Quite clearly, on their way to the Stock Exchange, Maltese private companies prefer to sell bonds not shares. They do this in order to strengthen their capital base without having to worry about the restrictions that banks impose. At the same time, they maintain the flexibility of their operations and perhaps lighten their borrowing expense.

Little interest is shown in issuing shares. They are considered to be problematic as likely to weaken the control of current owners over their own enterprise, which is felt to be totally unacceptable. Still, putting aside the share option might be a grave error.

There exist many methods by which even with a share issue, certain controls over the running of an enterprise could be kept in the hands of the original investors. In a medium to long term perspective, new shares could put a much lighter financial burden over the enterprise than would a bank loan or a bond issue.

Maltese companies big and small are still very reluctant to accept this. The same attitude prevails right across many European firms. 

***

Eurozone rules

The discussions concerning a change in the rules that govern the eurozone are still ongoing. With time, they have become more complicated and in my view more opaque. Economic, financial, social, environmental, political considerations have continued to get into the mix even as technical details are reviewed.

It's not the first time that I have said the process reminds me of the controversies which used to engross theologians of the Middle Ages. Like those controversies, the eurozone reform process has evolved a techno-political jargon that is of the utmost significance to those who employ it, but which for those outside the process signifies practically nothing.

Moreover, doubts have escalated about whether this "mountain" of meetings, proposals, comments and conterproposals might not end up giving birth to a mouse. On this point as well I am repeating myself.

***

Culture

That spending on culture has become substantial and has remained substantial is a very good thing. It has increased and widened the spread of cultural activity with an ever improving choice of projects.

Queries persist though.

What kind of cultural activity had best be chosen? One which emphasizes artistic creation that is tied to national realities? Or one which seeks links with art forms that are gaining international acceptance, indeed global recognition?

On the other hand, what balance should be kept between a popular form of artistic expression and its alternatve that has minority appeal, and which possibly gets caricatured as a tool of the elites? Should this balance be guided forward, or should it be allowed to evolve on its own?

Again: What balance is being kept between new arts and cultural acitivites, and the productions and styles of past generations? Just as it is not a good idea to allow the past to dominate today's scenario, it would be equally mistaken to let today's realities appear like they are transitory developments, with no grounding in social life, since they ignore or have forgotten the past.

Replies to such queries do not always receive clear replies.