In a recent debate on Britain's place in the European Union held at Bloomberg's London headquarters Luke Johnson, famous for having created the Pizza Express brand, decided to show that he should have stuck to pizza and not politics by announcing that "the European Union was 'built on German guilt' after World War Two".
No Mr Johnson, Germany has many things for which its sense of guilt associated with the Second World War "directs" it choices, but the creation of the EU is not one of them.
Germany was indeed involved in the creation of the EEC. But it was not out of guilt. It was corralled into the EEC out of fear by the victorious allies. A fear that Germany would once again, despite an unconditional surrender and a complete collapse, physically, politically and economically, rise up and once again wreak havoc in Europe.
Now if you want to twist things and say that it was guilt that made Germany provide the bulk of troops to NATO second only to the US, you can.
If you want to twist things to suggest that it was guilt that made Germany pay more into the European Economic Community than it received, you can.
If you want to twist things to suggest that guilt was the driver behinds Germany's willingness to take a "backseat" at the table, then you can.
But you would be wrong.
No Mr Johnson, I don't think your memory-if you ever took the time to look into the facts-is clear. I think that you are forgetting that despite the integration of Germany into Europe by the victors it is once again becoming the dominant continental power-a thought which is anathema to 600 years of English geopolitical strategy.
Granted, this time it is through economic rather than military prowess, it still stirs that underlying British fear of German hegemony in Europe.
And so it is not surprising that Mr Johnson would try and play the guilt card to try and squeeze Germany back into its box.
No not surprising.
And not correct.
Thursday, 27 February 2014
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
There is no Escaping the Past....nor the Future....
I am fully aware of the dangers of the Ukraine. As always national boundaries are drawn by the victors, sometimes constructively, and sometimes maliciously. The Ukraine has suffered from this almost since its inception and certainly its most recent manifestation arising from the ashes of the Second World War is flawed to the core with battle lines being drawn along religious, ethnic and political lines.
Post-Soviet Russia might have changed it's political stripes and openly embraced capitalism-but its territorial imperialism, even if it is to defend its national interests against perceived threats- both real and imagined-is as strong as ever.
The EU and the USA are engaging in a dangerous game of baiting the Russian bear as if the wars in Chechnya, in Georgia, not to mention the interventions in Budapest and Prague were not part of a long term geopolitical dance with destiny.
No one in the West wants to go to war over the Ukraine and so the West's antics are more to discomfort Russia rather the prick it into overt aggression-if Russia plays along.
I would suggest however that on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the First World War which, despite Bismarck's famous statement that "the Balkans weren't worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier ended up costing a lot of bones, the majority of which were not from Pomerania, that we be very careful of our actions in the Ukraine.
I'm not sure that it's that much different than Egypt or Syria except that Russia sits on the other side of the board.
I am not forgetting nor suggesting that the path of appeasement was any more successful 25 years later, but we should be very clear of the ramifications of our actions and react strategically rather then the tactical positioning which smacks of opportunism as practiced by dilettantes..
Post-Soviet Russia might have changed it's political stripes and openly embraced capitalism-but its territorial imperialism, even if it is to defend its national interests against perceived threats- both real and imagined-is as strong as ever.
The EU and the USA are engaging in a dangerous game of baiting the Russian bear as if the wars in Chechnya, in Georgia, not to mention the interventions in Budapest and Prague were not part of a long term geopolitical dance with destiny.
No one in the West wants to go to war over the Ukraine and so the West's antics are more to discomfort Russia rather the prick it into overt aggression-if Russia plays along.
I would suggest however that on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the First World War which, despite Bismarck's famous statement that "the Balkans weren't worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier ended up costing a lot of bones, the majority of which were not from Pomerania, that we be very careful of our actions in the Ukraine.
I'm not sure that it's that much different than Egypt or Syria except that Russia sits on the other side of the board.
I am not forgetting nor suggesting that the path of appeasement was any more successful 25 years later, but we should be very clear of the ramifications of our actions and react strategically rather then the tactical positioning which smacks of opportunism as practiced by dilettantes..
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
The Perils of Populism
An epitaph for the 20th Century could very well be Socialism; Fascism; and Communism.
The world experienced the advent of all three "ism's" with tragic consequences in the latter two and interesting incursions into the basic capitalist setup by the former.
Socialism and Communism developed to combat the perceived injustices of capitalism combined in many cases with the remnants of monarchism and the established class systems.
Fascism on the other hand was designed to restore some warped perception of past glory essentially recreating a monarchical caste to "defend" against the ravages of Socialism not to mention Communism.
They all have the requirement for an enemy or scapegoat: the rich; the poor; the Jew; basically the "other" against whom they can rant and rave.
In this aspect they all have the potential to fall prey to the latent disease inherent in democracy-
populism.
For populism has the ability to take a kernel of truth and turn it into a monster of exaggeration and lies.
Take the recent vote of the Swiss which passed a referendum to limit immigration with the slightest of majorities- 0.6%.
Two million out of a total Swiss population of eight million are foreign.
The largest contingent are Italians who make up just under a third. The second largest are Germans who make up a little less and lastly the Portuguese who make up the majority of the rest.
The Germans are almost exclusively in the professional classes. The Italians are professional and skilled labour and the Portugese provide a significant part of the menial labour and the lower eschelons of the health care.
The majority of the foreign workers are in the cities. The "no" vote- that is the vote not to introduce limitations on immigration came from the cities. The "yes" vote- the anti-foreign vote- came from the countryside where the number of immigrants is minimal.
A perfect example of the creation of a scapegoat, of fomenting fear and loathing of the unknown by a populist, nationalist xenophobic movement .
Unfortunately this seems to be the traditional route taken by the Right. Create an enemy. Exaggerate the danger. Come to power. And then consolidate your position by creating ever more scapegoats.
My problem is not the Swiss. They are a relatively small group and don't appear to have territorial aims in Europe.
My concern is that every other right wing populist party in the EU will now latch on to the Swiss example and parlay that into a "seat at the table" of the political elites.
This has happened before.
It didn't end well.
Simple answers to complex questions don't really exist.
But they are alluring.
The world experienced the advent of all three "ism's" with tragic consequences in the latter two and interesting incursions into the basic capitalist setup by the former.
Socialism and Communism developed to combat the perceived injustices of capitalism combined in many cases with the remnants of monarchism and the established class systems.
Fascism on the other hand was designed to restore some warped perception of past glory essentially recreating a monarchical caste to "defend" against the ravages of Socialism not to mention Communism.
They all have the requirement for an enemy or scapegoat: the rich; the poor; the Jew; basically the "other" against whom they can rant and rave.
In this aspect they all have the potential to fall prey to the latent disease inherent in democracy-
populism.
For populism has the ability to take a kernel of truth and turn it into a monster of exaggeration and lies.
Take the recent vote of the Swiss which passed a referendum to limit immigration with the slightest of majorities- 0.6%.
Two million out of a total Swiss population of eight million are foreign.
The largest contingent are Italians who make up just under a third. The second largest are Germans who make up a little less and lastly the Portuguese who make up the majority of the rest.
The Germans are almost exclusively in the professional classes. The Italians are professional and skilled labour and the Portugese provide a significant part of the menial labour and the lower eschelons of the health care.
The majority of the foreign workers are in the cities. The "no" vote- that is the vote not to introduce limitations on immigration came from the cities. The "yes" vote- the anti-foreign vote- came from the countryside where the number of immigrants is minimal.
A perfect example of the creation of a scapegoat, of fomenting fear and loathing of the unknown by a populist, nationalist xenophobic movement .
Unfortunately this seems to be the traditional route taken by the Right. Create an enemy. Exaggerate the danger. Come to power. And then consolidate your position by creating ever more scapegoats.
My problem is not the Swiss. They are a relatively small group and don't appear to have territorial aims in Europe.
My concern is that every other right wing populist party in the EU will now latch on to the Swiss example and parlay that into a "seat at the table" of the political elites.
This has happened before.
It didn't end well.
Simple answers to complex questions don't really exist.
But they are alluring.
Monday, 10 February 2014
Net Neutrality
Years ago Noam Chomsky wrote the book "Manufacturing Consent". In it one of the things he railed against was the small circle of families-26 I believe was the number-across the globe who together essentially owned the world of print media.
In the US they were held in check by the "Fairness Doctrine" which was created in the 30's to counter the power of the print media barons and to check the growth in the "new" area of media the radio.
It was proposed among others by some of the leaders of print and electronic media, perhaps to level the playing field, and was incorporated in the tenets of the FCC.
I have written earlier of how President Reagan dismantled the Fairness Doctrine and that President Carter went on to weaken it even further with the removal of barriers to owning national radio and television stations as well as cross-ownership of print and electronic media.
The next step in the ever increasing attack on freedom of communication are the continuing attempts to dismantle net neutrality.
Just to confirm what happened. The House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology voted to repeal an FCC Regulation because the Regulation preserved the open Internet and broadband industry practises.
And wanted to replace it with a sort of Cable TV structure controlling the Internet.
*Sedgewick Law Los Angeles Daily Journal
In the US they were held in check by the "Fairness Doctrine" which was created in the 30's to counter the power of the print media barons and to check the growth in the "new" area of media the radio.
It was proposed among others by some of the leaders of print and electronic media, perhaps to level the playing field, and was incorporated in the tenets of the FCC.
I have written earlier of how President Reagan dismantled the Fairness Doctrine and that President Carter went on to weaken it even further with the removal of barriers to owning national radio and television stations as well as cross-ownership of print and electronic media.
The next step in the ever increasing attack on freedom of communication are the continuing attempts to dismantle net neutrality.
"Fundamentally, net (short for "network")
neutrality is the idea that the Internet works best when ISPs deliver every
Internet site's traffic without discrimination. At its core, net neutrality
demands ISP equality in the treatment of consumers who pay for the same or a
greater quality of service, permitting peer-to-peer communication in any
platform of the consumers' choosing, regardless of the amount of content
transmitted or bandwidth utilised."*
It is a strange fight.
Pro net neutrality supports are looking at "freedom of speech" and the right to have free choice in the sense that they wish to maintain an open broadband in which major Internet providers cannot control what information people see, at what speed and at what price as promoted by the Federal Communications Commission.
On the other side of the debate are those looking to ensure that they control the content, the speed and the price of the Internet. These are the major Internet providers and their congressional supporters like Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who introduced H.J. Res. 37 on Feb. 16,
2011, a few weeks after the FCC had put forth a regulation maintaining a high level of net neutrality.
The Honourable Mr Walden's Resolution held that: "....that
Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission
relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry
practises (my italics), and such rule shall have no force or effect."
Just to confirm what happened. The House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology voted to repeal an FCC Regulation because the Regulation preserved the open Internet and broadband industry practises.
And wanted to replace it with a sort of Cable TV structure controlling the Internet.
*Sedgewick Law Los Angeles Daily Journal
Wednesday, 29 January 2014
What is the Point of Employment if it Doesn't Pay the Bills?
I am not sure where I sit in the left/right scale in that I am an aggressive proponent of a strong middle class. And strong means a large, vibrant middle class. Not a portion of the population which is better off then the unemployed. Nor a class employed at wages condemning them to poverty. And not a portion of the population that looks up to the 1% and feels that in comparison they too are being pushed to the brink.
I think it begins with a minimum wage that allows people to work and live above a subsistence level. Yet every conservative rants and raves at how setting a minimum wage is governmental interference taking away the invisible had of competition from the marketplace.
A livable minimum wage is the building block to move from poverty- employed or not- into the lower echelons of the middle class. It forms the floor for the compensation of more skilled jobs be they on the shop floor or in white collar activities, and it motivates the receipients of welfare to move into employment.
The ranters against a liveable minimum wage are the very architects of outsourcing. The advocates of a global economy predicated on competitive advantage which results in a race to the bottom, always looking for the next group willing to become wageslaves as opposed to just dying, but still living in abject poverty.
We need an economic policy dedicated to providing employment to as many as possible, at reasonable wages, delivering people the prospect of socio-economic mobility, which was the stone upon which the US was founded.
To many this will sound like the next step is protectionism. It is. But not of the American Dream,
but rather of the worldwide dream of a better life, beginning at home.
I think it begins with a minimum wage that allows people to work and live above a subsistence level. Yet every conservative rants and raves at how setting a minimum wage is governmental interference taking away the invisible had of competition from the marketplace.
A livable minimum wage is the building block to move from poverty- employed or not- into the lower echelons of the middle class. It forms the floor for the compensation of more skilled jobs be they on the shop floor or in white collar activities, and it motivates the receipients of welfare to move into employment.
The ranters against a liveable minimum wage are the very architects of outsourcing. The advocates of a global economy predicated on competitive advantage which results in a race to the bottom, always looking for the next group willing to become wageslaves as opposed to just dying, but still living in abject poverty.
We need an economic policy dedicated to providing employment to as many as possible, at reasonable wages, delivering people the prospect of socio-economic mobility, which was the stone upon which the US was founded.
To many this will sound like the next step is protectionism. It is. But not of the American Dream,
but rather of the worldwide dream of a better life, beginning at home.
Tuesday, 7 January 2014
The Decline of the Middle Class
I recently read a description of capitalism as an overloaded horse drawn carriage on an extremely muddy road with water filled ditches on both sides. Inside the carriage, drinking tea and munching biscuits were the monied 1%-the upper class. Scrambling to keep a foothold hanging on for dear life on the outside of the carriage and kicking at the hands reaching up from the muddy track were the middle class. And climbing over each other, balancing on the heads and shoulders of the poor devils sinking into the morass and reaching up trying to pull themselves onto the carriage were the lower class.
It was written over 100 years ago and was an anti-capitalist treatise.
Over the weekend I read another piece. It was on the potential demise of the American dream, which is predicated on a healthy middle class sitting comfortably on the carriage and a lower class that is not sinking in the bog but rather walking along a proper road. If they can't get on the first carriage, they are confident that another will come along.
The median income for a family in the United States is $49,000. That means there are as many people earning more than that, as there are earning less than that. And that is for a family which in more cases than not requires two incomes to support a family at the mean and above.
Blah blah blah I'm sure many are thinking. Tell us something new. Don't be so left-wing.
Well, the truth is this is a massive problem. Not just for the USA- but very seriously for the USA.
This is a nation built on consumer spending. It was also somewhat built on a cradle-to-grave mentality which provided security and a slow but steady income growth-as a single-earner family.
Times have changed. The two earners that it requires to earn the mean or above are working primarily to stay in place. They do not have job security and they do not have a steadily increasing income.
Global competition has torn that model up and replaced it essentially with "just-in-time" employment, at sharply reduced wages.
And those below the median are most likely to be single-parent (mother) families-and they represent 50% of the nation's families.
So we have a large swathe of society living on a form of subsistence income i.e. they have little if any discretionary income which means they DON'T BUY anything other then essential goods and services.
That's not a consumer-driven economy. That's an economy surviving on providing essentials.
As I read reports of steady enonomic growth in the US and that things are getting better and that there are more people being employed I am struck by the fact that incomes are not rising....
This is not good.
It was written over 100 years ago and was an anti-capitalist treatise.
Over the weekend I read another piece. It was on the potential demise of the American dream, which is predicated on a healthy middle class sitting comfortably on the carriage and a lower class that is not sinking in the bog but rather walking along a proper road. If they can't get on the first carriage, they are confident that another will come along.
The median income for a family in the United States is $49,000. That means there are as many people earning more than that, as there are earning less than that. And that is for a family which in more cases than not requires two incomes to support a family at the mean and above.
Blah blah blah I'm sure many are thinking. Tell us something new. Don't be so left-wing.
Well, the truth is this is a massive problem. Not just for the USA- but very seriously for the USA.
This is a nation built on consumer spending. It was also somewhat built on a cradle-to-grave mentality which provided security and a slow but steady income growth-as a single-earner family.
Times have changed. The two earners that it requires to earn the mean or above are working primarily to stay in place. They do not have job security and they do not have a steadily increasing income.
Global competition has torn that model up and replaced it essentially with "just-in-time" employment, at sharply reduced wages.
And those below the median are most likely to be single-parent (mother) families-and they represent 50% of the nation's families.
So we have a large swathe of society living on a form of subsistence income i.e. they have little if any discretionary income which means they DON'T BUY anything other then essential goods and services.
That's not a consumer-driven economy. That's an economy surviving on providing essentials.
As I read reports of steady enonomic growth in the US and that things are getting better and that there are more people being employed I am struck by the fact that incomes are not rising....
This is not good.
Wednesday, 18 December 2013
The Dangerous Waters of Immigration
One of the founding principles of the European Union was the free movement of people within the Union. This was strengthened even more with the creation of the Schengen zone which essentially stopped border controls between signatories of the Schengen Agreement.
One of the goals in this was to allow workers in a country with a less robust economy to move to another country where their chances for employment would be greater.
This was always going to be somewhat contentious as unemployed workers would possibly take jobs at less favourable terms than many local workers, especially in those countries where the social welfare net was relatively attractive in comparison to the lower paid more onerous jobs often sought out by immigrants.
That being said that this would be the case is more a reflection of the mismatch between unemployment benefits and compensation at the lower end of the range as well as the "entitlement" mind-set of some sections of the unemployed.
For that reason I am a strong proponent of minimum wages which, despite their cost at source to employers actually can help move people off welfare lists into employment.
This was behind the German Social Democrat (SPD) party's demands in the coalition negotiations which were recently approved by the SPD membership.
What was not intended by the free movement of people within the European Union was that people from high unemployment countries with poor social welfare systems would move to countries with strong social welfare systems thus providing them with health coverage, housing and unemployment benefits.
It does not matter if the numbers involved in this sort of "welfare" tourism are low or not. What they do is put the whole structure of the EU at risk.
I am not promoting an anti-immigration policy. I am suggesting that there have to be controls and regulations governing the movement of people even if they make it more difficult. That does not mean that intra-EU immigration should stop. It does mean that there should be stronger controls as to who is eligible for health, housing and unemployment benefits.
It cannot be the case that host countries suddenly are responsible for "internal" immigrants. No system can withstand this economically, and perhaps more importantly, it opens the door to right-wing nationalist groups long on rhetoric and short on substance, whose populist slogans find resonance in the population at large.
But clever, and more importantly, ethical politicians should not use such controls merely as a means of garnering support predicated on populist propaganda.
They should not only be rigorous regarding EU immigrants; they should also be relentless in pursuing their own "domestic" tourists who have become ingrained in a benefits culture with no intention of assuming responsibility for their own well-being, and happy to blame someone else for their predicament.
I am a strong believer in the benefits of the EU but recognise it can only be as strong as its' member states. It all starts with the social contract between the state and the electorate at large.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)