Another opportunity for Russia

Throughout its tumultuous history Russia has went through a number of evolutions and revolutions that presented enormous opportunities to reinvent itself. One of the first of these defining moments could be interpreted to be the reforms by Peter I. Or the failed Decembrist revolt. But more importantly, the assassination of Alexander II, which thwarted the establishment of a duma, well before Nicholas II would be forced to accept one. There is no discussion that a well-established parliamentary system would have altered later evolutions, by funnelin griefs through political representatives. For instance the revolution of 1905 and both revolutions of 1917 could have played uit quite differently, if they would have even happened. We can add to this long list of defining moments the Civil War ensuing 1917 and eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union. Through every single one of these moments, hope glimmered and Russians have caught glimpses of freedom. Yet always, these hopes have been foiled, while undemocratic power-brokers came to the fore.

Today, it appears, yet again, things are starting to shift in Russia. For the first time in decades, a credibly opposition to current power-brokers in the Kremlin is taking shape. Let us hope that this time around, the Russian people seize the moment, remembering the weight of the history they have carry to this day. If there is a people that has had to endure unending suffering, it is the Russians. But few have so little to show for it, today.

Update top 10 crooks

We are glad to update our top 10 list with some happenings: number 2 and number 9 on the 2011 top ten list of crooks have deceased. A great loss for the afterlife, yet the living cannot help bu triumph.

Mr. Khadafi will not be missed by anyone. Concerning mr. Jong-Il, the only reason you would be missed, is if your son manages to perform even worse deeds, or for lack of the terror you sowed, people will try to fill the void by their own.

Proxy government

The markets are sly and very well adapted to hiding their tentacles. No rich consumer, producer or misappropriated hungry owner of goods produced on fertile Ethiopian soil ever knows the magical interaction underlying their ethically problematic exchanges. Not even the distributors or government agents pushing these policies have to realize the full scope of what they enact. Everyone has pieces of papers to hide behind, and beautiful policies of development.

It is therefore quite ironic, to see the markets turn against some of its most enthusiastic supporters of the last half century. Western governments, be they socialist, liberal or 'independent' are running the rat race, pushed to the brink by the turmoil in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And though the 'greatest common denominator' farce of American politics has long settled down in Europe, too, we can see how grand old political 'identities' melt away under the pressure.

No matter who gets elected, regardless of their identity and promises. It is official now: it is the market that rules us. It decides when we get up and when we go to sleep. What we eat, how long we eat it for. What we study, what is deemed 'valuable' (and isn't it beautiful that this word is such a double-edged sword, has gradually eloped its original meaning and has now turned on us) as a skill or as knowledge.

Whereas economy used to mean: oiko-nomia: the laws (or management) of the house. A 'rational' way to manage our household and patrimony as individuals, it has slowly encompassed ever greater wholes. It has now become a very efficient means for the mobilization of labour, though the goals are no longer subservient to our needs. Our needs have become subservient to its goals, which are ill-defined and quite irrational. There is the vain promise of progress, but what is progress but a very human goal? Who or what defines progress? Is it nowadays about nothing but novelty? About making more money in ever shorter spurts? Doesn't that go at the expense of the long-term efficiency of economic production itself?

It seems the only thing we can compare the current economic system with, is a virus. It spreads, multiplies, reproduces itself in ever more advanced models, to attain more control over its environment. But it is so wildly successful that it is choking its hosts: humanity and the planet. Ebola was a very dramatic disease, but because it was such a swift killer, it never lasted long beyond its initial outbreaks. It was not a smart disease. HIV is enormously more successful, as it takes its time to spread, then kill.

Will the economy prove to be a slow or a swift killer? Or will its hosts prove resilient enough to develop with it, as it becomes endemic, while the two learn to define and develop one another, as is the case in so many symbiotic relationships? I am most curious to find out.

European poker

European nations are gathered around a poker table, and stakes are high. Some European nations have all the money they want, to outbet their opponents. More adequately put: less debt than others. Who will flinch first? Our will they all outlast each other and the world economy as we know it?

A more human interest vantage point on the matter: Will I be able to afford a plane ticket back home from NYC with my euros? For now, most indicator still points to 'yes'. But increasingly, dials are shifting the other way: spreads are inching up, big players contingencies' plans are increasing the likelihood of mayhem, poor communication by European leaders and officials, ... . Up to now, a certain rationale behind some of the more stubborn players could not be denied. The Northern, thrifty nations are seeing some of the reforms they had wanted from the South. These 'safe havens' are also paying less interest then ever before. Federalist European apparatsjiks have found a window of opportunity to claim what the electorate has always denied them. Once again, the greedy markets are what's needed to push the envelope many would rather seal: Pandora's 'Federal Government', as the European Tea Parties may one day call it.

But attributing reason to these more deep-pocketed countries and cold-hearted institutions like the ECB is becoming increasingly harder. Up to now, they were able to operate under the guise of 'the ECB mandate', the limited reach of European treaties, market forces and they happily held the debt of the South against it. The latter rightfully so. But market forces are spinning out of control. At this rate, not even when the mighty emperors of the ECB step down from their ivory tower, will the crisis be contained. German paper itself is in doubt, because whether they like it or not, they will foot the bill, in the end. Whether they pay up sooner, later, or go down with the sinking ship. This is no longer a time for petty lines in the sand. This is a time that calls for heroes: people willing to step up and stick their necks out beyond their mandates. If proper procedure is to be followed on this one, we are going to sink. Any one that worked with his hands at some point in his life would realize that.

The natural fallacy

The Natural Fallacy

We’re supposed to return to nature: organic, wholesome (lucrative, no less).

This essay states that as much as we pretend to be in a distended state of humanity, remote from nature, as a species we are still far from shedding our origins.

When we engross ourselves in genocide, waste of natural resources and the destruction of our environment, we’re said to be out of touch with nature. Surely the means by which we perform these are not very natural. Through the development of technology, rationalized organizational methods of individual behavior and an abundant flow of information, surely we have radically heightened the impact of the mere 7 billion persons we are. Compare the weight of our common digestion with that of some species of insects, and you will notice how little impact we would make without these multipliers.

However, though our means and methods of impact have changed, relatively little has been altered to our goals. Like any species, and ordained to do so by our holy scriptures, we multiply and take as we see fit. Not unlike ants or fungi and the ridiculous lemming, we multiply until we can no more and our habitat will be unable to support us. For lack of a stronger predator, the only thing to keep us in check, will the unavoidable extermination of our habitat. And a balance will be attained. That is nature, strictu sensu.

But in many ways, man has developed an array of capacities that transcend these natural patterns. The possibility to step back and look, ruminate about the state of affairs and make a decision based upon that. The possibility of not taking, even when it is up for grabs, specifically to spare, help, or encourage another. These judgmental and moral capacities surely have weak precedents in other, more developed species. They do not make us any more special than the fact that we possess them. But they are there and have developed to a level significant enough to provide us with strong alternative choices to the natural ones.

When persons refuse to take at the expense of others, try to use less to maintain a balance they consider worth refraining for, as for instance in the environmental context, those are strong indicators that men, as individuals transcend the limited instinctive possibilities nature had on offer. We have gained riches far greater than the ones we are burning at breakneck speed as a species.

For, at the communal level, these capacities are far from developed. It is individuals, sometimes small groups that, increasingly, have tried to take a step back and consider our actions. The anti-slavery movement is a fine example. Or the environmental explosion. Significant steps in a different way of dealing, in an alteration of our actions as indivuduals as well as species.

At this superlevel, very little has been achieved however, as we still bask in the natural paradigm, with no end in sight. When our financial superstructure, which, whether you like it or not, forms the backbone of our collective society, is on the brink of collapse… we adapt to it. As a species, we try to ‘make do’. We shift some of our patterns of behavior, try to diminish the worst excesses and move on, leaving the structure itself in place. When our way of production and consumption threatens to destroy our environment… we adapt to it. Instead of taking a step back and rethinking consumption, we try to alter our processing of it to minimize damage. When the distribution and reward mechanisms of our society leave millions without food, as others collapse under their weight or the stress their bank accounts engender… we adapt to that as well. Ignored are individual voices that cry murder (for it is) and clamour for a more ethical mode of distribution.

A major problem with more artificial modes of decision-making, is that we are not used to them. They do not fit our paradigm as a living beings. We are no robots, and any non-enforced mechanic society would never engender much enthusiasm in us, who refuse to be fenced in. Unless we slowly let information technology define us, I see no future in projects to create men anew. They have been tried and failed miserably, if only because they were led by very limited men.

So how do we ‘escape’ from these problematic structures? If an escape is possible, it would still have to carry the weight of a significant majority of people, which is hard to come by on any issue. What is certain is that mankind would do well to create more space for reflection on its actions and their consequences. To envision different possibilities for the future and to engender enthusiasm for them. We have left the threat of a nuclear holocaust behind us, but if we keep living by the laws of nature, we will die by them, and whether we consciously decide on a vision for the future and strive to attain it, or live and die by the sword we wield… a balance will be achieved in the end.

From NATO to PTO

An inevitable shift is taking place in American foreign policy and the world may be headed to a new bi-polar makeup. The game will be played with different pieces, rules and on a different board then last time round. The US-Soviet tension was orchestrated through vast arrays of conventional and nuclear arms. The main area of tension quickly consolidated (Europe) and in the peripheral areas some proxy conflicts were fought.

In the new era, things will change. The Chinese -America divide will reduce Europe to a second-tier player, no more then a market, unless it asserts itself. In the Pacific Rim, tension is already building up. The South China Sea, the Taiwanese question, the Korean quagmire provide ample occasion for conflicts to erupt. America still thinks it needs to maintain the status quo in the region. Whereas, if they truly want to serve their interests, they ought to go far beyond that. A PTO (Pacific Treaty Organization), modeled after NATO would be an adequate way to consolidate the position of it's allies in the region, before Chinese economic and cultural expansion starts swaying them into their camp. It would be a slap in the face of the Chinese, but necessary for the American raw interest, regardless. American strategic thinkers seem to -paradoxically- reason that Chinese economic expansion and military buildup will intimidate its neighbors and keep them safely in the American camp.

This may hold up to a certain extent, as for now we see many Pacific nations rally to the Stars and Stripes. But isn't it exactly America's economic and military prowess that put them in the drivers' seat, in the first place? Big shifts such as both world wars were needed to point out to other countries just to what extent the US had surpassed them. But with or without these major rifst in history, inevitably so, this would have been the result. The Chinese are only to grow in influence and the only thing holding them back will be how they play their cards, how long the US can stall them and how the international community sets out to organize itself. The only realistic balance to be achieved against the Chinese in the future, is a world of interlocked decision-making and balances that far surpass the level of super-nations.

How to deal with dictators

The Western, Northern, First world has backed up many a shady regime. Historically, every power projects itself beyond its borders and has been willing to deal with just about anyone to that goal. That cannot upset their ideological purity, however. At least not at home. That is why it was 'not done' in Ancient Greece to deal with the Persians... too openly. That is the reason why wars nowadays have to be won on two fronts: at home and abroad.

Conveniently, for American presidents, their public is more easily manipulated than the 'constituencies' abroad. Winning the hearts and minds of Americans who sit back behind their TV sets, is easier then winning the hearts and minds of, say, Afghan or Iraqi citizens, who see, hear and feel bombs shredding through their daily existence.

However, on the home front, there is a delicate factor to take into account. They tend to be too stuck up to have an impact on the actual citizenry of a country, unless it is too late, but one should never completely discount the educated class or 'intellectuals'. Never satisfied, not by their own research, or anyone else's, they are a nosy lot and like to meddle. They will always need something to complain about and that is perfectly fine, as they merrily find happines in cutting into one anothers' words, complaining about one another, to one another.

But if the hydra of the intellect conspires on one single issue, it becomes highly venomous and will only multiply its efforts, when faced with restrictions. It is able to harness public support, make their repressed and deceased members into multi-headed martyrs and bring down regimes. Either through violence or through democratic outlets.

And this is why any regime will try to maintain atleast a modicum of decency, especially in a time where communications flow more freely then blood. Even the so-called people's republic of China has to find within it's people, some sort of mandate to maintain peace. In a democratic country, this matters even more, as -theoretically speaking-, public opinion is formed from the ground up. And though ruling classes have their ways of influencing public opinion, they do not determine it. Still, the public can act independently.

This is why the West needs a way to promote and market their half-harted and hypocrite dealings with mass-murderers, half-wits and tyrants abroad. In Lybia, a new blue-print seems to have been tested successfully. Even the most ostracized of leaders could be welcomed back into the fold of 'decent' nations. All it took colonel Khadafi, branded as a terrorist sponsor, mass-murderer, developer of WOMD, tyrant and a loony, was to hand in the weapons, make proper excuses, pay up and open up his resources and economy. And everyone got along fine...

That is... until his people started rebelling against him. Because then the true colors show. We had readily forgotten the kind of crook he was, while we weren't forced to see it. Our intellectual and business elite dealt with him very eagerly. But then he had to go shooting people in sight of our lenses and scopes.

So here's the deal, mr. Foreign Dictator: We support you, if you support us: no WOMD, no violence (when our intellectual elite cares), no terrorism and preferably you open up your markets to us. Everyone makes money, everyone remains in power. But just you remember that the moment the wind turns, we turn with it.

What reinforces this policy in a democratic society is that any 'contract' with a former dictator can be written off as a mistake by the former administration. So mr. Blair, you've been very bad working together with Kadhafi, but Cameron gets to be the hero. The same companies can keep making the same profits and the same electorate keeps putting up with lies. But this time: it's better lies!

Osama style re-election for Obama

Let's face it. After his elections, president Obama was only popular in his own country at one particular moment in time. The only couple of days none of the American public, not even elected Republican officials, dared ridicule him in public are the ones right after the raid on Osama Ben Laden.

My proposal? He should emulate the way he dealt with this particular problem, and apply it to others.

The economy is not working properly? Raid the offices of the leeching Wall Street gurus, whisk them away, preferably after having shot them for 'showing the intent to resist their lawful arrest'.

GOP representatives of the people are a mockery of intellect and reality? Send a team of Navy Seals in to teach them a lesson. Detain them in Eastern Europe or on an aircraft carrier. Waterboard them until they give up their extremist religious beliefs. Then detain them on Cuba for a while, so close to their socialist friends. They might learn the difference between the administration's proposals and actual socialism.

Granted, the approach may not be a universal medicine, but in some cases, it seems just about the only approach left to save mr. Obama from a deepening quagmire.

How to avoid unstable markets

Let's put the solution out there and cause upheaval, so that the persons unable to come to terms with the reason behind this proposal quit reading before their economical knee-jerk reactions cause them harm:

Every stock, stock option or secundary investment vehicle when purchased, has to be owned for at least a year.

But...! I know. Don't worry.

But this will make it much harder for companies to raise money! Existing companies will not find difficulties attracting money if they are running a sound business. It will be harder for highly improbable and hypothetical start-ups, yes. Venture capitalists, however, tend to invest for much longer then a year into companies that are unlisted.

But given the amount of transactions made on a daily basis it's nothing but a practical impossibility to keep track of who owns what for how long!
But, then again, the number of transactions will change enormously. Since stocks are no longer owned for split seconds... you get the math?

But if volume declines so steeply, price fluctuations will actually increase! Or, more likely, prices will be a lot more stable, as rumour and massive sell-offs will become much less likely. There will be no automated sell-offs, less possibility for panic, thus no more flash-crashes and a lot less crisis. Cheap deals will still get picked up. But no longer will people with the right instruments be able to leech off of small fluctuations in share prices, at the expense of others that buy and sell. They do not create value on those transactions.

But then how will bankers, short-sellers and the other leeches on the real economy make money? They will probably engage in what by this very action will rightly be denounced as crime, arrested and go behind bars.

Top 10 crooks

1. Ratko Mladic.

Well known for his feats in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we think this person most fully represents the foul and twisted sides humanity harbours in our times. This crook would not have to be embarrased flanking Adolf Hitler, Josip Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong or other ruthless, cold-blooded mass murderers.

2. Mu'ammar Khadafi.

Hailing from a different archetype of inhumans, Khadafi represents the 'dictator gone mad' to the fullest extent. This modern-day Mobutu is clearly completely off his rocker and highly dangerous.

3. Benjamin Netanyahu.

Illustrating one of the most extreme paradoxes of contemporary inhumanity, this person was chosen to represent the state of Israel. Chosen among the peoples of the earth to be subjected to great unjustice and suffering, a democratic majority in this country today shows they've learned quite little from these experiences. Or is that 'quite a lot'?

4. Lloyd Blankfein

Lloyd Blankfein leads a company that sold it's customers expensive products that they knew would fail. They followed this up by making money off this knowledge and thus off their customers. Oh, they also help countries hide their deficits. Thank you, Lloyd Blankfiend.

5. Mahmood Ahmadinejad

It was hard to distinguish either the 'cold-blooded murderer' or the 'hallucinating fruit' blend of tyrant in Ahmadinejad. But thanks to his outrageous religious fanaticism, he eventually made so much friends in group number 2 that we couldn't bring ourselves to put him anywhere else.

6. Zahi Hawass

The man may not be a murderer. But he's trying hard to make it into the top even without that questionable title. An embarrassment of monumental stature, we hope he'll fade quickly from Egypt's legacy.

7. Ramzan Kadyrov

"The Tchetchen Stalin" as he was called by the journalist he had assassinated later on, Ramzan is not even popular in Moscou. That's a feat for any crook.

8. Jacob Zuma

As president of the most developed nation in Sub-Sahara Africa, this man chose to lead by example. Bad example, that is. Reducing AIDS to something to be showered off, openly stating he would beat up homosexuals and claiming to be God's stand-in for South-Africa until the second coming he is a shining example of how not to run a country.

9. Kim-Jong-Il

Starving your own people into obedience while maintaining a nuclear threat constantly embarassing 4 of the most powerful countries in the world? About as inhuman as they get.

10. Bashar al-Assad

Our last inhuman seems to be suffering from an inferiority complex towards his father. Probably due to the fact that he was only heir by default, it inspired a failed nuclear programme, failed economic reforms, failed international haggling, the slavish following of Iran and now the failure to suppress a popular revolt.

Suggestions for improvements or modifications to this list are always welcome. If you are offended by anything in it, you're probaly n°11.

Top 10 crooks

Statler Salad is ashamed to announce it is preparing a list of the 10 living persons deemed the most disgraceful to humanity in general. Lists of criteria have been considered, then rejected, as none were found satisfactory -as of yet-. Nominations will be welcomed.

The Making of a Rogue State

The increase in settlers and the growing stranglehold of religious orthodox minorities on the Israeli state have also increased the divide with the more moderate politicians in Antlantic powers. Though not taking the form of a rift, we can very clearly see a relationship in flux. Compounded by the increasing reach of J Street in the US, where AIPAC has lost it's monopoly on a jewish truth in America and European nations vexed by the increased intolerance of Likud and the Israeli far right, these evolutions open a window on a future alltogether different from what even the boldest of liberals might have predicted.
In September, when the Palestinian Territories will claim the independence they cannot attain in any other apparant way, they will garner support from many European nations, including France and Great Britain. Even the German position has started shifting, having shaken much of it's former guilt-induced foreign policy stature this last year. In a context where Israel's most staunch ally, after having taken a series of baffling humiliations, has made it increasingly clear that it wants things to move, the Israelis should take note that if they want to maintain a credible international posture, they may very well have to act very boldly, very quickly.
In a world where every other nation condemns Israel for their obvious and reproachable attitude towards the Palestinian Territories, the United States government cannot afford to stand alone with it. The shifting balance of world politics has not been in eithers favour and the US will refuse to become isolated in an a world where it's hold is as tenuous as ever. Thus, the current Israeli posture will eventualy result in a position of complete international isolation, comparable only to that of South Africa in the 1980's. The Israeli state has as much a right to exist as the Palestinian one does. But if the Israelis do not want to end up a despised pariah-state and possibly, a despised minority within a single Palestinian-Israeli state, they had better start working on a compromise.

Cultural Industry

The pistol shot still echoes from the early 1900’s. The cultural industry started off as a private initiative. Writing for the mass media took more then aristocratic ‘genie’. It took a constant flow of letters from the veins of labourers. While the press has all but caved in to these pressures, writing for their daily gains, Xeroxing Reuters statements into user-customised formats to gnaw at the shares of others and giving in to popular demand, the literary world has, strangely enough, maintained a meagre independence. This most likely as the result of it being the target of ‘luxury’ consumption, where people buy goods primarily because of the fact that they are not for the masses. Nevertheless volume and profit also dictate these spheres more then ever.

When we look at theatre, painting and other art forms, however, we can see that industrial standards have settled in, beyond recognition of most and well beyond what we see in literature, where intellect is still a factor to be dealt with (though evil masterminds are probably plotting to get rid of it as we read). Off course, we also see this varnish of ‘genie’ still. But deeper, when exploring the actual layers, they resound industrial production for the market.

The market dictates price and sets the pace. This has mostly been the case, however. Mediaeval artists never existed. They were artisans in every possible way. The great Renaissance artists up until the end of the 19^th century produced for a market and most bended and folded at the will of the commissioners of their pieces.

But then, in the great workshops of Rafael and Rubens, was the production not industrial, as well? It was not, for industry was non-existent. To the contrary, in the course of the 19^th century, the genie of the artist up to a certain point decoupled from this market, especially in the world of painting. Possibly this stance arose through artists who gained so much renown and financial security that they achieved independence from the opinions of the moral and social mainstream and upper layers, whom they used to produce for. Down through the 20^th century, we see the rising of an avant-garde, a core of artists unwilling to give up and step down from this independence, even if it meant hunger, despondency and dependence on other forms of production then artistic slavery. Yet they were free as artists. They did not produce so much for the taste the mainstream as for this true ‘genie’. They took and shook the art world in ways we will never see again.

What has happened to these free genies? They have been enslaved. They have been chained by different forms of authority and control. Over the years, creativity has been funnelled through channels which allowed the moral majority to catch up with these rogue avant-gardists again. One of the major problems has been the funding of these free spirits by governments and organisations. Artists need to live with the constant stress of not being able to make it. They need to chose between art and regular life. Where more so then in art, do extremes lead to greatness? What we have achieved by allowing training and production in the arts to be subsidized? We have gained an enormous mass of technical artists. Who are well-versed in execution. And so they have executed the avant-garde and ventured into the universe of the skilled factory worker, the only reason why they are not clustered into actual factories being that art is a luxury product, destined for consumption upward into the elite.

Too many people posing and wanting to have mental intercourse with their self-image of being ‘different’ have been allowed to venture into the ‘arts’. The enormous means that have been spilled upon the artistic community have allowed average and normal to become the standard where extreme used to reign supreme. Avant-gardism cannot be mainstream. For today, nobody can feel ok being average and normal. The desk-sitting boring man has been declared an outlaw. Originality has become the new average. Ironically this might get to the point were one has to make an art of being as boring as possible to be extreme.

'till debt do us part

So I was looking at some interesting figures about government debts, just now. I don't think I have to hurl the staggering US debt at anyone to make an impression. It would suffice to say that this year, the UK is spending 13% more than it's GDP. If you had a friend spending 13% more then his wage, how long would you two remain friends? How long for him to turn to you, begging for your hard-earned savings?

Many individuals have been acting to this plot. I'm not saying banks have behaved in a responsible way. Few people have as little love for banks as I do. I'm just saying banks behaved in a 'normal' way. If defined as: "ordinary or usual; the same as would be expected", as the dictionary does, that is. What I am saying, is that maybe it is time we all cleaned up our acts. Debt burdens are not healthy. 'But they are a cornerstone of our economic system!'

All the more reason for change. As individuals, as citizens, as politicians and yes, also as bankers, it is time we set ourselves some different benchmarks.