In the medieval era in Europe most kingdoms employed the system of serfdom. In this, the rights to ownership, movement, and other basic forms of self-determination were severely curtailed by the landowners on whose land people worked and lived. Their state of dependency - that they had no land or means of production - meant that they were exposed to unfair conditions in dealing with the landowners. We are now entering a state of modern capitalism in which a great part of society lives or will live in a state of semi-serfdom. The landowner is today the alliance of the corporations and major governing parties. This is the situation in most of Europe, China, Japan, and the US.
The cycle of serfdom is different from the old one. The recipe now is to instill in people a sense of competition and ambition. All rewards - money, ownership, etc. - are performance tied, and performance is measured relatively to one's competing cohort not absolutely. People are then asked to get in dept or deplete a large amount of their resources to obtain the rights to enter the competition (go to uni, obtain professional training and licenses, etc.). This stage already sees a large number of people becoming indebted, with only a part of them having a chance of repaying those debts within reasonable times, say 4-10 years.
In the next stage more and more institutions raise the levels of entry to all positions. Cleaning and service jobs require now several trainings and previous experience; highly skilled jobs see the graduates of top universities go to to toe even with numerous internships and work experience under their belts. At this stage participants of the workforce who have to rely on wages or a salary get exposed to companies and governments. They are asked to be mobile to an absurd degree, and without adequate compensation. Without willing to enter the race for the mid-management or higher jobs their financial rewards will never be enough to make them truly independent. Already their first purchase of a flat or house will put them into debt and dependence towards both their crediting institution and their workplace.
Take a career in medicine for example. University entrance exams are hard and so is progression. That's a good thing, for quality control reasons. But these institutions are also expensive in most countries, even with scholarships or loans. Then doctors are asked to work a large load of extra hours, night shifts, weekend shifts. They are rewarded to some degree, but comparing with the people owning factories, lands, businesses, shares, or being able to invest in bonds, securities, etc. their income is minuscule, while their work/life balance is abismal.
Take another as another example researchers. Research jobs used to be prestige jobs and a large number of them granted tenure. However this changed in the last 30 years. Business administrators and managers infiltrated the higher levels of higher education everywhere. Their salaries and numbers are rising at never before seen rates (this is what drives up the tuition fees to exorbitant levels), while some of the key reforms they bring is it undermine tenure, offer short-term and term-time only contracts, and dispose of any researchers speaking up on important social issues if they don't fit the ideas of Marketing.
The dirty work part of managing these changes and carrying them out is usually relegated to the throng of mid-level managers now found at almost any institutions. These folks are usually naive, good-willed, and often talented, hard working people. Nevertheless, they are either blind to what they assist in, make themselves believe that the rosy phrases in which marketing dresses things up are the reality (e.g. introducing mandatory extra tasks for job-roles is called 'opportunity to learn new skills', whereas in reality it is simply an additional duty to perform an extra task not included in the original contract without further remuneration for it), or they are corrupt enough not to mind.
It is a sad world, and most us either end up playing the debt game, or shape our lives in ways to accommodate the needs of corporations and public institutions increasingly run by people with a business background, having zero sense of social responsibility and the mission of public institutions.
This trend is horrible in itself. It makes it even more worrying that having to shape our lives around the needs of companies shatters most social networks. Shifting living places repeatedly makes us unable to stay near and take care of our parents and other old relatives. It ruins are chances to have a local identity and properly participate in charities, volunteer, get to know our neigbours and the folks at the local pub, and to participate and understand local and regional politics. That is, it makes us vulnerable to a lack of identity. Our votes are then only informed by what we see on TV, which are usually debates and slogans regarding enormous topics like the economy, war, immigration or healthcare. The dumbed-down and oversimplified choices we are offered aren't real, and our influence and understanding of politics is vanishing, as are our family ties and abilities to shape our local social groups.
It was just a question of time of course how the people will big money - the owners of corporations, land, politicians, business people, etc. of all nations, Americans, Chinese, Swiss, Brit, French, etc. - will come to figure out how to thwart the progress made between 1919 and the 1970s. That era saw a great shift in general welfare, supported by strong labour unions, strong government regulations, corporate social responsibility directives, and activism in politics of middle class and working class people. As we are gradually pushed out from politics and business takes over, the gains we made in equality are also disappearing. We can still stop this, and then move on with equalisation, developing sustainable economies and stopping climate change. Or we can see how for the sake of a few percent of the world's population it all goes to shite.
Sunday 31 March 2019
Monday 25 March 2019
Why people vote far right
People who vote for the right are in many cases concerned with foreigners, inequality in the economy, job insecurity, poverty and the general welfare of their nation. In some cases they are bigots, madmen, racists, etc. but I won't talk about those people here because we understand their motivations. They are bad people with views which are wrong and act on these.
The interesting cases are those who don't share such radical views and/or are not bad people. Their worries stem from general insecurities. These insecurities are fueled by real life hardships, individual history. One of the many social reasons for them is what I highlight here. These days we tell a false story about our economy saying that anyone who studies and works hard can have a good life and become successful. This is far from the truth.
For success beyond hard work money, good connections, and a strong family is also needed. Without the first investment and starting a business are impossible these days. For example, for new businesses AI is needed. AI is incredibly expensive, experts are scarce. That is why the US is the leader in the field. They had the enormous amounts of money to poor into experimenting with and perfecting these companies. It is not - mostly not - about culture or individuals.
Good connections are important in a sense that people need to have first person experiences of what is possible. They need to see and be able to work in environments which broaden their horizons. This is often not possible or only limited exposure to such experience can be gain if one's family, friends, or school cannot supply the right contacts.
Third, the stability and financial support of families is incredibly important. I'm no high flier in life and I have OK abilities. I'm in a good place. But my family both put a lot of effort into teaching me, studying with me, talking at the dinner table about important and interesting topics, showing me how they work, and they also paid a good deal of money for school, extra curricular trips, extra tuition. This is only accessible for few people.
So, as long as states poor money elsewhere instead of the social and educational services, and as long as we lie to ourselves and our societies that anyone can be successful these days we're preparing people for a lot of pain and disillusionment. That's how we create layers and layers of working class and lower middle class people who become bitter and try to explain why they are unhappy by pointing their fingers on others. The right wing offers an explanation, but the wrong one. It is our economic system and the politicians serving it who are the problem, not race or religion.
The interesting cases are those who don't share such radical views and/or are not bad people. Their worries stem from general insecurities. These insecurities are fueled by real life hardships, individual history. One of the many social reasons for them is what I highlight here. These days we tell a false story about our economy saying that anyone who studies and works hard can have a good life and become successful. This is far from the truth.
For success beyond hard work money, good connections, and a strong family is also needed. Without the first investment and starting a business are impossible these days. For example, for new businesses AI is needed. AI is incredibly expensive, experts are scarce. That is why the US is the leader in the field. They had the enormous amounts of money to poor into experimenting with and perfecting these companies. It is not - mostly not - about culture or individuals.
Good connections are important in a sense that people need to have first person experiences of what is possible. They need to see and be able to work in environments which broaden their horizons. This is often not possible or only limited exposure to such experience can be gain if one's family, friends, or school cannot supply the right contacts.
Third, the stability and financial support of families is incredibly important. I'm no high flier in life and I have OK abilities. I'm in a good place. But my family both put a lot of effort into teaching me, studying with me, talking at the dinner table about important and interesting topics, showing me how they work, and they also paid a good deal of money for school, extra curricular trips, extra tuition. This is only accessible for few people.
So, as long as states poor money elsewhere instead of the social and educational services, and as long as we lie to ourselves and our societies that anyone can be successful these days we're preparing people for a lot of pain and disillusionment. That's how we create layers and layers of working class and lower middle class people who become bitter and try to explain why they are unhappy by pointing their fingers on others. The right wing offers an explanation, but the wrong one. It is our economic system and the politicians serving it who are the problem, not race or religion.
Friday 22 March 2019
How we are made to work
In the recent years there has been more and more pressure on academic workers and educated workers. Work gets extremely standardized and regulated, much like factory work did a 100 years ago. The long-term goal of companies, and the humans behind them, is to make every kind of job a collection of small, well described tasks, so that they can evenetualy be automated and humans can be replaced. This will lower costs for the owners and investors, and make more profit. These people don't give a single solitary f..k about the people who lose their jobs, who cannot support their family anymore, and societies where the general buying power is decreasing. It is an extremely short sighted and selfish direction the economy is going in.
Politicians assist this. Since no one else but the richest companies and individuals have enough money to influence politicians and their parties, no one else has substantial influence on politicians. Except some of the strongest and oldest media products, much of tv, websites and newspapers is politically motivated fake news stuff that only serves to sway people's attention away from the real issues and keep them occupied with movies, scandals, sports, and non-issues (gender-related issues, minor corruption cases, etc.).
The political classes in Europe and the US, as well as in Japan, have been cooperating in bleeding out the social services, freezing the pay of people below top managerial level in all public services. All good people are driven to the companies, which enforce stricter and stricter regulations on workers, and demand long hours and ridiculous flexibility. They demand relocation, constant travel and other forms of engagement which ruins social structures. It makes proper family life impossible and taking part in one's local community is not an option either. The networks which are necessary for a healthy society disappear, old people end up in care homes, kids spend their times with nannies if the parents are well off, and in daycare or on the street if they're not.
This is not a serious way to make a society work. And it requires urgent change.
Drive for climate change and drive for healthy societies demands states which can regulate the economy and companies. For this, ownership of means of production needs to be regulated too.
Sadly, we know from history that such changes do not happen without violence. Unless our politicians push now for radical change in the economy and ownership structures - homes and means of production - the inequality will increase, buying power levels will drop further, this will lead to higher crime rates, more insecurity, and shrinking populations.
Politicians assist this. Since no one else but the richest companies and individuals have enough money to influence politicians and their parties, no one else has substantial influence on politicians. Except some of the strongest and oldest media products, much of tv, websites and newspapers is politically motivated fake news stuff that only serves to sway people's attention away from the real issues and keep them occupied with movies, scandals, sports, and non-issues (gender-related issues, minor corruption cases, etc.).
The political classes in Europe and the US, as well as in Japan, have been cooperating in bleeding out the social services, freezing the pay of people below top managerial level in all public services. All good people are driven to the companies, which enforce stricter and stricter regulations on workers, and demand long hours and ridiculous flexibility. They demand relocation, constant travel and other forms of engagement which ruins social structures. It makes proper family life impossible and taking part in one's local community is not an option either. The networks which are necessary for a healthy society disappear, old people end up in care homes, kids spend their times with nannies if the parents are well off, and in daycare or on the street if they're not.
This is not a serious way to make a society work. And it requires urgent change.
Drive for climate change and drive for healthy societies demands states which can regulate the economy and companies. For this, ownership of means of production needs to be regulated too.
Sadly, we know from history that such changes do not happen without violence. Unless our politicians push now for radical change in the economy and ownership structures - homes and means of production - the inequality will increase, buying power levels will drop further, this will lead to higher crime rates, more insecurity, and shrinking populations.
Wednesday 10 October 2018
Some fine Japanese movies
When it comes to Japanese cinema most people will first say the name of Kurosawa and Ozu, and sometimes Mizoguchi. These giants of film did perform some miracles (Seven Samurai; Tokyo Story; The 47 Ronin), however there is also plenty of enjoyable and some outstanding contemporary Japanese films to see. I will recommend a few which I've seen in the last years.
Departures (2009)
Departures is an excellent tale about a 30ish couple facing new challenges in life, both at work and in their relationship. After the husband looses his job in the big city, they return to the countryside to reboot their life. The film handles difficult topics (death, jobs, love, trust) with sublime, genuine humour. It is one of those rare gems of a movie where one laughs, sheds a few tears, and feels touched too.
Our Little Sister (2015)
Our Little Sister is a touching family story of reunion, or learning about each other, and how different characters can fill each others' lives with meaning and joy. The sisters return to their hometown after the death of their divorced father and meet for the first time their younger half-sister. They agree to take her in and a splendid tale of affection begins to unfold.
Chronicle of My Mother (2012)
Harada's movie is based on Inoue Yasushi's novel of the same title. Chronicle of My Mother does address some topics - care for an older relative with dementia, discord in a tight-knit large family between generations - but it does not psychologise or dramatise them overly. Rather, it puts them in their place: instead of creating problems larger than life out of them it shows that a family that works normally and supports each other can tackle and overcome most issues. Certainly a nice and heart warming message in an age when the extreme individualism most developed countries embraced - one of the sad influences of too much US cultural and political influence - is causing enormous social difficulties.
Recall (2018)
This is an exciting movie about corporate corruption and how it can be fought. The actors in Recall are doing a great job, and the script splendidly addresses several of the main issues of our age: the total takeover of large money, rule of interest, influencing of media by big business owners, and the difficulty of average people to be independent of such huge organisations. The movie shows that on their own neither the young people wanting to reform big business from the inside, nor media, nor the owners of smaller companies have enough influence and information to affect a real change in things. However if everyone in society works together - or at least for the same goal, even if separately - and the police is willing to listen, then things can be achieved. An exciting drama with great tension, revelations and good tempo!
The movie is set in Japan where it is particularly actual due to the many recall and quality issue scandals since 2010. But it is obvious that in one sense at least Japan is admitting and making such cases public. One can only guess how many similar cases would be uncovered if the US, China, and some other larger countries would be as open and critical with their companies as the Japanese were willing to be in the last decade.
Haru's Journey (2010)
Haru's Journey is a sad, slow and meditative movie. It deals with old age, aging society, loneliness, the lack of guidance and identity that current modern states offer for youth, and especially for young Japanese females. Haru accompanies his old and jobless uncle on a trip to visit the uncle's still living relatives. The meetings don't bring any joy, rather bitterness, as they reveal old conflicts about which way to head in life and failures that no one wants to admit. It is a hard movie to watch, but useful. One can get a sense of the very real despair holding the hearts of many people at this very moment who are alone and without any outlooks. It can spur one into motion, it can make one a bit more sensitive and compassionate.
Dolls (2002)
Kitano's film is a true romantic masterpiece about love that does not fear sacrifices and love that does not rest until the fates of the lovers merge. A fantastic visual feast with shots of the Japanese mountains and seasons that will forever linger before your eyes, Dolls is a real treasure. For lovers, for those who are not in love at the moment, for those who loved, or who want to love, for those who don't care about love and just want to see a well done and masterfully shot movie, and for everyone else too.
Departures (2009)
Departures is an excellent tale about a 30ish couple facing new challenges in life, both at work and in their relationship. After the husband looses his job in the big city, they return to the countryside to reboot their life. The film handles difficult topics (death, jobs, love, trust) with sublime, genuine humour. It is one of those rare gems of a movie where one laughs, sheds a few tears, and feels touched too.
Our Little Sister (2015)
Our Little Sister is a touching family story of reunion, or learning about each other, and how different characters can fill each others' lives with meaning and joy. The sisters return to their hometown after the death of their divorced father and meet for the first time their younger half-sister. They agree to take her in and a splendid tale of affection begins to unfold.
Chronicle of My Mother (2012)
Harada's movie is based on Inoue Yasushi's novel of the same title. Chronicle of My Mother does address some topics - care for an older relative with dementia, discord in a tight-knit large family between generations - but it does not psychologise or dramatise them overly. Rather, it puts them in their place: instead of creating problems larger than life out of them it shows that a family that works normally and supports each other can tackle and overcome most issues. Certainly a nice and heart warming message in an age when the extreme individualism most developed countries embraced - one of the sad influences of too much US cultural and political influence - is causing enormous social difficulties.
Recall (2018)
This is an exciting movie about corporate corruption and how it can be fought. The actors in Recall are doing a great job, and the script splendidly addresses several of the main issues of our age: the total takeover of large money, rule of interest, influencing of media by big business owners, and the difficulty of average people to be independent of such huge organisations. The movie shows that on their own neither the young people wanting to reform big business from the inside, nor media, nor the owners of smaller companies have enough influence and information to affect a real change in things. However if everyone in society works together - or at least for the same goal, even if separately - and the police is willing to listen, then things can be achieved. An exciting drama with great tension, revelations and good tempo!
The movie is set in Japan where it is particularly actual due to the many recall and quality issue scandals since 2010. But it is obvious that in one sense at least Japan is admitting and making such cases public. One can only guess how many similar cases would be uncovered if the US, China, and some other larger countries would be as open and critical with their companies as the Japanese were willing to be in the last decade.
Haru's Journey (2010)
Haru's Journey is a sad, slow and meditative movie. It deals with old age, aging society, loneliness, the lack of guidance and identity that current modern states offer for youth, and especially for young Japanese females. Haru accompanies his old and jobless uncle on a trip to visit the uncle's still living relatives. The meetings don't bring any joy, rather bitterness, as they reveal old conflicts about which way to head in life and failures that no one wants to admit. It is a hard movie to watch, but useful. One can get a sense of the very real despair holding the hearts of many people at this very moment who are alone and without any outlooks. It can spur one into motion, it can make one a bit more sensitive and compassionate.
Dolls (2002)
Kitano's film is a true romantic masterpiece about love that does not fear sacrifices and love that does not rest until the fates of the lovers merge. A fantastic visual feast with shots of the Japanese mountains and seasons that will forever linger before your eyes, Dolls is a real treasure. For lovers, for those who are not in love at the moment, for those who loved, or who want to love, for those who don't care about love and just want to see a well done and masterfully shot movie, and for everyone else too.
Sunday 2 September 2018
Rising military budgets in the US, China and Japan
Several Western news resources like to announce in their titles that China or that Japan has raised their military budget again. They make it sound as if these countries would be getting ready for war (it is always left open with whom). But this is a mistaken impression they create. The news are not fake: usually the data is in the articles. However, the tone of titles and their wording is obviously misleading. And the data is usually not presented in comparison with relevant trends and info, so it looks scarier than it is.
So, some basic numbers. Most of the following come from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) which is nicely compiled on wikipedia, and also links to the original.
Biggest spenders
At the moment the biggest spender is the US, the second is China, third Saudi Arabia, followed by Russia in the fourth place. Then we have India, the UK, France, and Japan in the 8th place. Germany and South Korea make up the top ten.
GDP relative spending
In terms of GDP the US and China are the biggest economies in the world. Japan follows in the third place, Germany fourth. So Japan and Germany place much further back, they spend much less relative to what they have, than many other countries.
To look at some numbers
the US spends 3.1% of its GDP
China 1.9%
Saudi Arabia 10%
Russia 4.3%
India 2.5%
UK 1.8%
Japan 0.9%
Germany 1.2%
This indicates which countries place a huge emphasis on developing and maintaining their military strength.
It is of course influenced
1) by how risky the country's environment is (but then Japan's should be much higher of course),
2) by how big the country's GDP is (the UK's 1.8% is just a bit bigger than Japan's 0.9% for example), and
3) by local prices (China can pay much less for most military personnel and products because labour costs are lower and many corporations are fully or partially state owned).
Political factors
In some cases the spending is just defense oriented, in some cases it is upkeep and development oriented, and in some cases it is potentially (or very likely) aggression oriented.
For example much of Germany's spending simply goes to upkeep. Japan is developing a good deal this year, but this is mostly defense oriented: since China and Russia, its giant neighbours, are upgrading and developing their military very fast Japan needs to spend on defense. The USA, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are developing attacking capabilities, spending great amounts on research and new weapons (both development and purchasing).
Of course all countries look at their own safety, but with some we also know that they have territorial ambitions (China has asserted its claim to Taiwan and the South-China sea, so its preparing to fight if others don't simply allow it to capture those territories).
Real terms
It is also important to look at spending in real terms. That is, how much actual money has been spent. The top three are the US, China and Saudi Arabia.
The US has spent 610 billion US dollars (same for all others: billion USD)
China 228
Saudi Arabia 69.4
Russia 66.3
India 66.9
France 57.8
UK 47.2
Japan 45.4
Germany 44.3
South Korea 39.2
In this light we can see that the US surpasses by far all of the others. However its forces are spread out all over the world. China's and Russia forces, although seemingly cheaper, are much more concentrated which might mean that they are stronger in some locations.
It is also telling that the three biggest Europeans don't spend together as much as China.
Japan doesn't spend much more than South-Korea and already that is controversial with voters and opposition politicians. Both Japan and South-Korea have US forces stationed within their borders and could - hopefully, but who knows with Trump - count on the US's support in case of aggression. Still, one wonders whether they shouldn't build up their own, homegrown industry more in the current climate of an expansionist China, and an assertive Russia.
Rise in budgets year on year
This is important because it shows how much need the countries see there is for development. This can reflect worries about their neighbours or rivals, as well as intentions to turn to the offensive.
I didn't look that much into the data on this front but the numbers on the US, China and Japan have been much commented on, so it is easy to have. Again, it is characteristic of reporting that the enormous raise in the US budget is discussed, but usually in fairly realistic terms. I think this is fair, given that the US is in a competition for hegemony in many areas with Russia, China, in West-Asia, in the Arctic, and increasingly also in Africa. This might be morally wrong - as most military building is - but strategically necessary - because if the US would behave better that wouldn't mean the two other superpowers would stop misbehaving.
Anyway, the reported number is 10%, which is "huge" as one guy likes to say.
The reporting on China and Japan has, as usual, been much more alarmist. The funny thing is that both follow trends and both could be anticipated, so, shouldn't be very surprising. Also, from a strategic point of view maybe the Japanese budget doesn't make that much sense - why don't they increase a lot more!? - but the political situation and Japan's foreign policy makes sense of this too - Japan places emphasis on international law, economic relations and rejects employing offensive weapon system, despite all the panic and fear mongering to the contrary that we saw in the Chinese and US media. (The Guardian published a refreshingly well-contextualised short piece on this one.)
China's spending is now officially around 175 billion USD but expert estimate it to be around 225-230b USD actually. Sadly their budget is notoriously secretive. Not even citizens can access it.
This means a raise of 8.1% from last year's spending.
China likes to point out that in terms of GDP their spending has been decreasing. This is just smokescreening of course: its true, but the real numbers, the actual amount has still been rising fast, since the economy grew so much in the last 30 years.
This is in line with their enormous military capability build up. We see that China is getting bolder and bolder. Earlier its goal was just to have sufficient defense against its immediate neighbours (India, Russia). Recently it also tries to dominate its smaller neighbours (Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand) and threaten seriously Japan and South-Korea. It also asserted that it claims Taiwan and the South-China Sea, so, it needs to be able to deny access to these areas to the US military stationed in East- and South-East Asia, and it also needs to be able to counter a possible reclaiming attack. The numbers make sense in this light. Of course that they make sense doesn't mean that they are morally or politically encouraging. China is on the road to aggression under Xi's leadership, and this should worry all of us. Maybe a leadership change would help.
Japan's spending was raised by 2.5%. Yup, this is what the big excitement is about. (Up next! Another RECORD setting 2.1% raise is in line! Notice that almost all the titles use the word 'record. I know its a hard fight out there for readers but this is just ridiculous.) This is in line with their policy to pursue diplomacy and rely on the international legal tools and organizations rather than military pressure. Japan has been following this policy coherently since the end of WWII, so for more than 70 years. Abe is possibly the most hawkish and influential prime minister since the 1960s and still, Japan didn't turn into an aggressor, no matter how much the Chinese media would like to portray him like that. And of course the Japanese spending is still eminently transparent, as it should be in a democracy.
So, think a bit, look into the context and don't judge too quickly when you see a title and a few numbers. Yes, there are rising tensions, yes there is a buildup. But no, no one is going to jump against the others' throat in the next year or two, and no, Japan is not turning into an imperialist superpower again. China is still a long way from contesting US dominance on a global scale, but it can do this already in the local theatre of operations (or war, if there will be one). Russia maintains high spending, Saudi Arabia is building up like crazy, and Europe is maintaining a sensible apparatus.
So, some basic numbers. Most of the following come from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) which is nicely compiled on wikipedia, and also links to the original.
Biggest spenders
At the moment the biggest spender is the US, the second is China, third Saudi Arabia, followed by Russia in the fourth place. Then we have India, the UK, France, and Japan in the 8th place. Germany and South Korea make up the top ten.
GDP relative spending
In terms of GDP the US and China are the biggest economies in the world. Japan follows in the third place, Germany fourth. So Japan and Germany place much further back, they spend much less relative to what they have, than many other countries.
To look at some numbers
the US spends 3.1% of its GDP
China 1.9%
Saudi Arabia 10%
Russia 4.3%
India 2.5%
UK 1.8%
Japan 0.9%
Germany 1.2%
This indicates which countries place a huge emphasis on developing and maintaining their military strength.
It is of course influenced
1) by how risky the country's environment is (but then Japan's should be much higher of course),
2) by how big the country's GDP is (the UK's 1.8% is just a bit bigger than Japan's 0.9% for example), and
3) by local prices (China can pay much less for most military personnel and products because labour costs are lower and many corporations are fully or partially state owned).
Political factors
In some cases the spending is just defense oriented, in some cases it is upkeep and development oriented, and in some cases it is potentially (or very likely) aggression oriented.
For example much of Germany's spending simply goes to upkeep. Japan is developing a good deal this year, but this is mostly defense oriented: since China and Russia, its giant neighbours, are upgrading and developing their military very fast Japan needs to spend on defense. The USA, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are developing attacking capabilities, spending great amounts on research and new weapons (both development and purchasing).
Of course all countries look at their own safety, but with some we also know that they have territorial ambitions (China has asserted its claim to Taiwan and the South-China sea, so its preparing to fight if others don't simply allow it to capture those territories).
Real terms
It is also important to look at spending in real terms. That is, how much actual money has been spent. The top three are the US, China and Saudi Arabia.
The US has spent 610 billion US dollars (same for all others: billion USD)
China 228
Saudi Arabia 69.4
Russia 66.3
India 66.9
France 57.8
UK 47.2
Japan 45.4
Germany 44.3
South Korea 39.2
In this light we can see that the US surpasses by far all of the others. However its forces are spread out all over the world. China's and Russia forces, although seemingly cheaper, are much more concentrated which might mean that they are stronger in some locations.
It is also telling that the three biggest Europeans don't spend together as much as China.
Japan doesn't spend much more than South-Korea and already that is controversial with voters and opposition politicians. Both Japan and South-Korea have US forces stationed within their borders and could - hopefully, but who knows with Trump - count on the US's support in case of aggression. Still, one wonders whether they shouldn't build up their own, homegrown industry more in the current climate of an expansionist China, and an assertive Russia.
Rise in budgets year on year
This is important because it shows how much need the countries see there is for development. This can reflect worries about their neighbours or rivals, as well as intentions to turn to the offensive.
I didn't look that much into the data on this front but the numbers on the US, China and Japan have been much commented on, so it is easy to have. Again, it is characteristic of reporting that the enormous raise in the US budget is discussed, but usually in fairly realistic terms. I think this is fair, given that the US is in a competition for hegemony in many areas with Russia, China, in West-Asia, in the Arctic, and increasingly also in Africa. This might be morally wrong - as most military building is - but strategically necessary - because if the US would behave better that wouldn't mean the two other superpowers would stop misbehaving.
Anyway, the reported number is 10%, which is "huge" as one guy likes to say.
The reporting on China and Japan has, as usual, been much more alarmist. The funny thing is that both follow trends and both could be anticipated, so, shouldn't be very surprising. Also, from a strategic point of view maybe the Japanese budget doesn't make that much sense - why don't they increase a lot more!? - but the political situation and Japan's foreign policy makes sense of this too - Japan places emphasis on international law, economic relations and rejects employing offensive weapon system, despite all the panic and fear mongering to the contrary that we saw in the Chinese and US media. (The Guardian published a refreshingly well-contextualised short piece on this one.)
China's spending is now officially around 175 billion USD but expert estimate it to be around 225-230b USD actually. Sadly their budget is notoriously secretive. Not even citizens can access it.
This means a raise of 8.1% from last year's spending.
China likes to point out that in terms of GDP their spending has been decreasing. This is just smokescreening of course: its true, but the real numbers, the actual amount has still been rising fast, since the economy grew so much in the last 30 years.
This is in line with their enormous military capability build up. We see that China is getting bolder and bolder. Earlier its goal was just to have sufficient defense against its immediate neighbours (India, Russia). Recently it also tries to dominate its smaller neighbours (Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand) and threaten seriously Japan and South-Korea. It also asserted that it claims Taiwan and the South-China Sea, so, it needs to be able to deny access to these areas to the US military stationed in East- and South-East Asia, and it also needs to be able to counter a possible reclaiming attack. The numbers make sense in this light. Of course that they make sense doesn't mean that they are morally or politically encouraging. China is on the road to aggression under Xi's leadership, and this should worry all of us. Maybe a leadership change would help.
Japan's spending was raised by 2.5%. Yup, this is what the big excitement is about. (Up next! Another RECORD setting 2.1% raise is in line! Notice that almost all the titles use the word 'record. I know its a hard fight out there for readers but this is just ridiculous.) This is in line with their policy to pursue diplomacy and rely on the international legal tools and organizations rather than military pressure. Japan has been following this policy coherently since the end of WWII, so for more than 70 years. Abe is possibly the most hawkish and influential prime minister since the 1960s and still, Japan didn't turn into an aggressor, no matter how much the Chinese media would like to portray him like that. And of course the Japanese spending is still eminently transparent, as it should be in a democracy.
So, think a bit, look into the context and don't judge too quickly when you see a title and a few numbers. Yes, there are rising tensions, yes there is a buildup. But no, no one is going to jump against the others' throat in the next year or two, and no, Japan is not turning into an imperialist superpower again. China is still a long way from contesting US dominance on a global scale, but it can do this already in the local theatre of operations (or war, if there will be one). Russia maintains high spending, Saudi Arabia is building up like crazy, and Europe is maintaining a sensible apparatus.
Saturday 25 August 2018
On bullshit jobs, again
David Graeber's (LSE) silly stuff on bullshit jobs is making the rounds again. I wrote about it already back when he came up with this. Graeber is a good guy and he wrote some interesting things on debt and topics in anthropology. Bad sadly he has become one of those folks who think that because they are smart in their field they know about everything.
Many of the jobs Graeber describes as bullshit - in admin, customer services, etc. - are only bullshit if you don't have any clue about running an organisation, if you don't understand anything about customer service, and so on. Graeber doesn't seem to have much first hand experience in doing these things (I don't doubt that he has read up on them, done interviews, but that's not the same). Like many academics he doesn't see nor does he take the time to learn about how the institutions he is/was working. If he would have to do a tiny fraction of all the things a university needs to do for its students to stay afloat these days he would go nuts and wouldn't have any time to write books about how these same jobs are meaningless. Think of organising exams, making sure students all get the same quality of services for the same money, sorting out the legal and financial issues of an institution and so on.
One could of course say that we should drastically cut back on admin and management positions. That's possible but then companies and public institutions won't be able to serve people. We are not in 1800 anymore, the population numbers are through the roof. The number of people attending higher education institutions, using banks, shopping, traveling, etc. has increased by several magnitudes.
To give just one example, no country could have broadened its higher ed system and admitted more students to more courses if there wouldn't be a professional administration to deal with the issues connected to this and an efficient and competent management to oversee and organise this.
Graeber is right that management, especially in competitive for profit sectors, takes a view that helps maintain a bad social track we are on towards inequality. But the solution is not to create nicer jobs or to banish ones he feels are useless. The solution is to change redistribution patterns. Yes, we might be able to work less, but no, we don't want to give up on quality standards in education, food processing, banking, we don't want to live without audits for government institutions, social services, car making, iron and steel production, etc.
Second, just because a job doesn't change the world and is not crucial to our survival, it isn't bullshit. It's not a bad thing that we don't all have to work on the fields every day just to have enough food for our community to survive a cold winter. Or that we don't all have to participate in war planning or other such activities which have a big impact and high intensity.
There are plenty of jobs that won't change the world, but they make it the more and more safe and increasingly convenient and pleasant place that it is becoming, at least in terms of services and support we get. This enables us to do a lot more with our free time and also in our jobs if we chose to do something creative.
Many of the jobs Graeber describes as bullshit - in admin, customer services, etc. - are only bullshit if you don't have any clue about running an organisation, if you don't understand anything about customer service, and so on. Graeber doesn't seem to have much first hand experience in doing these things (I don't doubt that he has read up on them, done interviews, but that's not the same). Like many academics he doesn't see nor does he take the time to learn about how the institutions he is/was working. If he would have to do a tiny fraction of all the things a university needs to do for its students to stay afloat these days he would go nuts and wouldn't have any time to write books about how these same jobs are meaningless. Think of organising exams, making sure students all get the same quality of services for the same money, sorting out the legal and financial issues of an institution and so on.
One could of course say that we should drastically cut back on admin and management positions. That's possible but then companies and public institutions won't be able to serve people. We are not in 1800 anymore, the population numbers are through the roof. The number of people attending higher education institutions, using banks, shopping, traveling, etc. has increased by several magnitudes.
To give just one example, no country could have broadened its higher ed system and admitted more students to more courses if there wouldn't be a professional administration to deal with the issues connected to this and an efficient and competent management to oversee and organise this.
Graeber is right that management, especially in competitive for profit sectors, takes a view that helps maintain a bad social track we are on towards inequality. But the solution is not to create nicer jobs or to banish ones he feels are useless. The solution is to change redistribution patterns. Yes, we might be able to work less, but no, we don't want to give up on quality standards in education, food processing, banking, we don't want to live without audits for government institutions, social services, car making, iron and steel production, etc.
Second, just because a job doesn't change the world and is not crucial to our survival, it isn't bullshit. It's not a bad thing that we don't all have to work on the fields every day just to have enough food for our community to survive a cold winter. Or that we don't all have to participate in war planning or other such activities which have a big impact and high intensity.
There are plenty of jobs that won't change the world, but they make it the more and more safe and increasingly convenient and pleasant place that it is becoming, at least in terms of services and support we get. This enables us to do a lot more with our free time and also in our jobs if we chose to do something creative.
Thursday 23 August 2018
Orban's divisie rhetoric and tricks explained - it won't work anymore
Seeing through Fidesz's right wing deception: the trick the Republicans, the Conservatices, Le Pen and now Orban employs
Hungary is descending further and further into the abyss under Orban. Economically only the EU subsidies keep the country afloat. Recently to keep his campaigning - entirely based on artificial fear from migration - Orban's government even stopped feeding those who apply for a refugee permit. This procedure can last for days. They try to tell people to leave before an official decision has been made, thereby basically cancelling out their application. As inhumane and evil as it can get.
Luckily, more and more people are starting to understand the communication strategy of Orban's Fidesz. And besides communication there is nothing that keeps them afloat. Orban gets support basically for reiterating every week a nice, romantic, nationalist fairy tale to his voters.
I describe here this strategy, give some examples, and tell you how to avoid falling for it.
This fairy tale is based on the schematics that there is always a new challenge or threat to Hungary. The evil person, the source of the threat is always portrayed by Fidesz as someone who is or can legitimately challenge Orban's rule, or who points out real faults with it. Such institutions and people get depicted as the evil ones and Fidesz as the saviors. Fidesz repeates its lies so often at every possible time that after a period people start discussing non-existent issues. They forget that the issue doesn't exist and start behaving as if it would.
For example Fidesz started talking of 'the liberals'. There is and never was a unified camp either in politics or among voters in Hungary that could have been identified meaningfully as such. But they repeated this lie often enough and it stuck. Now many journalists and opposition people debate as if they would be liberals and the issue would be to show that Fidesz is wrong about liberals, or that liberals and right and Fidesz is wrong.
But more and more people see it now that the correct solution is simply to point out that Fidesz is lying in the first place. There are no liberals. The problem they are talking about doesn't exist. And hence, they are just bullshitting very expensively at the voters' money instead of working.
There is a simple method to counter the effects of this rhetoric. Every time Orban, Le Pen, the Brexiters, Republicans, or people saying they are 'conservative' or 'liberal' state that there is a problem and they are the only ones who can solve it do one thing. Calmly ask yourself: is that a real problem? When Orban says that he is the only one looking at the nation's interest is that true? No. I'm against Orban and I look at it. So his claim is false. Our values and goals are the same. Where is the difference? In the facts: namely, the facts Orban wants to build his case on are non-existent. Plainly said, they are lies. This is how easy it is.
Another example: there is no threat of gay people in the world or threat of 'genders' or 'feminism'. Does any sane people disagree with the following 3 claims?
1 Gay people should be left alone to live their lives as everyone else.
2 People with all kinds of genders should be left alone to live their lives as everyone else.
3 In areas where women are disadvantages simply because they are women - in some jobs in their pay, in some legal procedures, in some stereotypes and educational institutions - they should be treated as equals.
No one disagrees with these things. This is what sane gay activists, gender activists, and feminists ask for. Since every normal grown up understands these things and agrees on this, there is no threat.
So, where is the issue? The issue is with the likes of Jordan Peterson lying that there are bigger threats (to freedom of speech, gosh), Trump railing against women because some are protesting against him, and so on. The problem is with the hate mongers who get hung up on non-issues, like how someone experiences their gender.
Call these liars out, and just move on. Don't give them attention, time, energy. Let's keep building a normal world, work, spend quality time with our families. Not everything is politics. Folks like Orban and his Fidesz would like us to believe everything is. Politics is in how we behave in our families, what we think of food, art, literature, fun, gender, etc. That is not true. Politics has nothing to do in most of these places. But sensationalist and populist politicians gain power by pretending that there is. I don't blame people who are tired and confused by the world for getting duped. It happens to all of us. Just make sure you turn away and don't vote for these people. Take a break, enjoy your life, build you community, talk with your neighbour and vote for sensible people, not sensationalists.
Hungary is descending further and further into the abyss under Orban. Economically only the EU subsidies keep the country afloat. Recently to keep his campaigning - entirely based on artificial fear from migration - Orban's government even stopped feeding those who apply for a refugee permit. This procedure can last for days. They try to tell people to leave before an official decision has been made, thereby basically cancelling out their application. As inhumane and evil as it can get.
Luckily, more and more people are starting to understand the communication strategy of Orban's Fidesz. And besides communication there is nothing that keeps them afloat. Orban gets support basically for reiterating every week a nice, romantic, nationalist fairy tale to his voters.
I describe here this strategy, give some examples, and tell you how to avoid falling for it.
This fairy tale is based on the schematics that there is always a new challenge or threat to Hungary. The evil person, the source of the threat is always portrayed by Fidesz as someone who is or can legitimately challenge Orban's rule, or who points out real faults with it. Such institutions and people get depicted as the evil ones and Fidesz as the saviors. Fidesz repeates its lies so often at every possible time that after a period people start discussing non-existent issues. They forget that the issue doesn't exist and start behaving as if it would.
For example Fidesz started talking of 'the liberals'. There is and never was a unified camp either in politics or among voters in Hungary that could have been identified meaningfully as such. But they repeated this lie often enough and it stuck. Now many journalists and opposition people debate as if they would be liberals and the issue would be to show that Fidesz is wrong about liberals, or that liberals and right and Fidesz is wrong.
But more and more people see it now that the correct solution is simply to point out that Fidesz is lying in the first place. There are no liberals. The problem they are talking about doesn't exist. And hence, they are just bullshitting very expensively at the voters' money instead of working.
There is a simple method to counter the effects of this rhetoric. Every time Orban, Le Pen, the Brexiters, Republicans, or people saying they are 'conservative' or 'liberal' state that there is a problem and they are the only ones who can solve it do one thing. Calmly ask yourself: is that a real problem? When Orban says that he is the only one looking at the nation's interest is that true? No. I'm against Orban and I look at it. So his claim is false. Our values and goals are the same. Where is the difference? In the facts: namely, the facts Orban wants to build his case on are non-existent. Plainly said, they are lies. This is how easy it is.
Another example: there is no threat of gay people in the world or threat of 'genders' or 'feminism'. Does any sane people disagree with the following 3 claims?
1 Gay people should be left alone to live their lives as everyone else.
2 People with all kinds of genders should be left alone to live their lives as everyone else.
3 In areas where women are disadvantages simply because they are women - in some jobs in their pay, in some legal procedures, in some stereotypes and educational institutions - they should be treated as equals.
No one disagrees with these things. This is what sane gay activists, gender activists, and feminists ask for. Since every normal grown up understands these things and agrees on this, there is no threat.
So, where is the issue? The issue is with the likes of Jordan Peterson lying that there are bigger threats (to freedom of speech, gosh), Trump railing against women because some are protesting against him, and so on. The problem is with the hate mongers who get hung up on non-issues, like how someone experiences their gender.
Call these liars out, and just move on. Don't give them attention, time, energy. Let's keep building a normal world, work, spend quality time with our families. Not everything is politics. Folks like Orban and his Fidesz would like us to believe everything is. Politics is in how we behave in our families, what we think of food, art, literature, fun, gender, etc. That is not true. Politics has nothing to do in most of these places. But sensationalist and populist politicians gain power by pretending that there is. I don't blame people who are tired and confused by the world for getting duped. It happens to all of us. Just make sure you turn away and don't vote for these people. Take a break, enjoy your life, build you community, talk with your neighbour and vote for sensible people, not sensationalists.
Interesting developments in Turkey and Europe
The Turkey-Trump brawl might have a good outcome for the EU
Turkey got into a huge trade brawl with the US (or rather: with Trump). It is seeing some bad consequences of this at the moment. However it is a big and robust economy so this might not stick.
Behind Trump's warlike attitude to trade there is another reason for him to target Turkey. In the Middle-East/West-Asian region Saudi Arabia is the most powerful ally and proxy of the US (besides Israel), Iran is the key partner of Russia. Turkey is a regional competitor for the Saudis, Israel, and Iran. And it has several conflicts of interests with Russia. Trump coordinates several of his movements with Russia now. One of Trump's aims is to weaken the EU. He is afraid of a strong and well-coordinated EU policy that he can't push around easily so he is trying to weaken the bloc in every way he can (that's the same strategy that Putin and Xi Jinping are pursuing).
Attacking Turkey, which is usually aligning with the EU on global scale issues is one way of doing this. Turkey is now in a difficult position. The president, Erdogan has made several political, legal, economic, and military moves which make the EU distrustful of him. The population of the EU in general has a strongly negative opinion of him and his government. So, he is in a hard position when needs help and financial support. In the long run of course it is not in the EU's interest to lose one of their key allies in the region, or to see them destabilised.
However, Trump's push might also come in handy for the EU. Challenging Erdogan proved to be a hard task so far since Turkey is big enough and Erdogan popular enough not to have to rely on the EU too much in the short run. The joint US-Russian pressure on Turkey might weaken it enough to prompt Erdogan seek EU favour and support and to be willing to give up some of his prerogatives. The EU shouldn't give in at that point. If Erdogan becomes unpopular enough and he can be removed so much the better for Turkey and for the EU. In the long run this could get Erdogan out of the way and enable transition to a more democratic, transparent legal governance in Turkey. That would be a wonderful result. Trump inadvertently might enable this.
Turkey got into a huge trade brawl with the US (or rather: with Trump). It is seeing some bad consequences of this at the moment. However it is a big and robust economy so this might not stick.
Behind Trump's warlike attitude to trade there is another reason for him to target Turkey. In the Middle-East/West-Asian region Saudi Arabia is the most powerful ally and proxy of the US (besides Israel), Iran is the key partner of Russia. Turkey is a regional competitor for the Saudis, Israel, and Iran. And it has several conflicts of interests with Russia. Trump coordinates several of his movements with Russia now. One of Trump's aims is to weaken the EU. He is afraid of a strong and well-coordinated EU policy that he can't push around easily so he is trying to weaken the bloc in every way he can (that's the same strategy that Putin and Xi Jinping are pursuing).
Attacking Turkey, which is usually aligning with the EU on global scale issues is one way of doing this. Turkey is now in a difficult position. The president, Erdogan has made several political, legal, economic, and military moves which make the EU distrustful of him. The population of the EU in general has a strongly negative opinion of him and his government. So, he is in a hard position when needs help and financial support. In the long run of course it is not in the EU's interest to lose one of their key allies in the region, or to see them destabilised.
However, Trump's push might also come in handy for the EU. Challenging Erdogan proved to be a hard task so far since Turkey is big enough and Erdogan popular enough not to have to rely on the EU too much in the short run. The joint US-Russian pressure on Turkey might weaken it enough to prompt Erdogan seek EU favour and support and to be willing to give up some of his prerogatives. The EU shouldn't give in at that point. If Erdogan becomes unpopular enough and he can be removed so much the better for Turkey and for the EU. In the long run this could get Erdogan out of the way and enable transition to a more democratic, transparent legal governance in Turkey. That would be a wonderful result. Trump inadvertently might enable this.
Tuesday 21 August 2018
Good explanation of why Trump's North-Korea posturing was inefficient
Trump tried to appear as if he would call the cards in the issues around North-Korea. But of course anyone worth their salt knows that the two Koreas, China, Russia and Japan are the main players on this one. In fact, mostly the two Koreas and China. The question is whether South-Korea is willing to change long-term strategy and integrate more into the East-Asian order, and accept the lead of China, in exchange for peace and more cooperation or even unification with North-Korea.
See this detailed, readable and clear analysis in Paste Magazine for more.
See this detailed, readable and clear analysis in Paste Magazine for more.
Monday 20 August 2018
Europe, migration and the future
It is beyond doubt that the so called 'migration crisis' in Europe had as its causes 1 the Syrian war, and 2 global warming (crops failed for years in a region traditionally good in agriculture).
The lesson is: since global warming is going to make more places uninhabitable we need to work out better frameworks for mass relocation. Even the South of Europe will need it.
The lesson is: since global warming is going to make more places uninhabitable we need to work out better frameworks for mass relocation. Even the South of Europe will need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)