Four years ago (June 2010), I was pointing out how Agorocracy vs. Democracy were fighting it out in EUrope and the world. How the financial system had gone out of bounds compared to other aspects of our lives. Since then, 44 months have passed. The speaker has slimmed down (see video) and so have the budgets of Greece, Spain and other troubled Euro member states.
Cyprus banks got a haircut last year.
But what is the state of the competition between Agorocracy and Democracy today, February 2014?
Showing posts with label Merkel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Merkel. Show all posts
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Merkelian logics
Merkel's Euro policies qualify for a saying: It's all German to me (compare with the origin of the original saying).
In other words, "Europe" is not "speaking" German, as Volker Kauder of the CDU hoped/argued/boasted at a CDU conference one year ago.
Note: He meant German (CDU) policies not German per se.
Btw, Merkel today said that she does not rule out another CDU-SPD coalition after next year's elections. With FDP doing the way it is, of course not.
In other words, "Europe" is not "speaking" German, as Volker Kauder of the CDU hoped/argued/boasted at a CDU conference one year ago.
Note: He meant German (CDU) policies not German per se.
Btw, Merkel today said that she does not rule out another CDU-SPD coalition after next year's elections. With FDP doing the way it is, of course not.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
So, Greece, Spain and other PIGS, do not lose your humanism!
When you use the same taxi company for years the drivers know you and are even nicer. Today one got meds from pharmacy after the dentist! That is merely an example. The systemic: I didn't come to Greece because I have many more friends than in other places, I came because here I can feel the humanism of strangers compared to... (you know).
So, Greece and other PIGS, do not lose your humanism on account of Merkel etc. It's the biggest competitive advantage/asset you have!
Strangers in Greece ,Greek and foreign, generally give a sh*t that I have a problem with my neck. Very few in other countries I visited those 11 weeks, did.
PS. Do humanism things like that happen in NW Europe, in your experience/POV? If they do, feel free to tweet it. If they do not, ....
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Merkelian consistency!
So now Merkel is starting to allow for special circumstances (eg Irish bank debt)? The box is now open!
Which box? Pandora's, biensur!
Which inter alia means that it also ppens up the way/box for eg a Greece special circumstances. Expected and reasonable, but quite a game changer for her.
Merkel used to argue for consistency but she is more of "the do as I say not as a do" kind, it seems. Ie a politician like most.
Or not?
Which box? Pandora's, biensur!
Which inter alia means that it also ppens up the way/box for eg a Greece special circumstances. Expected and reasonable, but quite a game changer for her.
Merkel used to argue for consistency but she is more of "the do as I say not as a do" kind, it seems. Ie a politician like most.
Her well promoted axioms have fallen flat on their faces in the face of EU and Euro reality and now she has to abandon them, in a hurry!
Or not?
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Either she does not get it or she is pulling everyone's leg
Re Angela Merkel's interview in Berlin.
Merkel either does not get it or she is pulling everyone's leg (or both).
Sunday, June 10, 2012
What does Europe really need?
Food for thought:
Many, among them George Soros (see eg "We need to do whatever we can to convince Germany to show leadership and preserve the European Union as the fantastic object that it used to be. The future of Europe depends on it", June 2) and Charles S. Maier (professor of history at Harvard, "Europe Needs a German Marshall Plan" New York Times, June 9) have called on Germany and its PM, Anglea Merkel. to "save" the Eurozone and even the EU. The latter even suggests a German Marshall on Europe.
But as Soros points out in his Trento speech/comments )see link above) the Euro crisis started with a flawed EMU design in the Maastricht Treaty (for which he blames the "center" of Europe as opposed to the "periphery")and adds this crucial comment: "The first step was taken by Germany when, after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Angela Merkel declared that the virtual guarantee extended to other financial institutions should come from each country acting separately, not by Europe acting jointly".
As he points out, "it took financial markets more than a year to realize the implication of that declaration, showing that they are not perfect". That Merkel pinpointed the flaw and limitation of the Maastricht based Euro and EMU.
I would add that Merkel's behaviour in the last 2-3 yrs has turned European political union from a difficult to an impossible mission.
So which are the key elements of a solution to the European predicament?
a) The austerity road? Fewer and fewer yet still many think so.
b) A German Marshall Plan on Europe?
c) An orderly termination of the Euro project, possibly with the beginning of a political union project that may or may not include Germany (a political union of the willing and able (in terms of national Constitutional constraints) not necessarily the same 17 as the Euro, after all such a political union would not include a common currency at first, not until full union was established and working)?
If we accept the premise that the Euro was working until Merkel burst the bubble of a flawed Euro architecture with her post Lehman comments, then maybe, I say, what is needed the most is neither austerity not money or unrealistically urgent (if not clumsy or even barbaric) "structural reforms" in the labour markets etc (economic cold showers for the ordinary people, while popular with many economists and policy makers, can be viewed as a form of "torture") but a concrete affirmation of unity of Europe, the one that Merkel may have burst with her post Lehman comments Soros refers to or Merkel's "micromanagement" of the Euro crisis that inter alia alienated The Greeks and many other Europeans, thus making a political union a near mission impossible (while I( argue, before that, it was difficult already).
What would constitute such a re-affirmation though?
That is Europe current 10 trillion plus survival question.
Many, among them George Soros (see eg "We need to do whatever we can to convince Germany to show leadership and preserve the European Union as the fantastic object that it used to be. The future of Europe depends on it", June 2) and Charles S. Maier (professor of history at Harvard, "Europe Needs a German Marshall Plan" New York Times, June 9) have called on Germany and its PM, Anglea Merkel. to "save" the Eurozone and even the EU. The latter even suggests a German Marshall on Europe.
But as Soros points out in his Trento speech/comments )see link above) the Euro crisis started with a flawed EMU design in the Maastricht Treaty (for which he blames the "center" of Europe as opposed to the "periphery")and adds this crucial comment: "The first step was taken by Germany when, after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Angela Merkel declared that the virtual guarantee extended to other financial institutions should come from each country acting separately, not by Europe acting jointly".
As he points out, "it took financial markets more than a year to realize the implication of that declaration, showing that they are not perfect". That Merkel pinpointed the flaw and limitation of the Maastricht based Euro and EMU.
I would add that Merkel's behaviour in the last 2-3 yrs has turned European political union from a difficult to an impossible mission.
So which are the key elements of a solution to the European predicament?
a) The austerity road? Fewer and fewer yet still many think so.
b) A German Marshall Plan on Europe?
c) An orderly termination of the Euro project, possibly with the beginning of a political union project that may or may not include Germany (a political union of the willing and able (in terms of national Constitutional constraints) not necessarily the same 17 as the Euro, after all such a political union would not include a common currency at first, not until full union was established and working)?
If we accept the premise that the Euro was working until Merkel burst the bubble of a flawed Euro architecture with her post Lehman comments, then maybe, I say, what is needed the most is neither austerity not money or unrealistically urgent (if not clumsy or even barbaric) "structural reforms" in the labour markets etc (economic cold showers for the ordinary people, while popular with many economists and policy makers, can be viewed as a form of "torture") but a concrete affirmation of unity of Europe, the one that Merkel may have burst with her post Lehman comments Soros refers to or Merkel's "micromanagement" of the Euro crisis that inter alia alienated The Greeks and many other Europeans, thus making a political union a near mission impossible (while I( argue, before that, it was difficult already).
What would constitute such a re-affirmation though?
That is Europe current 10 trillion plus survival question.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Spot the faults in the Merkelian logic
According to BBC News, after the results of the elections in France and Greece on May 6, Angela Merkel argumented as follows:
""It is a matter of principle in Europe that following elections, be they in small or large countries, we do not renegotiate what's already been agreed," she said. "Otherwise we could not work together in Europe."
Spot the faults in the above logic-argumentation.
""It is a matter of principle in Europe that following elections, be they in small or large countries, we do not renegotiate what's already been agreed," she said. "Otherwise we could not work together in Europe."
Spot the faults in the above logic-argumentation.
Monday, April 23, 2012
The morning after April 22: EU27 politics: If, then, else!
Monday morning, after the first round of the French Presidential elections.
Does Le Pen showing decrease the probability of Hollande success in Round 2, on May 6? The polls I have read seem to suggest yes, but only by a little. But let's try an if, then, else exercise.
If Hollande wins the Presidency, then he will dispute the Fiscal Compact and the German social democrats (SPD), will have political impetus to decide whether to defeat the ratification of the Fiscal Compact by Germany (since 2/3rds are needed in both houses of the German federal parliament).
If Hollande loses on May 6, Sarkozy is re-elected, then the Merkozy pair remains (almost, see eg Sarkozy's pre-election views on immigration as opposed to the German - Merkel's stance on the subject) and it is strictly up to the SPD, still trailing the CDU/CSU in the polls, to decide whether to bring down the Fiscal Compact and face the positive and negative effects of such decision in the German political arena and public opinion, else negotiate some growth spending in return for voting for the Fiscal Compact.
Is the Dutch situation, the inability of austerity and Fiscal Compact most "hardcore" supporter next to Merkozy, the current Dutch government, to meet fiscal objectives this year and next, an ace in the hands of the German SPD or the socio-political forces in the EU that are against the super austerity of the Fiscal Compact? Could be, especially if there is a new election that yields a new government that includes the Dutch Labour party (and D66).
EU27 politics are complicated, huh? Imagine if the EU had 50 states as the US does. But the US has political union, the EU?
Does Le Pen showing decrease the probability of Hollande success in Round 2, on May 6? The polls I have read seem to suggest yes, but only by a little. But let's try an if, then, else exercise.
If Hollande wins the Presidency, then he will dispute the Fiscal Compact and the German social democrats (SPD), will have political impetus to decide whether to defeat the ratification of the Fiscal Compact by Germany (since 2/3rds are needed in both houses of the German federal parliament).
If Hollande loses on May 6, Sarkozy is re-elected, then the Merkozy pair remains (almost, see eg Sarkozy's pre-election views on immigration as opposed to the German - Merkel's stance on the subject) and it is strictly up to the SPD, still trailing the CDU/CSU in the polls, to decide whether to bring down the Fiscal Compact and face the positive and negative effects of such decision in the German political arena and public opinion, else negotiate some growth spending in return for voting for the Fiscal Compact.
Is the Dutch situation, the inability of austerity and Fiscal Compact most "hardcore" supporter next to Merkozy, the current Dutch government, to meet fiscal objectives this year and next, an ace in the hands of the German SPD or the socio-political forces in the EU that are against the super austerity of the Fiscal Compact? Could be, especially if there is a new election that yields a new government that includes the Dutch Labour party (and D66).
EU27 politics are complicated, huh? Imagine if the EU had 50 states as the US does. But the US has political union, the EU?
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Good houskeeping, the European social democratic way
Good "housekeeping" in the EU member states is always a must but Sarkozy, the current Dutch government, Merkel and others must be sacked for obsessing about it!
For setting targets that are too unrealistic, in terms of the actual numbers as well as the whole philosophy of setting strict targets and obsessing about reaching them. That is also a problem with inflation (the 2% "magic" target), even the targets of the Europe 2020 "growth Strategy". Economics, including fiscal and budgetary ones, are not like Physics or Chemistry, they are part of social sciences and as such they must be treated with a grain of salt. People are not robots, neither are their economic, social, political and policy actions.
Some politicians are willing to bend to the demands of financial markets.
Since many years ago I have written about the demands placed on listed companies by the financial market. The pressure to meet specific targets on a quarterly basis. And the negative impact that this has on the medium term performance of the corporation.
In recent years, the same pressure is being put on countries, their economies.
Time for that to stop! That should be one of the philosophies of the social democrats in the EU27.
Of course states, as companies do, need to improve their accounting procedures, know what they are spending and why (the why part is management accounting as opposed to financial accounting). To keep their finances solid but without "human sacrifices" of the obsession austerity kind. The preservation of the European Social Model and the need for the recognition of the positive role economic immigrants can play in the funding of the social model of an ageing EU27 (instead of scapegoating them).
To make a humanist EU the beacon for others in the world, since the American beacon has been dying out in recent decades (see also the resistance to not only HillaryCare of the Bill Clinton 1st term but also of Obamacare, especially the public option).
In a secular Europe, economic religions such as growth via austerity, classic, neo ir ordo liberalism and of course neo-Marxism have no place! Policy must provide solutions for real problems of real people.
For setting targets that are too unrealistic, in terms of the actual numbers as well as the whole philosophy of setting strict targets and obsessing about reaching them. That is also a problem with inflation (the 2% "magic" target), even the targets of the Europe 2020 "growth Strategy". Economics, including fiscal and budgetary ones, are not like Physics or Chemistry, they are part of social sciences and as such they must be treated with a grain of salt. People are not robots, neither are their economic, social, political and policy actions.
Some politicians are willing to bend to the demands of financial markets.
Since many years ago I have written about the demands placed on listed companies by the financial market. The pressure to meet specific targets on a quarterly basis. And the negative impact that this has on the medium term performance of the corporation.
In recent years, the same pressure is being put on countries, their economies.
Time for that to stop! That should be one of the philosophies of the social democrats in the EU27.
Of course states, as companies do, need to improve their accounting procedures, know what they are spending and why (the why part is management accounting as opposed to financial accounting). To keep their finances solid but without "human sacrifices" of the obsession austerity kind. The preservation of the European Social Model and the need for the recognition of the positive role economic immigrants can play in the funding of the social model of an ageing EU27 (instead of scapegoating them).
To make a humanist EU the beacon for others in the world, since the American beacon has been dying out in recent decades (see also the resistance to not only HillaryCare of the Bill Clinton 1st term but also of Obamacare, especially the public option).
In a secular Europe, economic religions such as growth via austerity, classic, neo ir ordo liberalism and of course neo-Marxism have no place! Policy must provide solutions for real problems of real people.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Merkelism
1) Some claim that Ordoliberalism is the key to understanding not only Merkel's but also Germany's POV on the Euro crisis issue, fiscal union, the fiscal compact, austerity, etc. I am not convinced (not yet at least).
2) I am sure most of you are familiar with Max Weber's 1905 book "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (for a summary, see Wikipedia). Following on his theory:
Of the 17 Eurozone members, 3 have a dominant or somewhat dominant Protestant tradition (but not necessarily Calvinist, see eg Finland (Lutheran)), 2 Eastern Orthodox,1 atheist, 11 Roman Catholic.
Does that profile of traditions across the Eurozone affect the appeal of Merkel/CDU socio-economic thinking?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
What's really wrong with austerity a la Merkel et al?
What's really wrong with austerity a la Merkel et al?
Greece is a good case study of that. Too much, rigid, austerity, without a growth element.
A result of Ordiliberalism? Still not convinced?
Or is it a result of the type of the philosophy Max Weber described in his 1905 book "Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism"?
Or a result of austerity that focuses on such rigid targets that even the Dutch or Germany itself has trouble adhering to (thus opening Pandora's box, see eg the German and French violations of the Stability Pact in the previous decade)?
There is no question that not only Greece and other so called "PIIGS" as well as other Eurozone, EU and OECD countries need to consolidate their budgets.
The issue is how. How fast, how strictly,and with what policy tools and side-effects (including unemployment and social systemics).
A somewhat "fundamentalist" approach to austerity is what makes the so called Fiscal Compact, proposed by Germany in December and signed (but not ratified yet) by 25 in March such a hard pill not only for the PIIGS but also for NL and even Germany to swallow.
To paraphrase a slogan re taxes, too much austerity (planned) = no austerity, or failures of the austerity dogma all over Europe!
Ordoliberalism, with its insistence on separation of economic policy between fiscal (by governments), monetary (by 100% independent central banks) and macroeconomic (by market actors, eg social partners) , leads to un-cordinated economic policy, even at national level.
The capitalist dogma that to be helped, "sinners" must prove worthy, is another (faulty) fundamentalist element.
Fiscal fundamentalism is not going to help Europe. No fundamentalism ever did.
The proper economic and other policy mix is needed. But who knows how to get that mix right?
Greece is a good case study of that. Too much, rigid, austerity, without a growth element.
A result of Ordiliberalism? Still not convinced?
Or is it a result of the type of the philosophy Max Weber described in his 1905 book "Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism"?
Or a result of austerity that focuses on such rigid targets that even the Dutch or Germany itself has trouble adhering to (thus opening Pandora's box, see eg the German and French violations of the Stability Pact in the previous decade)?
There is no question that not only Greece and other so called "PIIGS" as well as other Eurozone, EU and OECD countries need to consolidate their budgets.
The issue is how. How fast, how strictly,and with what policy tools and side-effects (including unemployment and social systemics).
A somewhat "fundamentalist" approach to austerity is what makes the so called Fiscal Compact, proposed by Germany in December and signed (but not ratified yet) by 25 in March such a hard pill not only for the PIIGS but also for NL and even Germany to swallow.
To paraphrase a slogan re taxes, too much austerity (planned) = no austerity, or failures of the austerity dogma all over Europe!
Ordoliberalism, with its insistence on separation of economic policy between fiscal (by governments), monetary (by 100% independent central banks) and macroeconomic (by market actors, eg social partners) , leads to un-cordinated economic policy, even at national level.
The capitalist dogma that to be helped, "sinners" must prove worthy, is another (faulty) fundamentalist element.
Fiscal fundamentalism is not going to help Europe. No fundamentalism ever did.
The proper economic and other policy mix is needed. But who knows how to get that mix right?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
From Merkozy to Merkollande to Merkoron: Merkel diversifying?
I read most (link) and watched some (link) of Angela Merkel's interview to the BBC tonight (Monday, March 26) to Gavin Esler in BBC 2's well know program Newsnight. I had also read Gavin Esler's article "Germans can't escape their Lutheran past", posted on BBC News Online a few hours before the airing of the Merkel interview.
My comments:
It seems to me that Angela Merkel is trying to diversify, especially in anticipation of the May 6 election in France (and the potential political loss of the "Merkozy" partner Nicolas Sarkozy) as well as the fact that she will have to get support from SDP, the German social-democrats, if she is to have her Fiscal Compact ratified by the German parliament and upper house.
To that effect:
1) She appears more humanistic (but not too, she also Mr. Elser's article "Germans can't escape their Lutheran past" ) re Greece and the PIIGS
2) She opens up more bridges with the UK, stressing the things they have in common (Germany-UK and/or Merkel-Cameron). Maybe a potential Merkel-Cameron "wild card" at hand should things turn out really sour in the Eurozone and the Fiscal Compact?
Germany and the UK, or at least the conservative parties, do indeed have a similar POV in international trade matters, although Germany is an export superpower, UK is not), one has to factor in Germany's most recent reactions to Barroso's plans for a more aggressive trade management policy for the EU.
Which makes me think again and write again how relevant Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is in EU Affairs nowadays.
PS. Now casual were the comparisions between Thatcher and Merkel? A pity Hillary Clinton is not conservative or pro-austerity too!
My comments:
It seems to me that Angela Merkel is trying to diversify, especially in anticipation of the May 6 election in France (and the potential political loss of the "Merkozy" partner Nicolas Sarkozy) as well as the fact that she will have to get support from SDP, the German social-democrats, if she is to have her Fiscal Compact ratified by the German parliament and upper house.
To that effect:
1) She appears more humanistic (but not too, she also Mr. Elser's article "Germans can't escape their Lutheran past" ) re Greece and the PIIGS
2) She opens up more bridges with the UK, stressing the things they have in common (Germany-UK and/or Merkel-Cameron). Maybe a potential Merkel-Cameron "wild card" at hand should things turn out really sour in the Eurozone and the Fiscal Compact?
Germany and the UK, or at least the conservative parties, do indeed have a similar POV in international trade matters, although Germany is an export superpower, UK is not), one has to factor in Germany's most recent reactions to Barroso's plans for a more aggressive trade management policy for the EU.
Which makes me think again and write again how relevant Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is in EU Affairs nowadays.
PS. Now casual were the comparisions between Thatcher and Merkel? A pity Hillary Clinton is not conservative or pro-austerity too!
Monday, March 19, 2012
No more economics - and especially finance - please, we are humans!
I am paraphrasing the title of a well know British theatre play of decades ago to reflect the following.
Muhammad Yunus, the inventor of micro-finance has given a most interesting video interview to the Guardian today: 'Economists have misunderstood human beings' is the title and he proposes that humans are multi-dimensional, not one dimensional money making robots!
He also proposes that social enterprises can offer solutions in a world where the profit making ones and the social ones co-exist.
Meanwhile, the Merkozy fiscal pact is having adoption issues not only in Germany (see recent posts of mine) but the Netherlands as well! My POV is not that good fiscal "housekeeping" should not be an element of national and Eurozone policy but that this must not turn into the sclerotic and rather rigid thing that the Merkozian fiscal pact has become! So much that not only a Spanish convervative PM (Rajoy) is having trouble abiding to, but also the Netherlands. Yes the NL which is the closest "ideological" ally Merkozy has to its philosophy,
Via Twitter, I continue to ask my German followers/friends if indeed "Ordocapitalism" is the philosophy that drives the policy thinking of Merkel and her advisers (many of them of CB and/or banking mindset). I continue to get very mixed replies. Too early to write a post on that.
So capitalism and its problems, which was the topic of thus year's WEF at Davos, the Euro crisis, the vendetta between Financial Agorocracy and Democracy, and many other such issues continue to be the core of European, EU, US and world affairs and policy.
Now, back to Yunus. I have many economists friends but as an MBA I agree with Yunus on this argument taht economists have misunderstood human beings.
As per the profit vs social entrepreneurship, I think that there is also a "third kind". The for profit but not profit (shareholder value) maximising one, the one that my father practiced, ie for profit business that does not operate with a single directive: "Maximise Profit, Maximise Profit" (flashes of The Terminator, The Walking Dead and other zombie and vampire movies and series, parade inside my mind for a few seconds). What I call "noble capitalism" (mind you: my father was not a "royal", he was a product of the middle class, the good old middle class that credit capitalism has destroyed in recent decades, IMO).
After all there is such thing as "Socially Responsible Investment" where investors can participate in funds that choose their portfolio based not solely on performance but environmental, social and other non direct profit parameters!
But is it economist who have misunderstood human beings or is Max Weber's 1905 book "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" that is more relevant in understanding a) the faults of capitalism and b) Merkel's philosophy?
Food for thought, mes amis!
Muhammad Yunus, the inventor of micro-finance has given a most interesting video interview to the Guardian today: 'Economists have misunderstood human beings' is the title and he proposes that humans are multi-dimensional, not one dimensional money making robots!
He also proposes that social enterprises can offer solutions in a world where the profit making ones and the social ones co-exist.
Meanwhile, the Merkozy fiscal pact is having adoption issues not only in Germany (see recent posts of mine) but the Netherlands as well! My POV is not that good fiscal "housekeeping" should not be an element of national and Eurozone policy but that this must not turn into the sclerotic and rather rigid thing that the Merkozian fiscal pact has become! So much that not only a Spanish convervative PM (Rajoy) is having trouble abiding to, but also the Netherlands. Yes the NL which is the closest "ideological" ally Merkozy has to its philosophy,
Via Twitter, I continue to ask my German followers/friends if indeed "Ordocapitalism" is the philosophy that drives the policy thinking of Merkel and her advisers (many of them of CB and/or banking mindset). I continue to get very mixed replies. Too early to write a post on that.
So capitalism and its problems, which was the topic of thus year's WEF at Davos, the Euro crisis, the vendetta between Financial Agorocracy and Democracy, and many other such issues continue to be the core of European, EU, US and world affairs and policy.
Now, back to Yunus. I have many economists friends but as an MBA I agree with Yunus on this argument taht economists have misunderstood human beings.
As per the profit vs social entrepreneurship, I think that there is also a "third kind". The for profit but not profit (shareholder value) maximising one, the one that my father practiced, ie for profit business that does not operate with a single directive: "Maximise Profit, Maximise Profit" (flashes of The Terminator, The Walking Dead and other zombie and vampire movies and series, parade inside my mind for a few seconds). What I call "noble capitalism" (mind you: my father was not a "royal", he was a product of the middle class, the good old middle class that credit capitalism has destroyed in recent decades, IMO).
After all there is such thing as "Socially Responsible Investment" where investors can participate in funds that choose their portfolio based not solely on performance but environmental, social and other non direct profit parameters!
But is it economist who have misunderstood human beings or is Max Weber's 1905 book "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" that is more relevant in understanding a) the faults of capitalism and b) Merkel's philosophy?
Food for thought, mes amis!
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Who will raise the progressive flag in the European political battlefield? Hollande or SPD - Greens?
Will Hollande or SPD - Greens put an end to the neocons (Merkoz et al) destruction of Europe?
1) 2011 was politically a very good year for European conservatives, EPP or other. With the exception of Denmark, all the national elections of 2011 brought conservative EPP member parties to power!
At present only 4 EU (3 Eurozone) member states are not governed by conservative governments or technocrats (the cases of Italy and Greece): Cyprus, Austria (a grand coalition but with a social democrat PM), Slovenia and Denmark.
Hardcore austerity has been a key element of the conservative domination of EU and Eurozone politics.
Until Saturday, the French Presidential election in France and the potential election of Francois Hollande was where the Eurozone's "battle for Middle Earth" was going to be "fought". The next day of the second round, May 7, could be the one that marked a new tide in Europe, a progressive one!
2) But the Art 23 issue in Germany (see my previous post: "Merkel's fiscal compact evokes article 23 of the German constitution: a) An own goal by Merkel or b) A clever plot?") offers SPD and Greens the chance to reverse the tide, bfore Hollande. By rejecting the fiscal compact!
Will they do it or prove they are "Ordoliberal" too as Ulrike Guérot and Sebastian Dullien seem to suggest in their article "Why Berlin is fixed on a German solution to the eurozone crisis" in The Guardian last Friday?
In other words the Art 23 issue forces the SPD and Greens to take a stand. Are they part a) of the conservative or b) the progressive Europe?
The progressive social and political forces of Europe are looking at SPD and the Greens and wondering. Are they ready to raise the flag of progressive politics in Germany and the Euroaone and EU by rejecting Merkozy's Fiscal Compact in the votes in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat or will they contain themselves with minor growth trade offs and wait for Hollande to make the difference?
1) 2011 was politically a very good year for European conservatives, EPP or other. With the exception of Denmark, all the national elections of 2011 brought conservative EPP member parties to power!
At present only 4 EU (3 Eurozone) member states are not governed by conservative governments or technocrats (the cases of Italy and Greece): Cyprus, Austria (a grand coalition but with a social democrat PM), Slovenia and Denmark.
Hardcore austerity has been a key element of the conservative domination of EU and Eurozone politics.
Until Saturday, the French Presidential election in France and the potential election of Francois Hollande was where the Eurozone's "battle for Middle Earth" was going to be "fought". The next day of the second round, May 7, could be the one that marked a new tide in Europe, a progressive one!
2) But the Art 23 issue in Germany (see my previous post: "Merkel's fiscal compact evokes article 23 of the German constitution: a) An own goal by Merkel or b) A clever plot?") offers SPD and Greens the chance to reverse the tide, bfore Hollande. By rejecting the fiscal compact!
Will they do it or prove they are "Ordoliberal" too as Ulrike Guérot and Sebastian Dullien seem to suggest in their article "Why Berlin is fixed on a German solution to the eurozone crisis" in The Guardian last Friday?
In other words the Art 23 issue forces the SPD and Greens to take a stand. Are they part a) of the conservative or b) the progressive Europe?
The progressive social and political forces of Europe are looking at SPD and the Greens and wondering. Are they ready to raise the flag of progressive politics in Germany and the Euroaone and EU by rejecting Merkozy's Fiscal Compact in the votes in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat or will they contain themselves with minor growth trade offs and wait for Hollande to make the difference?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Whatever happens on May 6, they will always have Greece
According to Wikipedia, a "work spouse" is a co-worker, usually of the opposite sex,[1] with whom one shares a special relationship, having bonds similar to those of a marriage (but platonic).
By analogy, the relationship between Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy could be called "political spouses" or "Euro-spouses".
And if Sarkozy emerges non-victorious on May 6 at the sec9nd round of the French Presidency elections, the two will always have Greece (not sure what Greece thinks of that though).
Yet for those who monitor European, EU and world affairs (what a choice of terminology!!) this Euro political love affair and "marriage" seemed as plausible as Greek growing by 20% next year, only a few years ago. I can still recall the press reports on how Angela Merkel, always wanted to be prepared at meetings etc, could not tolerate Nicolas' brainstorming style, and neither did her "court".
So many press reports on how much they could not stand each other. And then, political Eros (aka Cupid) striked! Maybe it was Greece that brought them together. Frankly, I cannot recall when the thin line into love was crossed.
They do not call it EU Affairs for nothing. But one of the morals of the story, IMO, is that EU affairs, like romantic affairs, can be unstable.
Nick and Angie will always have Greece. Hope that Greece will not always have austerity though.
By analogy, the relationship between Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy could be called "political spouses" or "Euro-spouses".
And if Sarkozy emerges non-victorious on May 6 at the sec9nd round of the French Presidency elections, the two will always have Greece (not sure what Greece thinks of that though).
Yet for those who monitor European, EU and world affairs (what a choice of terminology!!) this Euro political love affair and "marriage" seemed as plausible as Greek growing by 20% next year, only a few years ago. I can still recall the press reports on how Angela Merkel, always wanted to be prepared at meetings etc, could not tolerate Nicolas' brainstorming style, and neither did her "court".
So many press reports on how much they could not stand each other. And then, political Eros (aka Cupid) striked! Maybe it was Greece that brought them together. Frankly, I cannot recall when the thin line into love was crossed.
They do not call it EU Affairs for nothing. But one of the morals of the story, IMO, is that EU affairs, like romantic affairs, can be unstable.
Nick and Angie will always have Greece. Hope that Greece will not always have austerity though.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Instead of Merkel soliciting money from China ...
Instead of Merkel soliciting money from China, she should be proposing EU exit from WTO which China has flooded with cheap prdocts via inter alia a Yuan policy and focus on existing and new bilateral deals of the EU with other countries or free trade areas (eg Mercosur/UNASUR, ASEAN, etc)
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
What is behind the Hollywood sign and the Merkozy plan?
20 months ago Angela Merkel visited Hollywood and the area behind the famous Hollywood sign.
Read the reportage by Der Spiegel (in English, 15/4/10), especially the exchange between her and Simon Baker, the Aussie star of the US TV series The Mentalist, and also consider the Merkozy plan 20 months later.
Do you see any correlation, positive or negative correlation, between what Merkel realised behind the Hollywoos sign that day and the Merkozy plan?
Read the reportage by Der Spiegel (in English, 15/4/10), especially the exchange between her and Simon Baker, the Aussie star of the US TV series The Mentalist, and also consider the Merkozy plan 20 months later.
Do you see any correlation, positive or negative correlation, between what Merkel realised behind the Hollywoos sign that day and the Merkozy plan?
Monday, September 5, 2011
EU: Who kicked the can down the road? Merkel and Sarkozy or their predecessors?
That is a favourite expression of some commentators re the stance of EUropean policy makers in the Euro crisis.
According to the Irish Times (September 3, 2011), Wolfgang Schäuble "reportedly told a parliamentary party meeting of the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU) that solving the euro zone crisis was not possible without a successor to the Lisbon Treaty, “even though we know how difficult a treaty change will be”".
It is envisaged that a new European treaty who have to handle far-reaching finance and fiscal powers to Brussels institutions.
Only a few days earlier, Helmut Kohl had this time publicly criticised his former right-hand-person and current German PM, Angela Merkel for her policies re Europe. So had Helmut Schmidt, Kohl social democrat predecessor in the Chancellory of Germany (ie former prime minister). Especiallu about a Germany others could not "depend on"!
In the Irish Times article mentioned above it is also reported that a new poll showed on September 2 that almost two-thirds of Germans say they want more common decision-making in Europe. 53% reject a “United States of Europe”. "Richard Hilmer of the Infratest/dimap polling agency said the results showed a clear aversion to looming euro zone rescue and reform measures. ...“But Germans remain at heart positively disposed to Europe and have nothing against further integration”"
A few hours ago (September 3), Gerhard Schröder, the social democrat German Chancellor (Prime Minister) from 1997 to 2005 (who succeeded Kohl), in an interview with Der Spiegel was kinder to Angela Merkel and spoke in favour of a United States of Europe.
What does this all mean?
In my opinion, it means that we are slowly picking up pace in reversing the current malaise in Europe and in taking the only road that is available, the road to political union in Europe. A US of Europe (or federal republic) that will stand tall next to China, the US, etc. (read Schröder's interview, in German).
Now, as I have written before (and tweeted many time more) the Maatricht European Summit (now European Council) which met in the form of an Inter-Governmental Conference to amend the EEC Treaty in Maastricht in December 1991 made a crucial error by deciding Economic and Monetary Union (the latter meant the Euro creation, the former is yet to materialise) without the foundation of a political union. In other words it decided to create a new currency but one without a country. I have also argued that political union and the single federal laws it comes with, see eg Fed Republic of Germany, a federal head of government (Germany) or state (USA), a federak income tax administered by a federal authority (in the US: the famous IRS), is a necessary foundation not only for a single currency but a single market as well (see the incomplete state of the EU Single Market 19 years after its launch on 1/1/1993).
Those public comments by no less than three (!) former heads of German government, two of which, Schmidt and Kohl, along with Mitterand, Giscard d'Estaing and others, are considered political giants of recent European history have come at a time when it is popular to accuse the current political leaders such as Merkel, Sarkozy, et al as lacking in leadership.
And, indeed, I must admit, reading the comments of Kohl reminded me of an era, not so long ago where one felt that political leaders were leaders and did not govern by looking at the opinion polls all the time or phobic of political cost.
Then I realised that it is some of those giants of European politics that did not manage to decide political union in 1991, when the EEC (then EC/EU) had only 12 members (thus in theory decision making was easier than then with 15, then 25 and now with 27). Who are the 12 heads or state or government that met in Maastricht in December 1991?
They were:
For The Netherlands: Prime-Minister, Mr. Rudolphus Lubbers.
For Belgium: Prime-Minister, Mr. Wilfried Martens.
For Danmark: Prime-Minister, Mr. Poul Schlueter.
For Germany: Chancellor, Mr. Helmut Kohl
For Greece: Prime-Minister, Mr. Constantin Mitsotakis
For Spain: President of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Felipe González
For France: President, Mr. François Mitterrand
For Ireland: Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey
For Italy: President of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Giulio Andreotti.
For Luxembourg: Prime-Minister Jacques Santer.
For Portugal: Prime-Minister AnÃbal Cavaco Silva.
For the United Kingdom: Prime-Minister John Major.
(source: General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union)
Chapter 8 of europedia.moussis.eu that contains an online version of Nicholas Moussis' well known book: Access to European Union law, economics, policies, shows that (IMO monstrosity) was devised at Maatricht as a compromise. Moussis explains: "... The compromise solution that was found there and then was the partition of European integration into two Treaties (one on the European Union and one on the European Community) and into three construction pillars: the European Community - the first and main pillar; common foreign and security policy (CFSP); and justice and home affairs (JHA)...". Oh my. A legal/institutional monstrosity, something which was/is alas not a new thing for the EEC/EC/EU in the effort to reach compromises, ie in "kicking the can down the road". Read more of Nicholas Moussis' analysis of how this mess of tied up via the next 3 EU Treaties!
So, who is kicking/kicked the can down the road? Merkel, Sarkozy et al or their predecessors?
The least those who are still able to, can do, is speak up now, explain to the public opinion, and thus help their successors lead Europe where it is destined to go.
According to the Irish Times (September 3, 2011), Wolfgang Schäuble "reportedly told a parliamentary party meeting of the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU) that solving the euro zone crisis was not possible without a successor to the Lisbon Treaty, “even though we know how difficult a treaty change will be”".
It is envisaged that a new European treaty who have to handle far-reaching finance and fiscal powers to Brussels institutions.
Only a few days earlier, Helmut Kohl had this time publicly criticised his former right-hand-person and current German PM, Angela Merkel for her policies re Europe. So had Helmut Schmidt, Kohl social democrat predecessor in the Chancellory of Germany (ie former prime minister). Especiallu about a Germany others could not "depend on"!
In the Irish Times article mentioned above it is also reported that a new poll showed on September 2 that almost two-thirds of Germans say they want more common decision-making in Europe. 53% reject a “United States of Europe”. "Richard Hilmer of the Infratest/dimap polling agency said the results showed a clear aversion to looming euro zone rescue and reform measures. ...“But Germans remain at heart positively disposed to Europe and have nothing against further integration”"
A few hours ago (September 3), Gerhard Schröder, the social democrat German Chancellor (Prime Minister) from 1997 to 2005 (who succeeded Kohl), in an interview with Der Spiegel was kinder to Angela Merkel and spoke in favour of a United States of Europe.
What does this all mean?
In my opinion, it means that we are slowly picking up pace in reversing the current malaise in Europe and in taking the only road that is available, the road to political union in Europe. A US of Europe (or federal republic) that will stand tall next to China, the US, etc. (read Schröder's interview, in German).
Now, as I have written before (and tweeted many time more) the Maatricht European Summit (now European Council) which met in the form of an Inter-Governmental Conference to amend the EEC Treaty in Maastricht in December 1991 made a crucial error by deciding Economic and Monetary Union (the latter meant the Euro creation, the former is yet to materialise) without the foundation of a political union. In other words it decided to create a new currency but one without a country. I have also argued that political union and the single federal laws it comes with, see eg Fed Republic of Germany, a federal head of government (Germany) or state (USA), a federak income tax administered by a federal authority (in the US: the famous IRS), is a necessary foundation not only for a single currency but a single market as well (see the incomplete state of the EU Single Market 19 years after its launch on 1/1/1993).
Those public comments by no less than three (!) former heads of German government, two of which, Schmidt and Kohl, along with Mitterand, Giscard d'Estaing and others, are considered political giants of recent European history have come at a time when it is popular to accuse the current political leaders such as Merkel, Sarkozy, et al as lacking in leadership.
And, indeed, I must admit, reading the comments of Kohl reminded me of an era, not so long ago where one felt that political leaders were leaders and did not govern by looking at the opinion polls all the time or phobic of political cost.
Then I realised that it is some of those giants of European politics that did not manage to decide political union in 1991, when the EEC (then EC/EU) had only 12 members (thus in theory decision making was easier than then with 15, then 25 and now with 27). Who are the 12 heads or state or government that met in Maastricht in December 1991?
They were:
For The Netherlands: Prime-Minister, Mr. Rudolphus Lubbers.
For Belgium: Prime-Minister, Mr. Wilfried Martens.
For Danmark: Prime-Minister, Mr. Poul Schlueter.
For Germany: Chancellor, Mr. Helmut Kohl
For Greece: Prime-Minister, Mr. Constantin Mitsotakis
For Spain: President of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Felipe González
For France: President, Mr. François Mitterrand
For Ireland: Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey
For Italy: President of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Giulio Andreotti.
For Luxembourg: Prime-Minister Jacques Santer.
For Portugal: Prime-Minister AnÃbal Cavaco Silva.
For the United Kingdom: Prime-Minister John Major.
(source: General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union)
Chapter 8 of europedia.moussis.eu that contains an online version of Nicholas Moussis' well known book: Access to European Union law, economics, policies, shows that (IMO monstrosity) was devised at Maatricht as a compromise. Moussis explains: "... The compromise solution that was found there and then was the partition of European integration into two Treaties (one on the European Union and one on the European Community) and into three construction pillars: the European Community - the first and main pillar; common foreign and security policy (CFSP); and justice and home affairs (JHA)...". Oh my. A legal/institutional monstrosity, something which was/is alas not a new thing for the EEC/EC/EU in the effort to reach compromises, ie in "kicking the can down the road". Read more of Nicholas Moussis' analysis of how this mess of tied up via the next 3 EU Treaties!
So, who is kicking/kicked the can down the road? Merkel, Sarkozy et al or their predecessors?
The least those who are still able to, can do, is speak up now, explain to the public opinion, and thus help their successors lead Europe where it is destined to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)