outside that area.
I found Italian easier to read than French or Dutch or German.
For
instance: on a subway train near the door there was an important
looking red
lever with the word ALLARME on it, and below that were written the
words "agni abusu verra punito" which did not look too remotely
different to "any
abuse very punished". One bit of abuse scrawled on the front of
that train, "FICA" did not require much imagination. Of course
translation is not always that simple, the
message scrawled on the outside of a political party office in downtown
Rome was
VIGILI
MERDOSI BASTARDI
where the vigili seems to
mean "be vigilant (in observing)" and bastardi
seems to mean something like the English word "bastards" but merdosi is not from the root
"murder"; it
apparently comes from the
same root as the French word "merde" which means "excrement".
(hence perhaps "keep a close watch on the shitty bastards")
Italian politics are ridiculed in the liberal press of Australia, who
like to poke fun at a country that has had more government than
years as a republic. Basically the Italians have a multi-party
parliamentary system with a President who does not seem to have much
executive power, and a prime minister who wields the executive
power. Multiple parties actually sounds like a good idea to
me.
I imagine that with about eight political parties to choose from I
might find one that has policies that I am in agreement with about 75%
of the time,
rather than having to flip a coin because each of our two parties in
Australia seems to be about half right in it's choice of
policies. What seems to have gone wrong is that the Italian
parliamentarians apparently
need to form a majority executive government.
To
keep in power, the government must vote as a block. This means
that instead of (rather sensibly I would have thought) deciding
legislative policy by a
majority vote of Parliament, the ruling power bloc decides legislative
policy within the party rooms. This can theoretically result (as
in Australia) in a policy that is wanted by as few as 26% of
parliamentary representatives becoming law. Come to think of it,
our own government allows "conscience" voting on contentious
issues. Why shouldn't our parliament extend conscience voting to
everything
except (maybe even including) taxation policy?
-
POLLUTION -
Venetzia, like the rest of Europe, has incredibly bad air
pollution.
When traveling the causeway the mainland factories can be seen
belching pollution, adding to the low lying smog which reduces
visibility by about 50% over a
distance of 7 Km. Venetian canals were surprisingly clean, except
for the
occasional scrap of paper. In Rome I met an Italian Canadian
(from Quebec) who was on a sentimental return. He said that in
his
Italian hometown, at 1,500 meters elevation in the Appalachians, the
sunrises
were not red. This tends to confirm the hypothesis that visible
pollution is
caused by large particles,
and hence by gravity confined (at least in still air) to the lower
elevations. I believe
that such large particle pollution is causing more of what we call
"global warming" than the much publicized CO2 greenhouse effect.
Most of that large particle pollution is caused by aircraft takeoffs
and incompletely filtered coal fired power station smokestacks.
That electric power is increasingly being used to filter and cool the
dirty, hot air caused by electric power stations and aircraft. Of
course the "merdosi bastardi"
(e.g. Greenpeace) whose self appointed task it is to make us aware of
pollution sources are almost certainly major users of air travel and
air conditioning.
-
WAL-MART AND CAPITALISM -
In earlier diaries I
explained why capitalism was declining. (Let me define
"capitalism"". I am not talking about free enterprise.
Capitalism necessarily includes investment, usually measured in
billions of dollars, not necessarily in a free enterprise environment.)
Wal-Mart in the USA is the largest importer of Chinese manufactured
goods into the USA. It operates a shop-concept called a
"Superstore" and other smaller
specialty stores, (which have some lines missing.) The
Superstores are (by my cursory observation) physically identical,
I paced
a store near Denver (NW) at 250 meters long, about 150 meters
wide.
Like one huge factory shed, high roof, and shelves and shelves of
just about everything (except cars and houses).
The typical superstore is built on the urban fringe of a metroplex
(which is the US name for a city, but that is another story.) It
typically occupies am land space of around two hectares, (five
acres), most of which is set aside for free
parking for the customers. Main retail lines are kitchen
consumables, fresh food, alcohol, clothing, vehicle maintenance &
repairs (with discount petrol), electronics, sport equipment, furniture
(I have probably missed a few.) There are usually some forms of
franchise/concession inside the store, which
may be MacDonalds or Burger King, maybe a bank outlet, a chemist
etc. The thing about Wal-Mart is, everything is cheaper.
Unlike our home
grown Woolworths/Coles combination, Wal-Mart do not sell a cheaper
product at a lower price, they sell the same quality product at a lower
price. They are a Mall without the expensive Mall
Management. My own wish would be for Wal-Mart to come to
Australia.
Australia has not got stores equivalent to Wal-Mart. Woolworths
and Coles largest stores are not at all like Wal-Mart
Superstores. With the unfolding of the "Orange Grove" scandal in
western Sydney it is becoming clear just why this so. Our home
grown entrepreneurs (Lowy etc) seem to have sewn up the "planning
permission" method of curtailing competition. Quite simply, it
seems that our councils have had written into their planning code (by
the state government?) a rule
that Wal-Mart like developments are to be refused. Instead,
seemingly, a
"shopping development" must have a balance of stores, preferably two
competing supermarkets. So basically,
our "malls" or supermarkets are another (indirect) form of taxation
which directly subsidises our established state political parties in
the form of frequent cash "gifts"
in return for their oversight
of refusal of planning permission for any development which might be in
conflict with the donor's interest. Against that sort of
arrangement, Wal-Mart has possibly found the entry cost too
high. I am not sure that Australians benefit from a
"developer" who skims off the
cream, and pays it to planning authorities. Wal-Mart build their
own sites, and consequently can (and do) undercut all competing
Mall supermarkets.
Wal-Mart is a corporation with a mission. Their boast is "We Sell
For Less". And they do, literally. Unlike Woolworths &
Coles in Australia, who sell shoddy goods for a lower price than the
better quality goods
sold by other department stores, Wal-Mart sells high quality goods for
less than anybody else sells that same quality. In fulfilling
their boast they are probably doing more
good for the poor and poverty stricken in America than all US charities
combined.
For those in poverty the few
dollars saved by buying at Wal-Mart means another family meal for the
week, or a new outfit for a child. I might be wrong, but I do not
get the feeling that a Wal-Mart accountant has made a calculation of
what price will maximize the profit, without regard to
"morality". Rather I get the feeling that Wal-Mart are happy to
make 20% (or 50% or whatever) markup on their goods, without regard to
some accountant's calculation which seeks to maximize their short term
profit.
Let me give an example. In the USA there exists a chain called
"Trader Joe". You can look them up on the internet. From the number of
stores and the size of the market they serve, I would estimate that
they are probably several times larger than the Woolworths and Coles
chains (combined) in Australia. They too have a mission, which
could be
stated as "delivering healthy (organic type) food at the cheapest price
to the public. They certainly are cheap. In LA I noticed
that their organic
salads undercut the non-organic salads of their nearest supermarket
competition, they provide parking for their customers, (even within 5
miles of the center of Chicago & near Washington DC) although their
stores are strictly organic food. Then I visited a
Wal-Mart. Lo and behold, they had apparently
recognized that a market for organic foods existed, so alongside all
their non-organic (i.e. pesticide & herbicide contaminated foods),
they were selling the same organic lines as Trader
Joes, at about 10% cheaper! (as per their boast)
Wal-Mart is the harbinger of the new form of free enterprise. It
was grown from small by
the genius and enterprise of it's founder, who recently died. I
understand that it is currently the largest importer of goods from
China into the USA. The new form of free enterprise is
exceptional
because the
enterprise management policy depends on the genius of one man.
Other examples are
Apple, which required one of the founders (Jobs) to
succeed, (They tried an MBA, but he failed) News Limited, which has
founder Rupert Murdoch at the helm,
Microsoft (which has Gates), Virgin (Branson). These new
millennial enterprises are
more dynamic than
those of past centuries (Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie) because
computers
and communication technology allows the
founder/manager a greater degree of control.
For the investor, the older corporations that are managed like
department stores (specially those managed by MBA's) are not
good
investments. Examples are Telstra Australia, Qantas, Disney, many
banks, nearly all the insurance, superannuation and finance
corporations. In general, if a corporation has gone IPO, it has
already finished it's early extreme growth stage (e.g. Sausage).
Detractors (including daughter Viola) say Wal-Mart should pay proper
wages inside and outside the USA. If improving the
income of the 0.1% of the USA workforce who are Wal Mart employees by
50%
at the expense of increasing the cost to Wal-Mart's customers of food
and
other necessities by 3% (always remembering that Wal-Mart customers
include most of that
portion of the
population who are described as "living in poverty") sounds the right
way to do your governing, then you
are probably a rich Democrat. Wal-Mart is paying market
wages.
If America had no poverty, those people who accept Wal-Mart wages
would not exist. QED. As for paying "proper" wages outside the
USA, does anybody think that China would be a major USA supplier if
Wal-Mart paid Chinese workers a "living" wage? (Whatever that
is. So we pay the workers extra, and the local retail shops,
realizing the workers can now afford more, charge more so that the
retail workers get a "living wage" and so on, ad infinitum).
Cynics say that Wal Mart's mission is to make
money. I do not think that is accurate. There are many MBA
managed corporations
that seem to have a mission to make money. Even with the
injection of large amounts of capital by other MBA managed banks and
investment
funds,
(who have probably performed the same calculations as the MBA managed
corporation, probably because they were taught by the same professors)
those
companies are not nearly as successful at making money as is Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart's success has generated problems.
- Unionists are making
protectionist noises, hoping perhaps to have some of Wal-Mart's
purchasing
moved to local (union employing) manufacturers. Even if they
succeed, they will
hurt the poor most. (Wal-Mart will make money no matter where
their goods are sourced. It is the poverty struck who will suffer
because the price of food or clothes has gone up, and the children will
be unclothed or hungry.).
- Class action lawyers are attempting to sponsor litigation against
Wal-Mart
(and any other corporation that gets too large.)
- The decline of capitalism (as defined above and in the link) is
producing strains
in the world economy that
are most strongly affecting Wal-Mart customers (the poor and the needy
and the underemployed in America.). Wal-Mart is already acting to
assist the poor, by advising those of it's staff who are entitled on
"how
to claim government assistance." Beyond that the problem is one
for America. Of course as large scale capitalism declines and a
greater number of people become unemployed, Wal-Mart's customer base
will again expand.
I believe that Wal-Mart's current strategy is
deconstruction and enfranchisement of the pieces. Wal-Mart has
already begun that process. I have observed (and been advised)
that store managers have relatively enormous discretionary powers to
adapt to the local market. All that has to be done for
deconstruction is to
continue that process. The stores will be sold to the employees
and/or local
businesses and/or even onto the stockmarket. Those parts
would operate on a
very loose franchise. Probably the wholesale importing would be
spun off as another or
several businesses. A third type of business might produce a
management
advisory newsletter, as part of the franchise management process.
This strategy will also tend to diminish the
problems (especially legal) outlined above.
-
INDONESIA -
My congratulations to our neighbors the Indonesian people on what has
been reported in "The International Herald Tribune" by Andrew Ellis as
an outstandingly successful vote on a new constitution. I can
only hope that the people whom you entrusted with the task of devising
that constitution have been intelligent and honest in framing a
document that you can rely upon to govern yourselves despite the
machinations and manipulations of self serving politicians.
One
enviable constitutional power brought to my recent notice was that
exerted by the people of Venezuela when those who were discontent with
the activities of their President Chavez attempted a recall.
(Similar to
the recall of Gray in California, which I and many US citizens have
discussed. In general they believe that it is a good thing.
A common remark by
Americans of both parties is
"Gee, I wish we had that power in the Federal sphere"). The Wall
Street Journal is taking a rather dark view of the fact that the Chavez
recall
failed, with hints at conspiracy in counting votes and tales of
vengeance by
Chavez partisans against those
who engineered the recall. I am sure that if there is any
substance to those claims, then that will not be the last that we hear
of them. As a libertarian I wholeheartedly endorse the
constitutional amendment permitting the recall, which was apparently
introduced circa 1999 by then & current incumbent President Chavez.
EMAIL
ARCHIVES.