The word investment has a precise meaning. Broadly speaking, it refers to those funds that get spent on raw materials, equipment and technological knowhow which add up to launch projects meant to create future wealth, by serving as infrastructure (like roads, water reservoirs...). Or, alternatively by running as enterprises which create wealth as when products are manufactured by workers employed in the project that over the years will yield profits from sales to underwrite the initial investment.

So investment funds can be considered as a once only downpayment and they will be recovered plus a bonus later on, year after year.

In this framework, all governments carry out extensive investments. Still one must note how recently, the word investment is being employed more loosely. An increase in the pay of government employees is being labelled as "investment". Similarly increases in social benefits. Phrases to describe this include investment in people, in solidarity and so on.

No matter how worthy and admirable these initiatives are, one cannot understand why they need to be confused with investments which also make an essential, if very different  contribution to the management of a country.

***

"PARTY" JOURNALISM

This year as well, when the prize giving ceremony for journalists was held, no representatives of political party media featured among the prize winners.

One will be told that this was to be expected for journalists attached to political party stations and newspapaers do not report "news" but serve to spread "propaganda". Those who spread this view are naturally to be found also among journalists who are not employed in this sector. And it is true, there come times when "party" journalism focusses more on the political message set from "upstairs" than on anything else.

I disagree though that this is inevitable. "Party" journalism can and should be useful if while giving factual accounts, it delivers news and information gathered from all sides of the national life, and also yes, gives salience - always in a factual manner - to reports that are of interest to the party and which others will have every inducement to hide or suppress.

***

ARE THEY ALL INVALID?

In Georgia, Moldova, Rumania elections have been held which gave some advantage, one way or the other, to parties or individuals which/who do not lean towards the EU or do not lean so much. In the Union this outcome has given rise to great amazement. In all three cases, allegations arose about how the results had been affected by huge interference from outside.

I have no sympathy with the winners in these elections or those who did well. I am quite prepared to accept that foreign interference did occur, although I would have no doubt that such interference came both from the "east" and the "west". I understand as well that in the countries concerned there exist strong popular movements  "in favour" of the EU and in some way "against".

What I do not understand is how always, astonishment and indignation arise in the EU when electoral results do not come up to the expectations of Brussels. But when the opposite happens, surely everything would then have been done as it should be done... so it is assumed!