Thursday 31 October 2013

Scary Stuff: Part I

Given that it is Halloween one of the blogs I read decided to come up with a few "scary" graphs to show where we are and where we might be going.

It was scary, to a point.

The charts in question were G7 Debt to GDP Ratios; Health Care Costs and Aging Populations; Income Inequality; and Global Food Consumption.

Taking them briefly one at a time I have the following comments.

It is no surprise that the Debt to GDP ratio of the G7 has risen steadily since the financial crisis such that they have risen from 80% to 120% in the last 6 years (according to the IMF).  This ratio is in and of itself neither surprising nor overtly disturbing-unless we have another financial crisis.

If we do have another debacle, assuming it will hit the G7 nations hard, then they will have much less flexibility to finance their way out of the problem then they did the last time around.  This is why there is such a fine balance between austerity programs designed to decrease deficits and unemployment which could trigger declines in real estate values and social unrest which just might require either less austerity or none at all.

The second chart, Health Care Costs and Aging populations showed that health care costs are creeping up as the population ages combined with lower birthrates in the industrialised world resulting in lower social payments being made to the system. 

This can't be good- and it isn't.  But declining birth rates in these countries reflect in many instances a realisation that children have a financial responsibility associated with them and therefore many people choose to have less children than they might have liked.  Of course there are many people who ignore the cost of children either out of ignorance or a misguided belief that to have children is either a right or even a requirement to have children.

Which takes me to the last chart, Global Food Consumption. 

Thomas Malthus predicted that there would come a time when population growth outweighed the increase in farming productivity such that at some point there would not be enough food.  This was 200 years ago.  To date we keep coming up with new means of increasing agricultural productivity, but there is a tipping point out there lurking around the (next?) corner.

Which takes us back to the third chart, Income Inequality.  This is perhaps the scariest chart.  It showed the wealth distribution to the bottom 50% of the top 15 industrialised nations and that held by the top 10%.  The chart essentially says that the bottom 50% are in trouble-and they are in the industrialised world.  Except for the USA, where despite its' claims of political and economic democracy it looks more like a third world state, these are relatively wealthy states with social policies one would have thought would have presented this inequality.

Without wanting to be alarmist, or Marxist, one cannot deny the fact that as food prices go higher, health costs go higher, and debt ratios to GDP preclude a sustainable increase in social spending that the threat of social unrest will increase.  This could have far-reaching effects on democratic institutions and ideals, and could conceivably result in an increased probability of revolution.

If social cohesion does come apart at the seams- the future could look very scary.

Wednesday 30 October 2013

More Spying

It was brought to my attention that perhaps the unnamed NSA source mentioned in the Bild am Sonntag article was none other than Edward Snowden.  Now Edward started leaking information June 5th so I have to assume that his source of on-going information was cut pretty quickly around that time so I am not sure how relevant he would be as to at-the-minute revelations about Obama and Merkel.

If it were Snowden they were speaking with then it throws a very different light on his self-proclaimed  intentions where he said that he was just trying to help the U.S. national security by prompting a badly needed public debate about the scope of the intelligence effort.

If that is truly the case then either he is very stupid or someone else has taken over the responsibility of the time and nature of the continuing leakage of information. 

In May of this year Snowden arrived in Hong Kong with 4 computers which allowed him to access the highly sensitive information he then leaked/handed over to journalists from the Guardian newspaper.

He then travelled on to Russia where after a convoluted process was granted asylum.

His initial interview with the Guardian opened up the existence of numerous programs run by the NSA which allowed them to eavesdrop apparently on anyone anywhere through some form of collaboration with the big internet/phone networks.

Without question the ensuing articles touched off a debate in the US and in Europe.  It didn't create the same debate in China or Russia although one has to assume that the same sort of surveillance was taking place there as well so either the NSA was not able to breach their defences or the Russians and Chinese were very quick to clamp down on any distribution of the eavesdropping taking place in their countries.

But if Snowden really just wanted to spark a debate about the intelligence effort why has he gone on to leak information which is potentially seriously damaging to the geopolitical relationship between the US and Europe in general and with Germany specifically?

I fully understand that Snowden was full of righteous indignation at what he considered to be the invasion of privacy on a massive scale by the NSA.

I would however think that either he is totally naïve and has no understanding of the damage he is doing to the US-rightfully or wrongfully- potentially opening doors to the Russians or the Chinese to exploit.

Does he think that there is any internal debate about anything in either of those countries let alone the activities of the Federal Security Service (FSB) in Russia or the Ministry of State Security (MSS) in China.

Two wrongs don't make a right. 

But geopolitics is not kindergarten.

Monday 28 October 2013

What's your Angle?

As an avid reader of articles and commentaries in every form of media one of the first checks I make to try and establish the likelihood that the information is bonifide- or not- is to check the source. 

One of the blogs I read claims to try and give a balanced account in their reporting although its' founder does admit that "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives" and so I have to take an extra large pinch of salt when I read their articles.

That being said I guess I had expected more of them than their recent article on NSA spying on foreign nationals in general and Frau Merkel specifically. 

The cause of my dismay is that they chose to use quotes from "Bild am Sonntag" to legitimise their claims that Obama not only knew that the NSA was bugging foreign national's phones, but that he had specifically asked them to bug Frau Merkel.

Now using Bild am Sonntag as your source of information is one step above using the National Enquirer.  A small step I might add.  It is the lowest common denominator of the intellectual capacity of the "mob"-apart from their sports pages which are actually quite entertaining.

So why did they choose to quote Bild Zeitung using an article predicated on a report from unnamed sources inside the NSA?

"Unnamed" sources from the NSA would be breaking their confidentiality clauses and given the nature of their employer quite likely could be construed to be committing treason-but that is sort of beside the point.  Itis extremely likely that anyone within the NSA willing to offer information harmful to Obama is doing so exactly to harm Obama-casting extreme doubt on the veracity of their claims. 

The idea that a member of the NSA would be so against Obamba that they would damage not only Obama but the relationship of the US with one of our most important allies sounds very similar to the mindset that was willing to close the US government and even risk default just to attack Obama. 

What is even more curious is that in indicting Obama they also had to indict G"W" Bush.  Throwing Obama and Bush into the same pot is a bit strange- unless you are just outright anti-US so I wonder just what this "unnamed" source was trying to achieve.

Of course that presumes that there was as unnamed source.

Which takes me back to my original question: why did this conservative blog choose to quote Bild am Sonntag in the first place and what were they trying to achieve.







Thursday 24 October 2013

Who is Spying on Whom....

Today the American Ambassador to Germany was called in for a meeting by the German Foreign Minister Westerwelle to discuss the charge that the American National Security Agency (NSA) has bugged Frau Merkel's mobile telephone.  Just to make it more exciting the Bundesanwaltschaft or the Federal Prosecutor's Office has also been brought in to the investigation which ups the stakes considerably.

Now there are a number of points to be made here.

As the first allegations of wiretapping of foreign nationals by the NSA hit Germany Frau Merkel was noticably quiet.  There were grumblings that of course it didn't surprise her.  Wasn't the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND)-the German Intelligence Service-doing the same thing?  And, even if they weren't, than surely spying by the NSA could not possibly impact her-she was not a mere mortal, she is the Chancellor.

But now, all of a sudden, she too has perhaps been dragged down to earth and suddenly she too is annoyed.

But back up for a second.  The NSA is responsible for the security of the United States.  Unsurprisingly in a capitalist country in addition to the political and military security of the USA they are also responsible for the economic security of the country.

Suddenly wiretapping the German Chancellor's mobile who is not only Germany's leader but to a large degree also the defacto leader of Europe is less surprising.  Without a question Frau Merkel puts Germany's interests first followed very closely by Europe's interests-they are in many instances one and the same-and often not necessarily in the interest of the USA.  Just think of the various stimulus packages, banking controls or Germany's lack of support for some American military ventures which are not easily construed to be in America's interest.

Add to that the fact that she is much more willing to engage with countries like Russia and even China- countries that the USA is much more suspicious of than she is-and wouldn't it be nice to know what she is saying.

No, I am not surprised that her mobile phone most probably has been tapped by the NSA.

I would be surprised however if the German Counterespionage Agency had not provided her with a secure phone, and I would be surprised if she didn't use that phone for all non-personal business.

I am however actually somewhat disappointed that despite her humbleness as one of the most powerful policitians in Europe if not the world, she has suddenly just now realized that she too is a mere mortal and that (of course) the NSA would try and tape her phone.







Wednesday 23 October 2013

Ideology is Easy. Principles are Difficult

There are those who maintain that the current paralysis in American politics is a direct result of the intentional inefficiencies incorporated into the Constitution to ensure that the government did not become an all-powerful institution which could easily fall prey to tyranny.

Why else would there be so many checks and balances throughout the structure be it the three centres of power at a federal level or the byzantine relationship between the individual states and the federal government.

These men were trying to emulate the Roman ideal of the Senate. They were honorable men. They were moral men. And they were virtuous men. 

So far so good. 

The first thing was to declare independence.  Then, after winning a war, was to write a Constitution.  From the start it took a lot of discussion, negotiation and in the end compromise.  It was also recognized that there could/would be amendments to it which would serve to clarify certain points but would not change its basic premises.

Despite all the intellectual capacity involved in the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the Constitution it must be remembered that this was a move from monarchial to democratic rule. The Declaration is a very measured document giving rights and responsibilities to the People. It opens the door to change, and in the same breadth cautions those thinking of change that it should "not be changed for light and transient causes" and essentially should only be invoked in the face of despotism.

They were not ideologues.  They certainly were not fanatics.  Indeed they were pragmatists. 

So how would they have addressed our current debt/default debacle?

Their approach to debt was that it was not a good thing under normal circumstances, but there were of course instances when it was necessary.  Their understanding of default was something that happened because one could not repay their debts.  Self-inflicted default as a result of ideological fanaticism would have been outside their realm of thinking.

They certainly would not have allowed a fanatical group- the Tea Party-to try and hold the government hostage.  They would not be happy with the debt burden we have, and so they would have worked hard to try and work out a reasonable way to find relief.

They would have had their own interests to mind, but would have put the interests of the United States above all else.

Those were the days.




Tuesday 22 October 2013

The 200th Anniversary of the Battle of the Nations


200 years ago The Battle of the Nations took place in and around Leipzig signalling the beginning of the end for Napoleon. Although often seen as the catalyst for the idea of a united Germany, in the end it heralded the restoration in France and was actually viewed as a war against the ideas of the French Revolution by Europe’s monarchs and members of the ruling classes such as Count Metternich.

Indeed, the victorious "German" Generals Stein and Gneisenau thought they were fighting for their freedom and liberty from occupation and oppression from a foreign power, not to put the old guard back in power.

They were wrong.

Almost immediately after the battle the political reforms which had been introduced in the years from 1807 to 1812 were either delayed or outright blocked.

This was followed by a rapid expansion of the political police and a highly organised secret police apparatus which drove many people into what later under the Nazis became known as "internal emigration.

This created a peaceful un-politicised time with a brief interlude in 1830 and 1848, setting the stage for a German Nationalism personified by Kaiser Wilhelm I yet managed by the Realpolitik of Bismarck.

Unfortunately for Germany, and eventually the world, Kaiser Wilhelm II wasn't impressed by Bismarck's approach, pensioning him off and taking matters much more into his own hands.

There are those who would maintain that Napoleon's defeat at The Battle of the Nations and the collapse of the ideals of the French Revolution outside of France gave rise to a "Prussian" Germany. They would also draw a straight line from Leipzig through Paris by way of Koeniggraetz up to the World Wars I and II.

That is understandable, but I would deem it to be too subjective.

I would rather look at the weaknesses of Wilhelm I and the lack of checks and balances inherent to a Monarchy.

Regardless it is interesting to see that representatives from all the various participants in The Battle of the Nations have gathered in Leipzig for the 200th Anniversary.

Next year is the 100th Anniversary of the start of World War I. I wonder how that is going to be marked and if 100 years is enough to bury hatchets.

 







 

Thursday 17 October 2013

News Flash-There Otta Be A Law....

The US Congress was able to get its act together enough to reopen the government and to kick the proverbial can to the next "closure" date of January 15th and deficit rollover date of February 7th.

Where Do These People Come From?


In trying to make sense of the apparent willingness of the Republican Right to force the USA into default my reading brought me to a George F Will who in a Fox News Roundtable with the headline "Default is a Choice" was quoted as saying:

"The last time we faced cataclysm over this was when Standard & Poor's lowered our credit rating, people said disaster. No, the cost of borrowing actually went down 40%. I don't think the markets are as irrational as some of the people on Wall Street say. I repeat what I have said here before, default is a choice. A choice in the sense that we have 10 times more revenue coming in than is needed to service our debt.

We can continue to service our debt by not paying certain other vendors and certain other programs. We will only default if it is a choice and, furthermore, the 14th Amendment empowering the president not at all, but the Congress entirely, says it is a constitutional requirement to pay, under the full faith and credit of the United States, our bonded debt."

Confused?  So am I  I also don't know where he is getting his figures from so they must be taken with a grain of salt as his blatanly subjective interpretation of why interest rates declined after the S&P downgrade.

Standard & Poors were concerned about the size of the deficit; the inability of the US government to function; and the implementation of Quantative Easing (QE) which was viewed to be potentionallly inflationary at some point in the future as it would artificially depress interest rates and increase Money Supply.

As for actually having 10 times more revenue coming in than is needed to service our debt is specious at best. If you are very specific about what debt you wish to service than we could have 10, 20 or even 100 times more revenue than debt.

But really gets me is his use of the 14th Amendment to explain why default is a choice.

The key clauses of the 14th Amendment are:

1.      State and federal citizenship for all persons regardless of race both born and naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.

2.      No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.

3.      No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law."

4.      No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

Somehow he has managed to suggest that the 14th Amendment makes the Executive Branch either subservient or irrelevant to the Legislative Branch and therefore Congress has the sole right to decide if we default or not.

No, the 14th Amendment has to do with ensuring that the Civil Rights Act passed in 1866 would remain valid and that "all persons born in the United States...excluding Indians not taxed...." were citizens and were to be given "full and equal benefit of all laws." (Quotes from the Civil Rights Act of 1866).

I think Mr Will is still stuck in the Civil War era, and I can't help but think somehow he wanted to bring President Obama's citizenship into question, let alone the role of the President.
But what I really want to know is why a respected, seemingly intelligent Pulitzer Prize winning journalist has descended to such rubbish.


Wednesday 16 October 2013

Maybe Time For A Third Party?


The USA has reached an impasse. Rather than deal with the real needs of the nation they continue to pussyfoot about to extend the debt ceiling rather than actually sitting down and agreeing a course forward which would allow for effective government.

The cause of this is in my opinion the fundamentalist ideologues in both parties, but primarily I believe in the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, 70% of whom would rather stick to their guns and close the government despite 40% of that same group admitting to do so would cause severe economic harm to the USA.

So they hold the Republicans hostage in these negotiations.

In Europe given the multi-party systems no one party generally wins a majority and so has to spend many hours negotiating with their erstwhile opponents/soon to be co-rulers resulting in a government which has to take into account the major thrusts of both parties.

So in Germany there is a marathon negotiation going on between the centre-right party of Kanzlerin Merkel CDU/CSU and the centre-left party the SPD. The result could be a "Michael Bloomberg" government: the fiscal conservatism of the Republicans and the social conscience of the Democrats.

My personal favourite in Germany would be for the CDU/CSU to join up with the environmentalist "Gruenen" party thereby expanding the theme of fiscal conservatism with a social and an environmental focus.

But back to the US.

The history of the two party system is that the nation generally has 45% who vote for the Democrats and 45% who vote for the Republicans almost by rote and the remaining 10% at best is fought over with the final margin of victory being slim such that a "landslide" win captures 55% of the popular vote.

Two things. First, yes, the US elections are based on Electoral College votes, not popular votes and yes, Reagan got close to 60% of the popular vote. The former is the way it is the latter was an anomaly.

The point is that the two party system results in a large percentage of the nation not being represented by the elected president, and even more worryingly is that it is the 10% of the undecided that actually tip the scales one way or another.

Yes, the Congress does help balance this out, and according to the constitution the third arm is the judicial.

Be that as it may, a splintering of political parties such that the plethora of "single-subject" groups could be elected-or not-as part of their own party as opposed to wreaking havoc for the main-stream parties forcing their platforms into essentially a gerrymandered hodgepodge.

And I would like to see a 5% hurdle for parties to be accepted into a national government so they can't disrupt the business of government as they do today.

Monday 14 October 2013

If It's American Must It Be Bad?

This morning on Radio 4 there was a report on the introduction of American style monetary awards being offered to whistle blowers to help ferret out fraud and corruption in the UK.

Given that the US under the Reagan, Clinton (sad but true) and Bush Jr administrations was caught up in a blizzard of deregulation and that oxymoron of the true believers "self-regulation" that resulted in massive fraud and corruption culminating in the sub-prime led global financial collapse it is perhaps interesting to see what the American response was to try and ensure that the whole mess wouldn't be repeated.

Also given that the forces of extremist capitalism will always fight against regulation and government oversight it is understandable that there might be some concerns about the methods generated in the US to combat fraud and corruption.

Still, given that fraud and corruption are part of the fear and greed basis of capitalism, and that monetary awards to motivate people to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing just might work I was disappointed that the discussion focused more on the fact that it was an American idea rather than does it work or not.

It is one of the great failures of ideologues that they see the world in blacks and whites and in this case the interviewer and the "expert" were much more concerned with the "Americanisation" of Britain than with an analysis of the "cash for information" schemes being discussed.

After listening to the program all I could deduce is that I should think that everything out of America is bad, including financial rewards for whistle blowing, without any information to support that assertion.

I am severely disappointed with the BBC.

Wednesday 9 October 2013

America Still Closed....


Years ago while one nation after another was downgraded by the ratings agencies the one country that would never be downgraded, regardless of the circumstances-or at least that was the rhetoric at the time-was America.

Part of the explanation for this view was that the USA was by definition the "risk-free" rate, so how can you downgrade something which is the benchmark against which everything else was priced?  Another supporting factor was that if you were to have rated the USA "blind" it would have been  BBB, A- at best so it was obviously in a class of its own.

And then it got downgraded.

Now, because the current problems with America are self-inflicted by the opposing political ideologies the market is trying to convince itself that not even the most fanatical ideologue would force the issue of a national health care system to the point that they would cause the USA to default.

I'm not so sure. 

The most extreme ideologues are willing to die for their cause creating the suicide bombers first in Sri Lanka, and now across the jihadist world. And one shouldn't forget that the Sri Lankans were politically motivated.

So back to the USA. 

It is clear that the closure is causing serious concern outside America as the world power cancels meetings and delays agreements due to their inability to pay.  This is annoying, but not irreparable.  What is a serious problem is that the reputation of the United States is being tarnished by the apparent bloodymindedness of political ideologues who don't appear to have either an understanding, or even more worryingly, a care about the impact their politicking is having. 

And that is just the closure of America. 

What happens if their intransigence pushes America into default?  We have until October 17th to solve this.  Then, at best, it seems that the Treasury can still play around with the numbers and stay solvent until November 1st.  But all that does is push up volatility and forces erstwhile allies and trading partners to reconsider the value of their American relationship while opening the door for America's geopolitical competitors to fill the gap.

And that is if they don't default. 

The ramifications of an American default are incredibly damaging across the board.  It would go way beyond any questions of reputation.  It would be a shock to the global financial system, the result of which would be truly frightening. 

The markets are hoping that somebody blinks.  They are expecting it to be the Tea Party.  Suicide bombers are ideological fundamentalist fanatics.  That sounds like the Tea Party...

Tuesday 8 October 2013

Tell Lies; Never Admit they are Lies; and be Singleminded...

The rise of Nationalist parties across Europe in the wake of the financial crisis and the ongoing high levels of unemployment follows a familiar pattern which in the not-so-distant past led to the rise of fascism and eventually war.

Whereas I don't believe we are on the eve of another continental European war, I do believe that we could quite quickly find ourselves in the midst of a nationalist nightmare.

In my youth there was a television commercial for a financial/insurance company whose motto was "Simple answers to complex questions".  It was very catchy.  And it was also patently untrue.  Complex questions, or problems, can't be solved with simple binary answers in most cases, because they can't capture the intricacies of the problem and more often then not solve one problem and create two new ones.

It is very easy to blame unemployment on globalism and immigration.  It is one step away from blaming it on domestic pariahs as well as long as one is looking for explanations which make for good soundbites and reverberate with those sections of the populations easily swayed by populist propaganda. 

And let's not be coy-propaganda is used to get results-it doesn't have to be based on truth-it just has to be effective. 

So it is half truths, quarter truths, with which these parties will make headway in future elections. 

What is truly disturbing is that the mainstream politicians have felt it necessary to pander to some of the nationalist propaganda thus opening the door to respectability.  What they have really done is demonstrated that their interests are not in making their countries, and by extension Europe a better place, but rather that their interests are actually in staying in power, regardless of the platform.

It is the failure of the mainstream parties to expose the fallacies of the nationalist rhetoric and to work with their electorates to forge a better future which has opened this door. 

It will take a massive effort to combat it, and I fear the train might have already left the station.

Monday 7 October 2013

The Daily Mail

There is a bit of a spat going on in the British press between David Milliband and The Daily Mail.

The root of the problem is an article in the Mail essentially maligning  David's father Ralph. 

Very briefly, Ralph fled Belgium in 1940 as a 17 year old as the German forces invaded.  He had two strikes against him as he was not only Jewish but also a Marxist. 

As a 17 year old in England, and more importantly as a Marxist who by definition was against nationalism- certainly National Socialism, but actually nationalism of any sort as he felt it was one of the most virulent causes of war. 

The stink in the whole affair is that as a 17 year old he kept a diary in which he wrote how disturbing he found it that the English were so nationalistic and that it almost  made him wish they would lose the war. He did go on to join the British merchant navy and fight the scourge of National Socialism.

Now it must be said that he remained a Marxist, studied and then taught at the London School of Economics and as such never mellowed in his views of nationalism and capitalism.

For these reasons, the Daily Mail thought it only correct that they "expose" him and visit the sins of the father onto the son, in this case "Red Ed Milliband" as they name him.

Despite the fact that even the Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron came out against the article the Daily Mail has not really backed down issuing an apology side by side with an abridged reprint of the original article attacking both the Millibands again as decidedly anti-British and wanting to essentially enslave the British population in a gulag style Stalinism.

Interestingly, one of the sources that the Daily Mail uses to indict David Milliband as a Marxist in his father's footsteps is Damian McBride, the disgraced former spin doctor for Gordon Brown.

The same Damian McBride that the Daily Mail described that although he was "destroyed by his own malign tactics” and by “spreading a series of mendacious allegations about prominent Tories”, he is clearly a man of integrity whose insights should be taken as fact. (my bold text).

Need I say more?

Wednesday 2 October 2013

The Closing of Italy?

For quite a while I have been rather hard on the average American and let the Europeans, in the main, off the hook.

The shennanigans in Italy however have made me take another look at just what is going on in Europe.

Silvio Berlusconi, the leader of the centre-right People of Freedom Party was tried and convicted in a corruption case and is now facing the prospect of being expelled from parliment.

And how does he react?

He has instructed the 5 members of his party who are in the current coalition government of Prime Minister Enrico Letta to resign, ostensibly in protest of an increase in value-added-tax (VAT) from 21 to 22%.  The real reason for the resignations is to put maximum pressure on the special Senate committee responsible for deciding if he should be barred or not.

Yes, the former Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, who has been convicted of corruption, is willing to hold the Italian government, and by extension the fragile economic recovery of Italy, to ransom, so that despite being a convicted criminal he would be able to stay in parliment.

I don't get it.  How can a man who claims to represent his nation use it in such a deplorable fashion, and not be chased out of office by an irate electorate?

Well, I believe it is the chickens coming home to roost for Europe's social democrats.  They either sat back and let libertarian capitalism in through the back door or, in many instances, actively repudated their very foundations.

They supported privatisations, the dismantling of the public sector, of the social services and a degrading pandering to industry and financial institutions, all in a move to the centre.  For the parties which once represented the working classes and now find themselves catering to the same comfortable urban middle class that their erstwhile rivals the conservatives are pursuing.

Times have changed. The social contract upon which social democracy depends has fallen prey to the hedonism championed by relentless advertising and manipulation by the media.  In the minds of many constituents, even the least well off, consumerism has triumphed.  The desire to get rich, have fun, luxuriate in abundance, and be happy without feeling guilty is a force far too powerful for weakened social democratic ideals to counter.

And Berlusconi, who controls the media, the advertising, and with his bunga bungs parties personifies the hedonism of success, looks like he just might ride the wave of a nation apparently willing to forgive all sins if the result is success.

Smells like facism to me.

Tuesday 1 October 2013

The Closing of America

I am at a loss how any American, especially a politician, can dare to think let alone utter the thought that America demonstrates any form of global leadership.

This most recent fiasco to hit the American political system clearly exposes the hypocrisy that is the two-party democracy so loved and revered by the American population.  It is no more than a cruel manipulation of the general public by various interest groups who under the guise of democracy, which in the USA means capitalism, use a political system to further their own economic agendas void of any social conscience.

How else is one to explain the Republicans willingness to apply massive economic stress and pressure to over  two million public employees, 40% of whom will either be laid off or allowed to keep working without being paid, and all of whom will be left to wonder whether they will be paid back-pay or not.

The last shutdown in 1995 cost US$ 1.5 billion-to the US taxpayer- and lasted 3 weeks lowering GDP by 1.4%!  This shutdown is over a law which was voted upon and passed- "Obamacare".  Why do the Republicans think that it is worth forcing a closure of the US government by demanding a delay of the implementation of a democratically passed provision to provide health care to every American?

And yet, in light of the fact that I don't think they will ultimately be successful in delaying the implementation, I am confused by there bloodymindedness.  Is the Teaparty tail of the Republican party really strong enough to push them into a fight they won't win?  Is the Republican party now thinking with its tail?  Apparently yes.

So why is the party willing to not only risk serious voter backlash at the next elections but to also risk damaging the US economic recovery which in turn will make it that much more difficult for the rest of the world to recover economically all because of a policy which in every other democracy is seen as a social and moral right?

Aha.  The idea that a state has moral andnsocial responsibilities doesn't fit into the ideology of the Republican right- even while they all feed at that great social creation of Medicare and Medicaid. 

Now that's great global leadership.