When the IMF, the ECB and the European Commission, when newspaper pundits and economists worldwide hammer on Greece to deregulate its economy to nurture growth, or laud Portugal for doing so, there are a number of things they forget. Yes, the organization of the Greek economy in an almost guild-like fashion curbs growth. Entrenched castes as varied as truck-drivers and notaries shield their inefficiently harvested 'turfs' from the public benefit. Opening everything up to exploitation by corporations may entail growth. It also opens the door for more low-wage labor to trickle in, and lowering standards of service. And very importantly, deregulation attack certain distinct and traditional features of the societies they seek to open up for trade. Of course, with the benefits of an advanced society come its burdens. And 'business as usual' is obviously not sustainable. There is a dire need for change in many European countries. But some things are uncountables. Not every country wants Sunday to be a shopping day. And Southern Europe enjoys its siesta, in whichever national form it takes place. Moreover, a fair society with advanced and efficient social security is not something Europeans are about to give up. Europe does not feel much like turning into the United States.
Some traditional aspects of European society need not be changed to enter into the global era. And the most obvious example of this is one of the countries that is vaunted about by economists for its efficiency: Germany. Germany has one of the most elaborate welfare systems in Europe. Moreover, its retail sector and domestic consumption economy are 'underdeveloped' by any benchmark. But Germany works very hard and Germany works very well. Which goes to show that margins for efficiency can be sought in a lot of places, and that it is up for Europeans themselves to decide where to find them. A pan-European dialogue on these issues has to be launched and it has to be launched now. Unless we want to chase after the hollow rhetoric of the 'American Dream'. If US citizens don't appreciate vacation and consumer protection they can work around the clock for all I care. If they do not care for universal education of any standards, affordable medical care, job security or social mobility that is their choice. They can be inefficient, throw money at wars, insurance companies, lawyers, financial institutions, have their two-tier society and be as rich and as poor as they want. But let's not impose that vision on Europe. Germany, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and so many European countries show where economics and a good life can co-exist. Let's make it work for all of Europe.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Top Dollar
It is about time some of the argumentation behind the lower taxation rates for rich Americans get questioned. The reason capital interest gains on investments are taxed lower, is that this spurs economic growth. The extra return on investment allows our captains of industry and entrepreneurs to create more jobs and increase general welfare. But it also allows people like mr. Lauder to increase inherited capital having it invested for him by others. This has nothing to do with American enterpreneurship being boosted.
Then consider the extra money flowing into these people's pockets. Where do you think these dollars are invested? Many of them on foreign stock exchanges and in foreign companies, surely. And if invested in American companies, I am certain these companies use them increasingly to fund outsourced production units abroad. It would be very interesting to see how many of the dollars extended to the top layer of the income bracket actually flow back into America.
For venture capital companies in Silicon Valley or Massachusets, capital gains might make a lot of sense. But enriching Americans that don't know where to put there money, in order to increase the welfare of marauder companies, that will set up shop wherever they make most bang for the buck hardly seems hardly worth the lurching gap between federal income and expenditure.
Imagine what these billions of dollars could do in education, infrastructure or deficit reduction instead and the long-term gains seem a lot more evident, than those of bankrolling corporations and billionaires awash in cash.
Then consider the extra money flowing into these people's pockets. Where do you think these dollars are invested? Many of them on foreign stock exchanges and in foreign companies, surely. And if invested in American companies, I am certain these companies use them increasingly to fund outsourced production units abroad. It would be very interesting to see how many of the dollars extended to the top layer of the income bracket actually flow back into America.
For venture capital companies in Silicon Valley or Massachusets, capital gains might make a lot of sense. But enriching Americans that don't know where to put there money, in order to increase the welfare of marauder companies, that will set up shop wherever they make most bang for the buck hardly seems hardly worth the lurching gap between federal income and expenditure.
Imagine what these billions of dollars could do in education, infrastructure or deficit reduction instead and the long-term gains seem a lot more evident, than those of bankrolling corporations and billionaires awash in cash.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
An eloquent, yet eclectic defense
In an editorial piece published Feb. 4, the Intenaional Herald Tribune, the global version of the New York Times, defends the record of Baltasar Garzon. This Spanish judge, well-known and respected by many for pursuing high-profile cases against, among others Pinochet, Argentinian generals, Basque terrorists and others, is now being prosecuted himself.
He is under investigation, due to the breaking of a post-Franco amnesty law, which is obviously outdated and unjust. The Franco era is long gone and these inquiries would not damage Spanish democracy or civil society. They would only serve justice and the memories of the tens of thousands who disappeared.
He is also under investigation in relation to two other politically sensitive cases, which are less clear-cut and most importantly, of minor historical influence, proportionally.
What the opinion-makers of this respectable news outlet forget to mention, however, in the defense of senor Garzon, is his attempt to file a case against six US officials that facilitated torture under the Bush administration and his investigation on the Guantanamo prison camp. Perhaps too sensitive for their readers, but certainly not less commendable.
He is under investigation, due to the breaking of a post-Franco amnesty law, which is obviously outdated and unjust. The Franco era is long gone and these inquiries would not damage Spanish democracy or civil society. They would only serve justice and the memories of the tens of thousands who disappeared.
He is also under investigation in relation to two other politically sensitive cases, which are less clear-cut and most importantly, of minor historical influence, proportionally.
What the opinion-makers of this respectable news outlet forget to mention, however, in the defense of senor Garzon, is his attempt to file a case against six US officials that facilitated torture under the Bush administration and his investigation on the Guantanamo prison camp. Perhaps too sensitive for their readers, but certainly not less commendable.
True Colonialism
The Islas Malvinas will never stop being an area of contention. Argentina claims the archipelago taken by the British ever since Argentina came to be. The Falklands, as the British like to refer to them, are unalienable and rightfully Argentinian territory. The British, according to the Argentinian account, display an outdated, colonial attitude, and would do better to move into the 21st century.
This Argentinian discourse is a very strange one, however, as it is so easy to point out several hypocricies in the outlook of Buenos Aires. Firstly, the reason Argentine claims the islands is not cultural, ethnic. You will struggle hard to find a repressed Argentinian majority or even minority on these islands. The Argentinian claim puts it on the same level of entitlement to the islands as the French and the Spanish. In fact, it puts them in line behind them. Because they left footprints well before any 'Argentinian' ever came to be. The British were there before the Argentinians, as well. But they came back afterwards and left a population that has been dieing and giving birth on the islands for almost 200 years now. These people consider themselves British.
'But they don't originally belong there' Argentinians would claim. Well, no-one belongs on an uninhabited archipelago then. British or Argentinian. But the most curious part of this whole reasoning, is that Argentina uses a reasoning that can be turned against them even more easily. If they blame the British for appropriating uninhabited islands, they should perhaps not be so secure in their ownership of Argentina itself. A country robbed from under the feet of the native Mapuches, Charruas, Guaranies, ...
The lack of consideration given their flimsy claims, betray then what they really are: cheap populism. Efficient maybe, but no less reprehensible. Especially given the association of this discourse with the former dictatorship. Miss Kirchner should know better than promoting knee-jerk nationalism.
This Argentinian discourse is a very strange one, however, as it is so easy to point out several hypocricies in the outlook of Buenos Aires. Firstly, the reason Argentine claims the islands is not cultural, ethnic. You will struggle hard to find a repressed Argentinian majority or even minority on these islands. The Argentinian claim puts it on the same level of entitlement to the islands as the French and the Spanish. In fact, it puts them in line behind them. Because they left footprints well before any 'Argentinian' ever came to be. The British were there before the Argentinians, as well. But they came back afterwards and left a population that has been dieing and giving birth on the islands for almost 200 years now. These people consider themselves British.
'But they don't originally belong there' Argentinians would claim. Well, no-one belongs on an uninhabited archipelago then. British or Argentinian. But the most curious part of this whole reasoning, is that Argentina uses a reasoning that can be turned against them even more easily. If they blame the British for appropriating uninhabited islands, they should perhaps not be so secure in their ownership of Argentina itself. A country robbed from under the feet of the native Mapuches, Charruas, Guaranies, ...
The lack of consideration given their flimsy claims, betray then what they really are: cheap populism. Efficient maybe, but no less reprehensible. Especially given the association of this discourse with the former dictatorship. Miss Kirchner should know better than promoting knee-jerk nationalism.
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Huntsman show
Mr. Huntsman isn't fooling anyone. Not even me. He never meant to seriously contend in these elections. He's banking on Romney losing to Obama. If not, he'll wait another 4 years. But he rather wouldn't. Huntsman is preparing his 2016 bid.
He -correctly- realizes that his name doesn't carry enough weight yet. He needs to promote his brand, and he's doing just that. In the most effective, grass-roots way possible. If he's not a marketing genius (or hired one), then he's on a lucky streak. The image he's been emanating is working wonders, especially with independents:
He's going at it alone. Who needs his billionaire father? In America, you have to make your own way, instead of buying it. Why on earth spend money that won't buy you anything (yet), when not spending it garners you sympathy? In these times of political gridlock, he is waiting for it to wear people out enough, to yearn for a straight-talking moderate, focusing on issues. Someone who sticks out. Someone who may not always hold their opinion, but at least you know he's not going to flip-flop on you. Someone like Jon Huntsman.
And you know what? It's kind of for me. I just hope you're actually 'that kind of guy', instead of cooking this up as a clever plan, raised by pundits and your father's marketeers.
He -correctly- realizes that his name doesn't carry enough weight yet. He needs to promote his brand, and he's doing just that. In the most effective, grass-roots way possible. If he's not a marketing genius (or hired one), then he's on a lucky streak. The image he's been emanating is working wonders, especially with independents:
He's going at it alone. Who needs his billionaire father? In America, you have to make your own way, instead of buying it. Why on earth spend money that won't buy you anything (yet), when not spending it garners you sympathy? In these times of political gridlock, he is waiting for it to wear people out enough, to yearn for a straight-talking moderate, focusing on issues. Someone who sticks out. Someone who may not always hold their opinion, but at least you know he's not going to flip-flop on you. Someone like Jon Huntsman.
And you know what? It's kind of for me. I just hope you're actually 'that kind of guy', instead of cooking this up as a clever plan, raised by pundits and your father's marketeers.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Republican Rat Race
It is looking more and more like mr. Romney will become the candidate to face the incumbent. Every other candidate had their surge, but Romney has remained well ahead of the pack, globally. Iowa may not fall to him, but as mr. Pawlenty stated it is where they pick corn such as Huckabee, instead of presidents.
It appears all Romney has to do, is beat down on his closest antagonist (Gingrich for now), and he will be able to claim the prize. This seems strange, as a majority of republican voters would prefer not to see Romney on their ballot. The problem is that among the more rightist and religious wing of the party, the field is too divided. Paul, Perry, Santorum and Bachmann will have to share these votes until they start giving up. Most likely Bachmann will throw in the towel first. But the others may last longer, leaving the real fight between Gingrich and Romney very much biased towards the latter. Pawlenty, for now, is not even in this race, unless his New Hampshire miracle produces.
And while Romney accumulates more votes than the others proportionally, he can only hope for this standoff to last as long as possible, leaving him with a considerable advantage over the ones that remain in the race. Momentum will shift his way, as his advantage becomes clearer. Thus, many Republicans my find themselves voting for the lesser of two evils, next presidential elections.
It appears all Romney has to do, is beat down on his closest antagonist (Gingrich for now), and he will be able to claim the prize. This seems strange, as a majority of republican voters would prefer not to see Romney on their ballot. The problem is that among the more rightist and religious wing of the party, the field is too divided. Paul, Perry, Santorum and Bachmann will have to share these votes until they start giving up. Most likely Bachmann will throw in the towel first. But the others may last longer, leaving the real fight between Gingrich and Romney very much biased towards the latter. Pawlenty, for now, is not even in this race, unless his New Hampshire miracle produces.
And while Romney accumulates more votes than the others proportionally, he can only hope for this standoff to last as long as possible, leaving him with a considerable advantage over the ones that remain in the race. Momentum will shift his way, as his advantage becomes clearer. Thus, many Republicans my find themselves voting for the lesser of two evils, next presidential elections.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)