A short introduction

This blog concerns mostly global, economic and political issues. Feel free to comment.

Friday, November 25, 2011

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.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

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.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

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.