Letters to the editor | Edited October 14, 2021
Letters are welcome by email to [email protected]
London Stock Exchange
Your editorial, “From Big Bang to a whimper” (October 2nd), and accompanying briefing, “Britain’s slow stock market”, were right in pointing out that the London Stock Exchange remains one of the largest stock markets in the world and is the largest stock exchange in Europe. An increasing number of companies are choosing to list in London. This year has been our strongest market for initial public offerings for seven years, with tech or tech-enabled companies accounting for 43% of all capital raised.
We agree that Britain’s capital markets must continue to grow and innovate, as they have for the past 300 years, to serve investors in Britain and across the world. world We should also not lose sight of the fact that public markets are an engine of growth, innovation and employment.
The LSE giving strong support to the reforms proposed by the British government and the governor. I am confident that there is a real drive to make changes that will ensure London remains home to one of the strongest, most diverse and international exchanges in the world for decades to come. .
London Stock Exchange
Results v consequences
I liked your article on philanthropy (“Changing foundations”, September 18). However, you made a fundamental mistake in the sector in describing Bill Gates’ approach to giving as “highly effective, results-oriented”. Following the established conventions of impact measurement, in this case the widely used Theory of Change Model, the examples you have given are of outputs, not outcomes. The former are widely criticized for being technical and not accounting for the real changes, negative and positive, brought about by philanthropy.
The malaria web case you mentioned is a good example of the dangers of such a productive approach. Although the “result” of the program was considered a great success, counted by the number of nets distributed, the real result was that the nets were reused for fishing rather than fighting against mosquitoes. By that measure the program failed. In this context, Melinda French Gates’ more comprehensive and participatory donation model is likely to have, in fact, a greater overall impact than a rational, Silicon Valley approach.
Professor of social entrepreneurship
Business School said
University of Oxford
Noble suffering and mutual support were two themes presented in your article about whether religion makes poverty more bearable (“Religion and mortality”, 25 September). There is another theory. The world is uncertain for all of us. Individually and collectively we are informed by conditions and events from day to day that we do not matter and that it is an accident to us. Religious belief offers an attractive lie of a beneficent force that cares for us if we do the “right” things. This gives meaning to life, gives us a necessary purpose and solves the despair of existence.
Between Marx and Seneca you struck a cynical tone, suggesting that religion promises rewards in the afterlife without recognizing the incredible contribution it can make to draw the sting of poverty here and now. You don’t have to look far for the evidence. The official support group representing Catholics in England and Wales, CAFODis part of one of the largest aid networks in the world and is completely dedicated to the relief of global poverty regardless of religion, gender or race.
Marx did not notice that true religion promises jam today as well as tomorrow.
Where sleep is
“How to potty train your cow” (September 18) provided an elaborate solution to an unnecessary problem resulting from an increasingly outdated farm management system. Cows on my farm graze all year round, even for calving. The urine is absorbed immediately as a natural fertilizer and the flesh is quickly incorporated into the soil by dung beetles and stored as carbon. Cattle break the life cycle of dung beetles, have a heavy carbon footprint and starve the bats that eat the beetles. The story of the humble beetle is forgotten, just as interesting as pot-trained cows, and, as we approach COP26more relevant.
Member of Grazing for Life Association
The last sentence of your article ended with “every little helps. ” Surely you meant “every little helps?”
Brazil’s nuclear program
You were right to quote an expert saying that Brazil’s nuclear submarine program is legitimate (“Atoms under water”, October 2). Brazil is probably the only country in the world with a constitution that prohibits the use of nuclear energy for non-peaceful purposes. For 30 years we have been fully transparent through the nuclear monitoring mechanisms of the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency. Brazil is a signatory to the main international instruments on non-proliferation. And our determination to promote meaningful nuclear disarmament is also unmistakable: we were the first country to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Simply put, the nuclear submarine that Brazil has been developing for four decades is a response to the country’s need to look after the vast Atlantic coast. No more, no less.
Ambassador of Brazil
What’s not to like?
A full essay on my pet peeve: “like”, the filler word that multiplies like bacteria within a sentence that doesn’t have the opposite. As Johnson said (September 18), the person who uses “like” excessively is not “stupid or thoughtless”. The problem is that triggering his speech with the word makes it empty when it isn’t. If he manages to remove the word from what he’s saying, it comes across as smarter and clearer without being loud or nerdy. A teenager never has to worry that a ditch “like” will make him awkward.
The use of “like” was familiar in 1959. Thus, Woody Herman’s declaration of the piece “Like Some Blues, Man’, like”, eliciting laughter from the audience at the Monterey Jazz Festival that year.
American comedian Calvin Trillin once said that’s the best SAT A symbolic question for his teenage daughter is “As you like, as you…?”