So the Italians have been very naughty. They have gone around exercising their democratic rights in an inappropriate fashion.
While I personally dislike Berlusconi, I dislike the bankers rather more.
Given the choice between a captive of the financial elite (Monti) and a maverick of the more general elite (Berlusconi) I, too, would prefer the little pervert.
Thing is, the tried and tested policy of austerity is all that our Lords and Masters are interested in debating. How much Austerity. How quickly to eliminate the budget deficit. How much to cut spending.
The problem is the policy is tried, tested and has failed.
Berlusconi has siad the economy must be reflated.
Monti obeys the banker.
That the European leadership shold have allowed Berlusconi to get on the right side of a fundamental policy argument is incompetent.
That they should still refuse to take their heads from the sand, and plan to deal with the Italians' disobedience by scolding them back to austerity, is criminal.
People say unless the naughty countries embrace austerity, Europe will fail.
No.
Unless the European elite learns to respect democracy, Europe has already failed.
Thursday, 28 February 2013
Creationism
So far as I can understand, creationism is a belief that the world was created in six days.
As described in the bible.
And that days are defined as 24 hour periods. As not described in the bible.
So why the big deal? Why indeed. After all, a day, if defined in the bible at all, is the period from sunrise to sunset. This varies according to the time of year. If defined at all by God in creation, a day is the time taken for the earth to revolve about its own axis. This also varies, very slightly, with variations in the earth's orbit.
So, what is the definition of day one, before the earth was even created? The sun which governs the day wasn't even created until day four.
How can this talk of six 24 hour timeslots make any sense?
It is instructuve that neither Jews or Muslims have this issue. It is not about religion, but about politics. About tribalism, cultural identity.
As described in the bible.
And that days are defined as 24 hour periods. As not described in the bible.
So why the big deal? Why indeed. After all, a day, if defined in the bible at all, is the period from sunrise to sunset. This varies according to the time of year. If defined at all by God in creation, a day is the time taken for the earth to revolve about its own axis. This also varies, very slightly, with variations in the earth's orbit.
So, what is the definition of day one, before the earth was even created? The sun which governs the day wasn't even created until day four.
How can this talk of six 24 hour timeslots make any sense?
It is instructuve that neither Jews or Muslims have this issue. It is not about religion, but about politics. About tribalism, cultural identity.
Wednesday, 27 February 2013
Nukes
So, today I read that the UK Labour party is just as keen as the Conservative party in retaining nuclear weapons.
Really. And I asked myself.... what for?
The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of the gun control debate in the US. The basic function of a gun is to fire bullets, but people more often justify liberal (as opposed to liberal inspired) gun laws in terms of personal protection by referencing deterrence. Like, 'I won't really shoot anyone, coz they won't mug me as soon as they see I have a gun'.
So it is with Britain and nuclear weapons. We don't talk about how many nuclear missiles we have. How many cities we could blow up or anything like that. We talk about an 'independent nuclear deterrent'. Which kind of assumes there are countries which might invade us if we didn't have some of our own nukes.
I am wondering, which countries are these?
Also, different commentators have different stories. How independent is this system? Could it be fired without America's consent? If so, could they disable the guidance system?
Other people say we really need some big nuke bombs to retain our seat at the top table.
They mean our place amongst permanent members of the UN security council.
But no one ever listens to Britain any more. Apparently we can't afford to pay tuition fees for our young people in university. If that is the case, and we all know 'tough' decisions are essential, how can we possibly afford nuclear weapons?
This is not for the benefit of the people of Britain. Al Qaeda won't suddenly love us if we aren't nuclear.
This is for the vanity of the politicians.
I will never vote for any party that renews the UK nuclear armoury.
Really. And I asked myself.... what for?
The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of the gun control debate in the US. The basic function of a gun is to fire bullets, but people more often justify liberal (as opposed to liberal inspired) gun laws in terms of personal protection by referencing deterrence. Like, 'I won't really shoot anyone, coz they won't mug me as soon as they see I have a gun'.
So it is with Britain and nuclear weapons. We don't talk about how many nuclear missiles we have. How many cities we could blow up or anything like that. We talk about an 'independent nuclear deterrent'. Which kind of assumes there are countries which might invade us if we didn't have some of our own nukes.
I am wondering, which countries are these?
Also, different commentators have different stories. How independent is this system? Could it be fired without America's consent? If so, could they disable the guidance system?
Other people say we really need some big nuke bombs to retain our seat at the top table.
They mean our place amongst permanent members of the UN security council.
But no one ever listens to Britain any more. Apparently we can't afford to pay tuition fees for our young people in university. If that is the case, and we all know 'tough' decisions are essential, how can we possibly afford nuclear weapons?
This is not for the benefit of the people of Britain. Al Qaeda won't suddenly love us if we aren't nuclear.
This is for the vanity of the politicians.
I will never vote for any party that renews the UK nuclear armoury.
Monday, 16 July 2012
Consequences
When I was young, the head of our school was always yapping on about consequences. Whatever you did in life, and particularly in that school, would have consequences.
I am kind of wondering how it is that we are lost in a fit of hand wringing about financial industry reform.
What these people need is clear consequences to associate with their actions. Le'ts face it, they have been behaving like children, hands in the sweet jar while Mummy isn't watching.
And just like children they have been unable to stop themselves. They have gorged beyond any point of enjoying it, and made themselves sick. Economists tell us that consumption of any free good will be pursued until marginal utility is zero. These guys pushed marginal utility well into negative territory.
Perhaps they lacked the stout sort of upbringing I had, where a few years in a prison cell with your OWN TELLY looked like paradise compared to five minutes locked in a confined space with an irate father.
Either way, there need to be consequences. The minute a few of these guys are pictured, Jonathan Aitken/Kenny Lay/Conrad Black like on their way to prison, behavious WILL improve.
Unless that happens, they have got away with it. And like with all naughty children, that means they will carry on regardless.
I am kind of wondering how it is that we are lost in a fit of hand wringing about financial industry reform.
What these people need is clear consequences to associate with their actions. Le'ts face it, they have been behaving like children, hands in the sweet jar while Mummy isn't watching.
And just like children they have been unable to stop themselves. They have gorged beyond any point of enjoying it, and made themselves sick. Economists tell us that consumption of any free good will be pursued until marginal utility is zero. These guys pushed marginal utility well into negative territory.
Perhaps they lacked the stout sort of upbringing I had, where a few years in a prison cell with your OWN TELLY looked like paradise compared to five minutes locked in a confined space with an irate father.
Either way, there need to be consequences. The minute a few of these guys are pictured, Jonathan Aitken/Kenny Lay/Conrad Black like on their way to prison, behavious WILL improve.
Unless that happens, they have got away with it. And like with all naughty children, that means they will carry on regardless.
Thursday, 5 July 2012
The Capture of the Left
In Marxist philosophy society is defined by the interaction between economic (social) classes. The state is theforum where this interaction is intermediated.
This kind of thing is generally termed class struggle.
In traditional western democracy, the idea is classes are more or less associated with political parties, the left with the lower class and the right with the middle class. Power alternates between parties or coalitions of the left & right. So far, so good.
Here is the West, we also have the notion of regulatory capture. Where a regulator, in associating closely with the leaders of the organisations under regulation, becomes part of that community. In so doing, the regulator becomes gradually less a creature of the general public, limiting those under regulation, and more a creature of those under regulation, a lobbyist for the regulated.
Regulatory capture often happens when there is an industry which is rich, or politically powerful. Or there is a revolving door from industry to regulator.
What I am thinking is the Labour party, and many European parties of the left, have gone through a process akin to regulatory capture.
These parties grew up from the people, and were sent to the seats of power to wrest control of the state from the ruling classes. Postwar, they were spectacularly successful, but ever since the process of regulatory capture has been growing, cancer like.
At the time the financial crisis began, the policies of the political left were indistinguishable from those of the political right.
The process of capture was complete.
Now Francois Hollande and Mr Tzipras are rebelling.
Perhaps Mr Hollande's Parti Socialiste can be recaptured from the establishment. In Greece Syriza is a new party. The traditional party of the left (PASOK) looks dead.
I am wondering if in the UK, and right across Europe, we need a new left. Can the old parties be recaptured, and are they worth the effort? Perhaps it would be better to let the establishment have their empty shells, and start afresh.
This kind of thing is generally termed class struggle.
In traditional western democracy, the idea is classes are more or less associated with political parties, the left with the lower class and the right with the middle class. Power alternates between parties or coalitions of the left & right. So far, so good.
Here is the West, we also have the notion of regulatory capture. Where a regulator, in associating closely with the leaders of the organisations under regulation, becomes part of that community. In so doing, the regulator becomes gradually less a creature of the general public, limiting those under regulation, and more a creature of those under regulation, a lobbyist for the regulated.
Regulatory capture often happens when there is an industry which is rich, or politically powerful. Or there is a revolving door from industry to regulator.
What I am thinking is the Labour party, and many European parties of the left, have gone through a process akin to regulatory capture.
These parties grew up from the people, and were sent to the seats of power to wrest control of the state from the ruling classes. Postwar, they were spectacularly successful, but ever since the process of regulatory capture has been growing, cancer like.
At the time the financial crisis began, the policies of the political left were indistinguishable from those of the political right.
The process of capture was complete.
Now Francois Hollande and Mr Tzipras are rebelling.
Perhaps Mr Hollande's Parti Socialiste can be recaptured from the establishment. In Greece Syriza is a new party. The traditional party of the left (PASOK) looks dead.
I am wondering if in the UK, and right across Europe, we need a new left. Can the old parties be recaptured, and are they worth the effort? Perhaps it would be better to let the establishment have their empty shells, and start afresh.
Friday, 29 June 2012
Power Corrupts
There is an old adage.... 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'
So while politicians are generally viewed as venal characters on the make, democracy works a little better than other systems, becausepeople only have their hands on the corrupting levers of power for so long before the public votes them out. Also the longer a leader remains in office, the more power they accumulate.
It isn't that Tony Blair (of whom I have a VERY low opinion) was better or worse than Hosni Mubarak, it is just that our system got rid of him much quicker, so he had less time to cause damage. Had he been in office for another 20 years, doubtless his children would have got very lucrative jobs.
So, why is it that Britain seems to be in the grip of a real corruption crisis?
If anyone doubts that we are, think back to the following
1) Our political class has been found routinely fiddling its expenses. This was initially done as a means to duck the controversy of raising wages, but got to the point where it was clearly and unambiguously about politicians corruptly enriuching themseves
2) Our politicians have been in the business of selling honours. Many Americans think it is great that British corruptionrevolves around titles rather than money. Do these Americans realise a title sometimes (and not infrequently) comes with a lifetime seat in the upper chamber of our parliament?
3) Our politicians take cash for access
4) Our press can pay off the police
5) Our politicians bow before that same press
6) OUr banks collude to fix rates to enrich themselves and/or make themselves appear stronger
I could go on, but were these things pubic knowledge 20 years ago, we Brits would have been dumbfounded. We have always viewed ourselves as not in the least bit corrupt. No one thinks you can bribe policemen in the UK. But you can, and it happens pretty often.
I think our fundamental problems are twofold, they are
1) That thought that we are somehow incorruptible. Basically, people are people, and everyone has its price. I was talking to a (non British ) cousin of mine years ago. I mentioned that no one was ever caught for corruption in Britian. She said that was a sign of a REALLY corrupt place. I was shocked, this was some time ago. She was right. To minimise corruption, the last thing you do is brush it under the carpet. You need regular convictions 'pour decourager les autres'.
2) We have lost our social mobility. You may think that to be irrelevant. I would beg to differ. The elite in this country knows its children will be part of the next elite generation. There is nothing they can do to lose that status, because there is no social mobility. Every little corrupt trick is passed down from generation to generation, and magnified. There is no one to challenge the status quo, it is a cosy little club. A closed circle where everyone assumes everyone else deserves to be there, and no one else does. We need to start making sure people drop out of and get raised up to that elite far more regularly. Rattle their arrogant sense of security. Keep those knaves on their toes. Like in a proper democracy.
So while politicians are generally viewed as venal characters on the make, democracy works a little better than other systems, becausepeople only have their hands on the corrupting levers of power for so long before the public votes them out. Also the longer a leader remains in office, the more power they accumulate.
It isn't that Tony Blair (of whom I have a VERY low opinion) was better or worse than Hosni Mubarak, it is just that our system got rid of him much quicker, so he had less time to cause damage. Had he been in office for another 20 years, doubtless his children would have got very lucrative jobs.
So, why is it that Britain seems to be in the grip of a real corruption crisis?
If anyone doubts that we are, think back to the following
1) Our political class has been found routinely fiddling its expenses. This was initially done as a means to duck the controversy of raising wages, but got to the point where it was clearly and unambiguously about politicians corruptly enriuching themseves
2) Our politicians have been in the business of selling honours. Many Americans think it is great that British corruptionrevolves around titles rather than money. Do these Americans realise a title sometimes (and not infrequently) comes with a lifetime seat in the upper chamber of our parliament?
3) Our politicians take cash for access
4) Our press can pay off the police
5) Our politicians bow before that same press
6) OUr banks collude to fix rates to enrich themselves and/or make themselves appear stronger
I could go on, but were these things pubic knowledge 20 years ago, we Brits would have been dumbfounded. We have always viewed ourselves as not in the least bit corrupt. No one thinks you can bribe policemen in the UK. But you can, and it happens pretty often.
I think our fundamental problems are twofold, they are
1) That thought that we are somehow incorruptible. Basically, people are people, and everyone has its price. I was talking to a (non British ) cousin of mine years ago. I mentioned that no one was ever caught for corruption in Britian. She said that was a sign of a REALLY corrupt place. I was shocked, this was some time ago. She was right. To minimise corruption, the last thing you do is brush it under the carpet. You need regular convictions 'pour decourager les autres'.
2) We have lost our social mobility. You may think that to be irrelevant. I would beg to differ. The elite in this country knows its children will be part of the next elite generation. There is nothing they can do to lose that status, because there is no social mobility. Every little corrupt trick is passed down from generation to generation, and magnified. There is no one to challenge the status quo, it is a cosy little club. A closed circle where everyone assumes everyone else deserves to be there, and no one else does. We need to start making sure people drop out of and get raised up to that elite far more regularly. Rattle their arrogant sense of security. Keep those knaves on their toes. Like in a proper democracy.
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
It ain't drugs, its POWER and MONEY
It was probably over thirty years ago that I first heard those words. They were from an aging rasta.
At the time I thought it sounded cool.
I realised later that I didn't know how right he was.
I realise now that I still don't.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/201261515312418850.html
At the time I thought it sounded cool.
I realised later that I didn't know how right he was.
I realise now that I still don't.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/201261515312418850.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)