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.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, 22 March 2019
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.
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.
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.
Saudi meddling and flexing against democratic countries
The EU has a tough time due to what is called the 'migration crisis'. In reality there isn't any crisis. Criminal statistics didn't become much worse. Most criminals are still homegrown, even in France or Germany. The US right wing propaganda machine tried to cook up some stories of doom but they have been debunked in every case easily.
The interesting aspect of migration is not that it caused any serious problem. It didn't.
The interesting aspect is that it gave ammunition to EU skeptics to create a hot-issue out of a non-issue. It also provides ammunition to enemies of Europe, like the US, Russia, China, and less often mentioned but just as important: the West-Asian and Middle-Eastern countries. The chief among these are of course Iran and the Saudis. They are enemies on several fronts, but weakening Europe is a goal for both of them.
There has been a steady influx of money and intellectual support for right wing radicals and euroskeptics like Nigel Farage, Marie LePen, and Viktor Orban. These people are criticising migration while benefiting from dirty oil money. A sad state of affairs.
Saudi Arabia is also trying to flex and meddle in the larger games. The last instance of this came previous week: they jailed another human rights activist. As usual, they did so on the grounds of some ridiculous charge. Canada raised its voice. The Saudi's are now threatening to push back with severe economic retaliation.
Canada and Australia as countries with relatively smaller population are sensing a danger that the US and the EU is mostly trying to neglect now: that a large Chinese investment and the need to cooperate with Middle-East/West-Asia brings with it a lot of political pressure. These countries try to gain political legitimacy for their flawed, dictatorial autocracies in exchange for investments. Of course compromising the workings and institutional system of one's democratic country in exchange of short term benefits is horribly short sighted. But we see this plenty of times in case of the US and EU countries. Canada and Australia are already under more pressure and have luckily chosen to push back. Sadly some money-eyed people are too happy to give up on any values quickly.
It is remarkable that the US didn't support Canada. It shows that Trump doesn't care about human rights, and the US in general wants to keep Saudi Arabia as a partner in the region to pin down its weight in the long run against the aggressive Russian proxies and the encroaching Chinese.
The Saudis are enjoying this change of approach from their US supporters - Obama was much stricter regarding such issues, at least in his rhetoric if not in deeds - and are now testing the waters further. They don't even shy away from spreading outright lies. Is anyone going to raise their voice in defense of the Canadian side? Or are democratic countries now too afraid that if they are critical cronies like the Saudis will turn to the Russian or the Chinese?
It seems that so far except of some international organisations everyone is keeping their mouth shut. The Saudis have oil, have money, and have a very large modern army too.
The sad thing is that being amicable with them and refraining from calling out their inhuman and backwards laws will not benefit anyone. If Russia or China pays more they will work with them. The EU and the US are fooled, as they have been several times in the last years. Instead of standing up for good things, they are too conciliatory for gains which will not materialise.
The Saudis are using the same kind of illegal play in stoking fears about migration to raise skepticism about the effectiveness of the EU, thereby damaging the unity of Europe, and making it easier for them to pressure countries in one-on-one deals and relations.
Its just gonna get worse. The US is getting panicky under Trump. There is no long term vision just imminent action. Who knows what the consequences will be. The EU is still not nearly as unified as it should be.
Thursday, 16 August 2018
Blame and criticism, learning and endorsing - attitudes of nations
Many people say today that the West is in decline. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US and the EU are developing steadily, GDPs are at all time highs, military are massive and strong, and budgets have been cut back and loan exposure pushed down. At the same time, somehow, most people still want to live in these places.
Saudis go to the UK, Syrians to Germany, Chinese to the US, Koreans to Japan, Philippinos to Australia, Brazilians to Japan, and so on, and so on. Tell me when people start to try immigrating into China en masse, except from even more dictatorial states like North-Korea or Bangladesh (work related travel, like that of Vietnam doesn't count).
A lot of politicians and nationalist citizens are butthurt when their country is criticised. That rests on an enormous misunderstanding. Namely mixing up blame and criticism. Or thinking they are the same. Usually its the butthurt people, who are not running their countries well, who bash the West.
Criticism is just pointing out that something is wrong. But it is not saying that you are faulty for it. Your country can lack a fair justice system (like China, Pakistan, Russia and many others states do). But that is not saying that this is the individual Chinese citizen's fault. If someone tells me my country could do something better - i.e. they criticise my country - I listen to them. Why? Because they take the time and effort to give advice. If I disagree or their criticism is mistaken I can explain this to them. We both gained something and had an interesting conversation. If they are right: it's a chance for me to improve.
Blame is when something wrong is pointed out and responsibility is attributed for it. So, while it is wrong to blame the ordinary Chinese girl or guy for the bad legal system, or the average Hungarian for state corruption, and so on, it is right to blame Chinese politicians or Hungarian politicians for these things. They are the bosses, the decision makers who could change things.
Hence, people who love their country - whether they are the citizens of the US, of one of the EU countries or any other country - should learn from criticism and when justified blame their politicians.
The average person has nothing in common with his or her elected officials. No interests shared. If there is no pressure on politicians they will look to their own interests, as Bentham aptly pointed out 200 years ago.
So, don't take criticism and blame personally. Take it as a chance to gain insight on what you should pressure your overlords to change to make your country better!
A good example comes from Japan's history. Japan was forced in the 1850s to sign unfair trade-treaties with Britain, the US, Russia, France and other countries. These treaties pushed the country into a semi-colonial position. Japan also received a lot of criticism from these countries for its backwards legal institutions, poor external trading and industrial policies, etc.
Did the country deny the obvious - that the countries twisting its arm were doing better? No. It patiently put down its ass. It learned and studied how to reform its institutions, how to change its leadership, how to train its people and build up a well working industry and market. After this, between 1890 and 1911 it could revise most of the unfair treaties. In fact it grew so strong by the 1930s that the US felt threatened by it.*
Japan didn't endorse everything that Western advisors, experts, politicians, business people, philosophers and others recommended or tried to force on it. It took on those things which were useful for the country. Good management practices from the British and the Americans, yes; insane free market principles that erode society, no. Efficient army and - at the time - cutting edge uni organisation ideas from the German and the French, yes; racist colonialist ideas, no.
Being open to criticism and learning doesn't mean that you endorse everything uncritically that others tell you. It doesn't mean that others blame you and you accept responsibility. It means you are a sensible person who can choose which criticism to endorse as advice, and you can help explain to others why you think your system works better when you don't want to change.
If China would have been in a position to do the same after the 1840s or after WWI it could have become a stable power much faster. It started the same process as Japan in the 1970s however, but it only took it about forty years - thanks to its massive size, territory, military aggression and strong central government - to become the largest economy in the world.
So, when small, badly run and deeply corrupt countries like Hungary talk about the end of the West and deny that the EU is doing well...its obvious what's going on: they can't use criticism to develop. This choice is disastrous for the country: the leaders' vanity is hurt and for this reason the whole country is pushed towards Russia and China, authoritarian, and not very efficiently performing states. Time to stop such governments. Time to kick out such leaders. Time to sit down, learn, and improve.
* 34(That is why the US tried to blackmail Japan into giving up some of its conquests by stopping selling oil to it. And that's what prompted Japan to push to South-East Asia in search for oil, which triggered the US's backlash and the Pacific War. But that's another story.)
Saudis go to the UK, Syrians to Germany, Chinese to the US, Koreans to Japan, Philippinos to Australia, Brazilians to Japan, and so on, and so on. Tell me when people start to try immigrating into China en masse, except from even more dictatorial states like North-Korea or Bangladesh (work related travel, like that of Vietnam doesn't count).
A lot of politicians and nationalist citizens are butthurt when their country is criticised. That rests on an enormous misunderstanding. Namely mixing up blame and criticism. Or thinking they are the same. Usually its the butthurt people, who are not running their countries well, who bash the West.
Criticism is just pointing out that something is wrong. But it is not saying that you are faulty for it. Your country can lack a fair justice system (like China, Pakistan, Russia and many others states do). But that is not saying that this is the individual Chinese citizen's fault. If someone tells me my country could do something better - i.e. they criticise my country - I listen to them. Why? Because they take the time and effort to give advice. If I disagree or their criticism is mistaken I can explain this to them. We both gained something and had an interesting conversation. If they are right: it's a chance for me to improve.
Blame is when something wrong is pointed out and responsibility is attributed for it. So, while it is wrong to blame the ordinary Chinese girl or guy for the bad legal system, or the average Hungarian for state corruption, and so on, it is right to blame Chinese politicians or Hungarian politicians for these things. They are the bosses, the decision makers who could change things.
Hence, people who love their country - whether they are the citizens of the US, of one of the EU countries or any other country - should learn from criticism and when justified blame their politicians.
The average person has nothing in common with his or her elected officials. No interests shared. If there is no pressure on politicians they will look to their own interests, as Bentham aptly pointed out 200 years ago.
So, don't take criticism and blame personally. Take it as a chance to gain insight on what you should pressure your overlords to change to make your country better!
A good example comes from Japan's history. Japan was forced in the 1850s to sign unfair trade-treaties with Britain, the US, Russia, France and other countries. These treaties pushed the country into a semi-colonial position. Japan also received a lot of criticism from these countries for its backwards legal institutions, poor external trading and industrial policies, etc.
Did the country deny the obvious - that the countries twisting its arm were doing better? No. It patiently put down its ass. It learned and studied how to reform its institutions, how to change its leadership, how to train its people and build up a well working industry and market. After this, between 1890 and 1911 it could revise most of the unfair treaties. In fact it grew so strong by the 1930s that the US felt threatened by it.*
Japan didn't endorse everything that Western advisors, experts, politicians, business people, philosophers and others recommended or tried to force on it. It took on those things which were useful for the country. Good management practices from the British and the Americans, yes; insane free market principles that erode society, no. Efficient army and - at the time - cutting edge uni organisation ideas from the German and the French, yes; racist colonialist ideas, no.
Being open to criticism and learning doesn't mean that you endorse everything uncritically that others tell you. It doesn't mean that others blame you and you accept responsibility. It means you are a sensible person who can choose which criticism to endorse as advice, and you can help explain to others why you think your system works better when you don't want to change.
If China would have been in a position to do the same after the 1840s or after WWI it could have become a stable power much faster. It started the same process as Japan in the 1970s however, but it only took it about forty years - thanks to its massive size, territory, military aggression and strong central government - to become the largest economy in the world.
So, when small, badly run and deeply corrupt countries like Hungary talk about the end of the West and deny that the EU is doing well...its obvious what's going on: they can't use criticism to develop. This choice is disastrous for the country: the leaders' vanity is hurt and for this reason the whole country is pushed towards Russia and China, authoritarian, and not very efficiently performing states. Time to stop such governments. Time to kick out such leaders. Time to sit down, learn, and improve.
* 34(That is why the US tried to blackmail Japan into giving up some of its conquests by stopping selling oil to it. And that's what prompted Japan to push to South-East Asia in search for oil, which triggered the US's backlash and the Pacific War. But that's another story.)
Tuesday, 14 August 2018
Our new feudal realms - part 1
Two years ago I wrote a post that showed how we are lapsing back into feudalism. Extremely wealthy elites of professional, life-long reigning politicians and born-rich business and land owners have an enormous influence. They decide what happens in politics. These people are not members of a single nation. There are rather interests groups of them who work together. There are a few such groups in the US, in China, in the EU, in Russia and in most countries.
These people have figured out how to exploit democratic institutions for their own purposes. They rely on expert PR teams, lobbyists, spin doctors, rich supporters who own media outlets and links with the military. Most of these folks are motivated by money, or by ambition, or by a belief that they are the best for the world. Or a mixture of these. None of these delusions are true.
Some evidence would be nice you say?
China made Xi Jinping lifelong head of the party and the country. This is tragic. China was in a chaotic and exploited situation at the end of the imperial system around 1910. The abolishing of the old system was followed by almost 40 years of bloody civil wars between local warlords, strongmen, the communists, and the republicans. The British, the French, the Americans, the Russians, German, Dutch, and the Japanese all used this upheaval to push their influence on the country.
Maybe China went then the right way, maybe it didn't. But at least it abolished the single-person rule system, it became a strong free state, and had decent, stable government. The lack of human rights, of free speech, of accountability and transparency is tragic and horrible, as is police and party brutality. Add to this military aggression. Still, for the average Chinese citizen things were better than before.
This period is over. The country is back to the old system. Communism effectively was turned into a one-person lad dictatorship again. A sad, tragic story for a great country and people.
Turkey's democracy got gutted by Erdogan and his cronies. This process took place in front of our eyes, it is well documented and understood. Again, a sad end to a promising path to a country that was a much freer state 20 years ago than it is today.
Putin holds Russia firmly in his hands and showed in several state orchestrated cases against influential business and media actors that he is not afraid to use the whole state machinery to take anyone down opposing his circles.
Trump said several times that he is looking up to Putin and Xi as successful, respectable leaders.
And Orban in Hungary is the prime example of someone deconstructing the democratic state at light speed in order to establish himself and his family at the centre of the state permanently. Other anti-democratic leaders or would be leaders in the EU are dreaming of the same - most notably in Poland - but have been kept in check so far by the other countries and their own population. It seems that only the Hungarians, who have suffered from a semi-feudal monarchic systems inequalities until WWII - are foolish enough to choose returning to the old system, instead of trying to make democracy work.
We will soon find ourselves again as peasants and servants. In a world run by aristocrats and kings.
These people have figured out how to exploit democratic institutions for their own purposes. They rely on expert PR teams, lobbyists, spin doctors, rich supporters who own media outlets and links with the military. Most of these folks are motivated by money, or by ambition, or by a belief that they are the best for the world. Or a mixture of these. None of these delusions are true.
Some evidence would be nice you say?
China made Xi Jinping lifelong head of the party and the country. This is tragic. China was in a chaotic and exploited situation at the end of the imperial system around 1910. The abolishing of the old system was followed by almost 40 years of bloody civil wars between local warlords, strongmen, the communists, and the republicans. The British, the French, the Americans, the Russians, German, Dutch, and the Japanese all used this upheaval to push their influence on the country.
Maybe China went then the right way, maybe it didn't. But at least it abolished the single-person rule system, it became a strong free state, and had decent, stable government. The lack of human rights, of free speech, of accountability and transparency is tragic and horrible, as is police and party brutality. Add to this military aggression. Still, for the average Chinese citizen things were better than before.
This period is over. The country is back to the old system. Communism effectively was turned into a one-person lad dictatorship again. A sad, tragic story for a great country and people.
Turkey's democracy got gutted by Erdogan and his cronies. This process took place in front of our eyes, it is well documented and understood. Again, a sad end to a promising path to a country that was a much freer state 20 years ago than it is today.
Putin holds Russia firmly in his hands and showed in several state orchestrated cases against influential business and media actors that he is not afraid to use the whole state machinery to take anyone down opposing his circles.
Trump said several times that he is looking up to Putin and Xi as successful, respectable leaders.
And Orban in Hungary is the prime example of someone deconstructing the democratic state at light speed in order to establish himself and his family at the centre of the state permanently. Other anti-democratic leaders or would be leaders in the EU are dreaming of the same - most notably in Poland - but have been kept in check so far by the other countries and their own population. It seems that only the Hungarians, who have suffered from a semi-feudal monarchic systems inequalities until WWII - are foolish enough to choose returning to the old system, instead of trying to make democracy work.
We will soon find ourselves again as peasants and servants. In a world run by aristocrats and kings.
Vincent Van Gogh, Femme semant/Peasant Woman Sowing with a Basket (1881)
Who the heck is Arpad Szakacs?
Arpad Szakacs - this name comes up quite often these days in Hungarian journalism and public life. But one could stop and ask:
Ki a fa*z az a Szakács Árpád? (Who the fu*k is Szakacs Arpad?)
Well, as it turns out, he is one of the folks with zero intellectual credential or any accomplishment to his name favoured by Fidesz. He is a loudmouth who has way too much energy and bashes everything and anything that he deems dangerous to his favourite party (which pays his bills, after all!)
A typical story these days. Read a bit more here on the chap and his not very impressive performance in the Hungarian state sponsored propaganda media.
With pushing people like this, it will only be a matter of years until all our valuable public institutions are fully eroded.
Ki a fa*z az a Szakács Árpád? (Who the fu*k is Szakacs Arpad?)
Well, as it turns out, he is one of the folks with zero intellectual credential or any accomplishment to his name favoured by Fidesz. He is a loudmouth who has way too much energy and bashes everything and anything that he deems dangerous to his favourite party (which pays his bills, after all!)
A typical story these days. Read a bit more here on the chap and his not very impressive performance in the Hungarian state sponsored propaganda media.
With pushing people like this, it will only be a matter of years until all our valuable public institutions are fully eroded.
Monday, 13 August 2018
Tensions between the US, Japan, and China
Trump is pushing ahead with his extremely aggressive trade attacks. He is indiscriminate: he attacks rival China, which has an economy of the same size as the US, but also long standing allies Japan, South-Korea and Germany. It is obvious that what Trump can gain are mostly short term small wins, insignificant in real, long term economy. But that's enough for a celebrity who wants to get rich quick and then be out of the game. That this policy ruins trust between allies, undermines the international trade treaty system and institutions is of no concern to him.
How he treats Japan is also a good example of his arrogance and neglect for long term goals. The US has a policy of being present militarily in all regions which it perceives as important to its defense. Since its coastline is open to the Pacific, East-Asia is such a region. That is why it was important to the US to stop Japan from becoming a large power during WWII (not out of humanitarian concern for the Chinese or anyone else).
The US used the defeat of Japan to keep it under control. This is even so today. Its stationing a large part of its Asian military force in Japan. Every time Japan is doing well or would gain any advantage over the US in terms of technology or trade the US is using the 'we defend you' card, meaning: our military is in your country, and if you don't cooperate 1 we won't defend you, even though we have restricted your military development for 70+ years, and 2 we can attack you easily.
This has already happened, most notably during the 'trade wars' of the 1980s. This period saw large troubles in the US economy. Rather than addressing the microeconomic issues at home, US politicians bashed Japan and other trading partners with made-up claims of unfairness, etc., and used their military and political weight to force these countries to open their markets to US products. This happened for example with Microsoft, Intel and other companies. They entered Japan, and with heavy state backing killed off the local rivals. Meanwhile the US only opened its market to Japanese products partly and typically avoided purchasing the products of Japanese companies if possible (this is what happened to Fuji, Hitachi and other tech companies in the late 1980s/early 1990s). All these, to put it mildly, unfair actions were justified by aggressive, sometimes downright hateful propaganda by US politicians and corporate lobbyists.
The US is now doing the same. Trump is not a genius who is shaking up the US economy. He is just an opportunist who is using old tricks to gain short term advantages. His threat to increase tariffs on Japanese cars by 25% could cause huge losses for Japan, which is a much smaller economy dependent on exports. It is also an ally of the US, hosting its military bases, and often supporting the US's interests.
What Trump doesn't seem to grasp is that many Japanese voters, many foreigners, and many Japanese politicians are fed up with the current situation. If he keeps pushing policies in this direction Japan will lose its incentives to cooperate with the US in the future. If it aligns itself more with China or carves out a more independent position that would be a huge diplomatic, political, credibility and economic loss for the US. It could of course retaliate financially, but the many competitors of the US who would be happy about this could offset much of the losses of Japan, and a political-military realignment could lead the country to a much more independent or at least less directly threatened position.
A realignment for Japan might be the good idea then. If the US is not only an unreliable business partner, but it also cannot be trusted to keep its and its partners' long term defense interests in mind, then why stay close to it? China is closer, its economy is already in some measures larger than the US and a market of 1.4 billion buyers will have more potential as it develops than a 330 million market. Militarily, if the US is pursuing such an opportunist, short term strategy as it is doing under Trump, its presence in East-Asia can be reasonably doubted.
The Chinese government is already putting enormous pressure on Taiwan politically and militarily, while integrating with investment and joint ventures as much of its economy as possible. The US supports Taiwan on paper and sells its weapons, however it doesn't recognise the country formally. It is, as in many cases, not making a clear commitment and is balancing between two interests.
The Chinese leadership would of course love nothing more than having Japan on its side. This is after all how things were for most of the history: the two countries existed relatively peacefully, trading and exchanging diplomatic missions since 500AD. We might be headed back to those times. Trump is just hastening the dawn of US influence in the region by undermining his country's credibility.
How he treats Japan is also a good example of his arrogance and neglect for long term goals. The US has a policy of being present militarily in all regions which it perceives as important to its defense. Since its coastline is open to the Pacific, East-Asia is such a region. That is why it was important to the US to stop Japan from becoming a large power during WWII (not out of humanitarian concern for the Chinese or anyone else).
The US used the defeat of Japan to keep it under control. This is even so today. Its stationing a large part of its Asian military force in Japan. Every time Japan is doing well or would gain any advantage over the US in terms of technology or trade the US is using the 'we defend you' card, meaning: our military is in your country, and if you don't cooperate 1 we won't defend you, even though we have restricted your military development for 70+ years, and 2 we can attack you easily.
This has already happened, most notably during the 'trade wars' of the 1980s. This period saw large troubles in the US economy. Rather than addressing the microeconomic issues at home, US politicians bashed Japan and other trading partners with made-up claims of unfairness, etc., and used their military and political weight to force these countries to open their markets to US products. This happened for example with Microsoft, Intel and other companies. They entered Japan, and with heavy state backing killed off the local rivals. Meanwhile the US only opened its market to Japanese products partly and typically avoided purchasing the products of Japanese companies if possible (this is what happened to Fuji, Hitachi and other tech companies in the late 1980s/early 1990s). All these, to put it mildly, unfair actions were justified by aggressive, sometimes downright hateful propaganda by US politicians and corporate lobbyists.
The US is now doing the same. Trump is not a genius who is shaking up the US economy. He is just an opportunist who is using old tricks to gain short term advantages. His threat to increase tariffs on Japanese cars by 25% could cause huge losses for Japan, which is a much smaller economy dependent on exports. It is also an ally of the US, hosting its military bases, and often supporting the US's interests.
What Trump doesn't seem to grasp is that many Japanese voters, many foreigners, and many Japanese politicians are fed up with the current situation. If he keeps pushing policies in this direction Japan will lose its incentives to cooperate with the US in the future. If it aligns itself more with China or carves out a more independent position that would be a huge diplomatic, political, credibility and economic loss for the US. It could of course retaliate financially, but the many competitors of the US who would be happy about this could offset much of the losses of Japan, and a political-military realignment could lead the country to a much more independent or at least less directly threatened position.
A realignment for Japan might be the good idea then. If the US is not only an unreliable business partner, but it also cannot be trusted to keep its and its partners' long term defense interests in mind, then why stay close to it? China is closer, its economy is already in some measures larger than the US and a market of 1.4 billion buyers will have more potential as it develops than a 330 million market. Militarily, if the US is pursuing such an opportunist, short term strategy as it is doing under Trump, its presence in East-Asia can be reasonably doubted.
The Chinese government is already putting enormous pressure on Taiwan politically and militarily, while integrating with investment and joint ventures as much of its economy as possible. The US supports Taiwan on paper and sells its weapons, however it doesn't recognise the country formally. It is, as in many cases, not making a clear commitment and is balancing between two interests.
The Chinese leadership would of course love nothing more than having Japan on its side. This is after all how things were for most of the history: the two countries existed relatively peacefully, trading and exchanging diplomatic missions since 500AD. We might be headed back to those times. Trump is just hastening the dawn of US influence in the region by undermining his country's credibility.
Tuesday, 7 August 2018
Why Japan does not need to and should not apologize anymore for WWII deeds
1. No other states - except Germany - do this. The USA, Russia, China, France, the UK, Belgium and several other countries which are or have in the past committed aggression, genocide, civilian killings, colonization and other horrors have never and are never going to apologize
2. Japan has apologized already more than 10 times. See the list here.
3. No matter how many times Japan would apologize other states would find some fault with the apology. China and South-Korea usually claim that the apology isn't honest or bicker about some detail. They don't do this because the governments and foreign ministries of these countries honestly think that the apology is no good. They do this because being able to bash another country is a strong diplomatic tool. These countries - and many other economic rivals of Japan - try to make Japan look bad so that they can use this as a leverage in economic and trade talks, competition, and so on. No matter how many times and how precisely Japan would apologize, politicians who are leading countries that compete with Japan would always find fault with the apology.
4. Japan has more than atoned for its wartime aggression and crimes. It has been firebombed for years by the USA and all its major cities and a large part of its civilian population has been killed. Russia occupied some of its territory, and the US is effectively still in Japan with its military. Both Russia and the US often use this to pressure the Japanese government to this day. Japan has paid large amounts in compensation to most states it has formerly occupied and assisted them with technology and training (this is something that even the Chinese government has admitted).
5. China, the US, Russia, France, the UK, and several other states are or have waged many aggressive wars since the end of WWII. China has occupied other countries, Russia went to war with Georgia (Gruzia), Chechnya, Afghanistan, and has occupied - through the Soviet Union - the larger part of East- and Central-Europe for a good 45 years, the US is constantly waging war in West-Asia and the Middle-East, and has interfered countless times in Central- and South-America, not to mention Southeast-Asia. In contrast since WWII Japan doesn't have attacking forces, only self-defense forces with limited attacking capabilities. It hasn't engaged in aggression against any country.
6. There is no intention on Japan's part for any aggression. While it is obvious that several countries - China, the US, Russia, and others - are planning or preparing for further aggression, there is no evidence of any such intent on Japan's part. Some alarmists and propaganda journalists are yelling because Japan is developing its military capabilities now. The fact is that Japan's military spending is still far below that of its neighbours. Its military today is far smaller and weaker than that of China, Russia or the US. Japan is perfectly justified in developing its military for defense purposes because its sitting geographically between the three largest and most aggressive political and military powers of the world. In fact, in my opinion, they would be mad not to do so. Any military improvement today occurs in an entirely different political and military environment from the early 20th century.
7. The Japanese who were the leaders of the country before and during WWII are long dead. More than 900 of them were executed after WWII and tens of thousands imprisoned and banned from public life. The two generations of Japanese since then are very openly peaceful, have several times resisted even mild military improvements, and are committed to keeping Japan a peaceful country.
8. Contrary to popular international propaganda most people in Japan do know and study about war crimes committed by the Japanese army. Journalists and other Japan-bashers love to highlight that there are textbooks which downplay these events or only mention them in the passing. There are three major problems with this A) They never compare whether they own country's textbooks discuss any of the atrocities committed in their histories. B) They never mention that in Japan schools and teachers can decide which textbook they want to use and there is a market with at least 7-9 approved titles. The majority of students use books which discuss these events, include photographs and explanations. (See Akiko Hashimoto's The Long Defeat for a good overview. While her presentation of the material is excellent, she sadly draws mistaken conclusions from it, because she doesn't take the competitive political and military environment of the region into account.) C) These critics think that because the Japanese media and people in general don't discuss things in the manner in which Americans do - loud talking, lots of emotional debates on news programmes, etc. - people don't think or don't have an opinion about these things. In fact most Japanese do, and they reject very strongly what the Imperial Army did. That is one of the main reasons why for example the Japanese research community is not cooperating with the army, contrary to what we see at the moment in China or the US.
This is all perfectly compatible with keeping in mind and recognizing that the Japanese state and army, and many individuals, committed horrible things during and before WWII. This should be remembered, taught in schools and discussed. But, it should not define Japan's relation with its neighbours, its current reputation, its self-image or its future. At the moment the biggest problems plaguing Japan are the ongoing American meddling and quasi-military influence over it, China's growing aggression both in political, military and economic terms, and internal problems, like population decline and lagging international competitiveness of businesses, as well as inadequate social services support for young families.
Chinese citizens would do well to look at what their government is doing. Whenever any state pushes strong propaganda against another, the chances are good that it is actually only to hide something that they themselves have done. When the Chinese government bashes Japan, there is almost surely something going wrong at home. People need a distraction. China and Japan have a long political relationship which was mostly peaceful during the last 1500 years. Usually China was the stronger and more aggressive power, and Japan was during several periods a tributary of China's. There is no reason why a peaceful existence based on trade, law and cooperation - as Japan currently envisions it - could not work perfectly today. This is the real interest of China too.
2. Japan has apologized already more than 10 times. See the list here.
3. No matter how many times Japan would apologize other states would find some fault with the apology. China and South-Korea usually claim that the apology isn't honest or bicker about some detail. They don't do this because the governments and foreign ministries of these countries honestly think that the apology is no good. They do this because being able to bash another country is a strong diplomatic tool. These countries - and many other economic rivals of Japan - try to make Japan look bad so that they can use this as a leverage in economic and trade talks, competition, and so on. No matter how many times and how precisely Japan would apologize, politicians who are leading countries that compete with Japan would always find fault with the apology.
4. Japan has more than atoned for its wartime aggression and crimes. It has been firebombed for years by the USA and all its major cities and a large part of its civilian population has been killed. Russia occupied some of its territory, and the US is effectively still in Japan with its military. Both Russia and the US often use this to pressure the Japanese government to this day. Japan has paid large amounts in compensation to most states it has formerly occupied and assisted them with technology and training (this is something that even the Chinese government has admitted).
5. China, the US, Russia, France, the UK, and several other states are or have waged many aggressive wars since the end of WWII. China has occupied other countries, Russia went to war with Georgia (Gruzia), Chechnya, Afghanistan, and has occupied - through the Soviet Union - the larger part of East- and Central-Europe for a good 45 years, the US is constantly waging war in West-Asia and the Middle-East, and has interfered countless times in Central- and South-America, not to mention Southeast-Asia. In contrast since WWII Japan doesn't have attacking forces, only self-defense forces with limited attacking capabilities. It hasn't engaged in aggression against any country.
6. There is no intention on Japan's part for any aggression. While it is obvious that several countries - China, the US, Russia, and others - are planning or preparing for further aggression, there is no evidence of any such intent on Japan's part. Some alarmists and propaganda journalists are yelling because Japan is developing its military capabilities now. The fact is that Japan's military spending is still far below that of its neighbours. Its military today is far smaller and weaker than that of China, Russia or the US. Japan is perfectly justified in developing its military for defense purposes because its sitting geographically between the three largest and most aggressive political and military powers of the world. In fact, in my opinion, they would be mad not to do so. Any military improvement today occurs in an entirely different political and military environment from the early 20th century.
7. The Japanese who were the leaders of the country before and during WWII are long dead. More than 900 of them were executed after WWII and tens of thousands imprisoned and banned from public life. The two generations of Japanese since then are very openly peaceful, have several times resisted even mild military improvements, and are committed to keeping Japan a peaceful country.
8. Contrary to popular international propaganda most people in Japan do know and study about war crimes committed by the Japanese army. Journalists and other Japan-bashers love to highlight that there are textbooks which downplay these events or only mention them in the passing. There are three major problems with this A) They never compare whether they own country's textbooks discuss any of the atrocities committed in their histories. B) They never mention that in Japan schools and teachers can decide which textbook they want to use and there is a market with at least 7-9 approved titles. The majority of students use books which discuss these events, include photographs and explanations. (See Akiko Hashimoto's The Long Defeat for a good overview. While her presentation of the material is excellent, she sadly draws mistaken conclusions from it, because she doesn't take the competitive political and military environment of the region into account.) C) These critics think that because the Japanese media and people in general don't discuss things in the manner in which Americans do - loud talking, lots of emotional debates on news programmes, etc. - people don't think or don't have an opinion about these things. In fact most Japanese do, and they reject very strongly what the Imperial Army did. That is one of the main reasons why for example the Japanese research community is not cooperating with the army, contrary to what we see at the moment in China or the US.
This is all perfectly compatible with keeping in mind and recognizing that the Japanese state and army, and many individuals, committed horrible things during and before WWII. This should be remembered, taught in schools and discussed. But, it should not define Japan's relation with its neighbours, its current reputation, its self-image or its future. At the moment the biggest problems plaguing Japan are the ongoing American meddling and quasi-military influence over it, China's growing aggression both in political, military and economic terms, and internal problems, like population decline and lagging international competitiveness of businesses, as well as inadequate social services support for young families.
Chinese citizens would do well to look at what their government is doing. Whenever any state pushes strong propaganda against another, the chances are good that it is actually only to hide something that they themselves have done. When the Chinese government bashes Japan, there is almost surely something going wrong at home. People need a distraction. China and Japan have a long political relationship which was mostly peaceful during the last 1500 years. Usually China was the stronger and more aggressive power, and Japan was during several periods a tributary of China's. There is no reason why a peaceful existence based on trade, law and cooperation - as Japan currently envisions it - could not work perfectly today. This is the real interest of China too.
Monday, 23 July 2018
Democracy and capitalism don't necessarily go together
http://www.truthandpower.com/blog/blog/politics/capitalism-and-democracy-a-lesson-from-hong-kong/
A very good essay showing that capitalism is not aligned with democracy and the most influential people in a capitalist system do nothing to maintain a democracy if that is not in their immediate interest or even threatens it.
To me it seems obvious, that in the US and the EU at the moment we are making the mistake of giving way too much room in decisions about public policy to business interests, and especially those which are aligned with the interests of the big political parties' supporters. If we want to resist the current trends of authoritarian governments rising we would need to push society centred legislation.
For example when looking at health spending, what matters most isn't whether it's good business to provide health services but how they can provide best for most people. When looking at legislation on child support, maternity/paternity leave, working hrs, what kind of products can be introduced in a market, whether advertisers can push certain products in schools, etc. should be dependent first on their immediate social effects and just second on the interests of business doing even better.
If people are doing well, that will rejuvenate local economies and society will do well. This would create the real disruption, breaking the dominance of giant companies on politics.
Democracy and capitalism can work well together. But only if there are strong governments putting the interests of society first, rather than of business or the economy in itself.
Monday, 1 May 2017
A constructive proposal against fake news
We would need a proper NGO that would support a reliable and secure website with a small, properly paid team. Anyone could here submit sites, news, youtube channels, etc. that are fake (alternative facts, conspiracy theories, simple falsehoods, misunderstandings, and so on) and harmful (anti-vaccination, healing cancer with flowers, etc.).
The team would check the sources and list them as unreliable if the claim had been substantiated. These would be added to a proper searchable list of sites. Anyone could do a quick search and know that bullshit is in the air.
On topics which require expert judgment professional institutions would be consulted, and expert opinions sought.
This could help a good deal in beating back the bullshit factory that had been unleashed in the recent decade.
Setting up and maintaing such a site wouldn't cost much, wouldn't be very hard to run, and could do a very valuable public service.
If there would be extra energy the site could give some digestable info on how pubication works these days in science, and some of the main methods of substantiating results and interpretations. The same could be done for solid, high quality journalism, providing some examples.
The team would check the sources and list them as unreliable if the claim had been substantiated. These would be added to a proper searchable list of sites. Anyone could do a quick search and know that bullshit is in the air.
On topics which require expert judgment professional institutions would be consulted, and expert opinions sought.
This could help a good deal in beating back the bullshit factory that had been unleashed in the recent decade.
Setting up and maintaing such a site wouldn't cost much, wouldn't be very hard to run, and could do a very valuable public service.
If there would be extra energy the site could give some digestable info on how pubication works these days in science, and some of the main methods of substantiating results and interpretations. The same could be done for solid, high quality journalism, providing some examples.
Against fake news
A very intelligent and well read friend of mine argued over dinner that it is a good thing that anyone can publish now anything online. He thought this is great because public opinion can be shaped freely, and the big tv channels and newspapers don't have too much influence on the view of people.
I heartily disagree with this. I have seen so far very few good and interesting free sources online which really pointed out anything substantial and interesting that one could not find in professional publications.
At the same time there are tens of thousands of blogs, pages, youtube channels, etc. which push conteo, horrible fake news, racism, white supremacy, scapegoating of different public figures, and so on, and so on. A lot of these people take the very simplicistic view that the government always lies and is against them, and that scientist are hacks. This is disastrous.
Most fake news propagators tread on the lack of knowledge of the average person about credible sources. Most people don't read a wide range of newspapers. They just parrot a few idiots who talk about 'the media'. As if all opinions would be the same. Anyone who reads the financial times, the nyt, the washington post, the japan times, al jazira, the russian times, RT, the times, the guardian, the süddeutche, xinghua agency releases, etc. will see very quickly that there are many-many different views and positions on almost any issue. Professional newspapers even publish confronting opinions of experts, exactly for the purposes to be fair. There is no media conspiracy, and there is no single message 'the media' is trying to get across.
Furthermore, average people imagine that what a scientist or a journalist does is just to think about something for a few minutes and then write it down. This is not how things work. Scientists do experiments, measurements, make observations, consult the work of others, double check everything. They don't question 'everything'. That's something that silly people do. Philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, political analysts, physicists, biologists, etc. don't question everything: they have cooperative, big projects to which many-many well trained and honest people who make a genuine effort contribute to. Anything that gets pubished is scrutinized by a lot of other people.
There are also many confusions about professional newspapers. Proper journalists don't just write down their opinions, and they don't simply consult other newspapers. They go and talk with experts, listen to politians, read documents published by the government, institutions, judges, the army, independent researchers, universities, and so on. They interview several people who know what they are talking about. Non of the internet pundits do anything like this. Most of them don't even have an idea about what they are writing on. This is causing horrible damage. People who are spreading fake news about rising radiation levels in Fukushima, the peacefulness of Russia, the brilliance of Erdogan, the harm of vaccines, the evil nature of feminism, and so on are doing great harm to our communities. They are not spreading opinions, they are spreading base and vile falsehoods.
I heartily disagree with this. I have seen so far very few good and interesting free sources online which really pointed out anything substantial and interesting that one could not find in professional publications.
At the same time there are tens of thousands of blogs, pages, youtube channels, etc. which push conteo, horrible fake news, racism, white supremacy, scapegoating of different public figures, and so on, and so on. A lot of these people take the very simplicistic view that the government always lies and is against them, and that scientist are hacks. This is disastrous.
Most fake news propagators tread on the lack of knowledge of the average person about credible sources. Most people don't read a wide range of newspapers. They just parrot a few idiots who talk about 'the media'. As if all opinions would be the same. Anyone who reads the financial times, the nyt, the washington post, the japan times, al jazira, the russian times, RT, the times, the guardian, the süddeutche, xinghua agency releases, etc. will see very quickly that there are many-many different views and positions on almost any issue. Professional newspapers even publish confronting opinions of experts, exactly for the purposes to be fair. There is no media conspiracy, and there is no single message 'the media' is trying to get across.
Furthermore, average people imagine that what a scientist or a journalist does is just to think about something for a few minutes and then write it down. This is not how things work. Scientists do experiments, measurements, make observations, consult the work of others, double check everything. They don't question 'everything'. That's something that silly people do. Philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, political analysts, physicists, biologists, etc. don't question everything: they have cooperative, big projects to which many-many well trained and honest people who make a genuine effort contribute to. Anything that gets pubished is scrutinized by a lot of other people.
There are also many confusions about professional newspapers. Proper journalists don't just write down their opinions, and they don't simply consult other newspapers. They go and talk with experts, listen to politians, read documents published by the government, institutions, judges, the army, independent researchers, universities, and so on. They interview several people who know what they are talking about. Non of the internet pundits do anything like this. Most of them don't even have an idea about what they are writing on. This is causing horrible damage. People who are spreading fake news about rising radiation levels in Fukushima, the peacefulness of Russia, the brilliance of Erdogan, the harm of vaccines, the evil nature of feminism, and so on are doing great harm to our communities. They are not spreading opinions, they are spreading base and vile falsehoods.
Wednesday, 19 April 2017
Why people leave Hungary
Janos Lazar, one of the leading FIDESZ politicians, offered an explanation of why so many Hungarians left the country in the last 13 years (about 800,000 out of 10.2 millions). According to Lazar people are deceived: they earn more on paper, but actually their quality of life is lower than it would be in Hungary. They can't afford anything and live as wage slaves.
Well, let's have a look at the numbers. I think it would be reasonable to say that Hungarians would be wiser to stay home given three things: the value of their earning would be high in international comparison, they could make savings that would amount to something at national level, and the ratio of their income to the price of consumer goods would be at least as good as in other countries. To find out how Hungary performs in these three respects we will have a look at the average earnings and consumer price indices, looking at data both from the EU, the Hungarian state, and individual business analysts.
Most Hungarians leave for other EU countries like Germany, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK. These are some of the most robust economies of the EU (and the world) and they have managed to regain growth and expand since the crisis. Most of the Hungarians who've left the country are young, speak at least one foreign language well, and a large proportion has University education (a big number are trained nurses, doctors, and engineers with significant work experience too).
What do the numbers tell us then about staying in Hungary?
First earnings: one of the lowest in the EU. The average someone makes in a month after taxes is around 600-650 Euros (£550 or $700). Not a lot. In international comparison it is very little. This means that Hungarian will have difficulties in travelling, doing business internationally, investing, and of course accumulating significant savings.
Here is the official data from the Hungarian Central Statistics Department. Take into account that they actually show higher levels than real earning averages because they don't include people who are on the public-work programme (kozmunka program). They earn only 76% of the minimum wage. Also, pay attention to the huge gap between Budapest and the other regions. Add to this that the top 10% of earners earns about 10x as much as the bottom 30% and you get a very scary picture of what it is like to be poor, working class, or lower working class in Hungary.
What do the consumer price indexes tell? We see that the salaries are about one-third of the EU average, or a little below, and are about 20-25% of that of the more developed EU countries.
Accordingly, prices should also be one fourth, one fifth, to get the same quality of life.
Sadly, that is not the case. The prices in some respects (accommodation) are around half of what they are in West Europe, but everything else is around 60-80% of the prices one pays for goods in Germany, Austria, or the UK. Which means that the average Hungarian can buy one fourth or one fifth of what the average German, Austrian, or Brit can. If the average Hungarian wants to spend more, or has to spend more, than they can't make any savings or get into debt.
This is not very interesting when it comes to clothing or computer games, but when we think of what one's insurance or what treatments one can pay for one's children it becomes very dire and gloomy.
What's the conclusion? Nobody should stay home to make FIDESZ richer. As much as I love and respect Hungary - the universities, the land, the Balaton, the food, my parents, my family, my friends, the amazing literature and art scene, the remarkable health system, the solid school system - at the moment decent lives can be better built abroad. Until the government channels most of the EU development funds into its own pockets, condones corruption, flirts with Russia and curtails rights, demolishes the free media, closes down universities, and goes against civil right groups and punishes refugees instead of helping them, it is not a good place to live.
Well, let's have a look at the numbers. I think it would be reasonable to say that Hungarians would be wiser to stay home given three things: the value of their earning would be high in international comparison, they could make savings that would amount to something at national level, and the ratio of their income to the price of consumer goods would be at least as good as in other countries. To find out how Hungary performs in these three respects we will have a look at the average earnings and consumer price indices, looking at data both from the EU, the Hungarian state, and individual business analysts.
Most Hungarians leave for other EU countries like Germany, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK. These are some of the most robust economies of the EU (and the world) and they have managed to regain growth and expand since the crisis. Most of the Hungarians who've left the country are young, speak at least one foreign language well, and a large proportion has University education (a big number are trained nurses, doctors, and engineers with significant work experience too).
What do the numbers tell us then about staying in Hungary?
First earnings: one of the lowest in the EU. The average someone makes in a month after taxes is around 600-650 Euros (£550 or $700). Not a lot. In international comparison it is very little. This means that Hungarian will have difficulties in travelling, doing business internationally, investing, and of course accumulating significant savings.
Here is the official data from the Hungarian Central Statistics Department. Take into account that they actually show higher levels than real earning averages because they don't include people who are on the public-work programme (kozmunka program). They earn only 76% of the minimum wage. Also, pay attention to the huge gap between Budapest and the other regions. Add to this that the top 10% of earners earns about 10x as much as the bottom 30% and you get a very scary picture of what it is like to be poor, working class, or lower working class in Hungary.
What do the consumer price indexes tell? We see that the salaries are about one-third of the EU average, or a little below, and are about 20-25% of that of the more developed EU countries.
Accordingly, prices should also be one fourth, one fifth, to get the same quality of life.
Sadly, that is not the case. The prices in some respects (accommodation) are around half of what they are in West Europe, but everything else is around 60-80% of the prices one pays for goods in Germany, Austria, or the UK. Which means that the average Hungarian can buy one fourth or one fifth of what the average German, Austrian, or Brit can. If the average Hungarian wants to spend more, or has to spend more, than they can't make any savings or get into debt.
This is not very interesting when it comes to clothing or computer games, but when we think of what one's insurance or what treatments one can pay for one's children it becomes very dire and gloomy.
What's the conclusion? Nobody should stay home to make FIDESZ richer. As much as I love and respect Hungary - the universities, the land, the Balaton, the food, my parents, my family, my friends, the amazing literature and art scene, the remarkable health system, the solid school system - at the moment decent lives can be better built abroad. Until the government channels most of the EU development funds into its own pockets, condones corruption, flirts with Russia and curtails rights, demolishes the free media, closes down universities, and goes against civil right groups and punishes refugees instead of helping them, it is not a good place to live.
Saturday, 8 April 2017
Why Putin and Xi didn't want Hilary Clinton to get elected
During the US presidential campaign Putin praised Trump, favoured Trump, and supported Trump through the use of the Russian intelligence services. They spread false propaganda. Putin also emphasized - and so did Trump - that they can have a good, peaceful relationship.
At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.
Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?
There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.
This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.
As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.
UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.
At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.
Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?
There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.
This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.
As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.
UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.
The US strikes in Syria
I never thought I would say anything good about Trump but I have to now.
There is conflict in Syria because Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran would all like to be the dominating state in the region and try to carve it up between them. Russia support Iran and Assad, the US backs Saudi Arabia and to some extent Irak, the EU backs to some extent Turkey, and China is stirring the shit in the background. As long as the regional big three - Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran - don't settle things there won't be peace.
However the chemical weapon strike by Assad's troops a few days ago was not a random thing or part of Assad regular plans. Here is why it happened.
The US is trying to maintain the current power balance both in the Middle-East and in the Pacific.
Russia and China don't like this. They would like more power and everything that comes with that: easier and cheaper access to resources, more military influence in the regions, more political influence, less scrutiny into their corruption and despotic acts. And so on.
Russia and China are at the moment working together and concerting their efforts therefore to erode US dominance everywhere. They do this mostly through proxy-states, since at the moment neither Xi, nor Putin want a conflict on their home territory. That would make them unpopular and lead to their losing their might potentially. So they both finance North-Korea who constantly pressures South-Korea and Japan, both US allies. Russia and China must have lent money and technology recently to North-Korea since it suddenly became able to launch very destructive long range rockets. That's a big danger for Japan and the US too.
Xi and Trump will soon meet. They will have a lot to discuss. Trump has a naive vision that he should lead the US into an economic war with China. This would be horrible for both countries, so Xi wants to avoid this. China wants to occupy and claim the whole of the South-China Sea. This is an extremely rich territory in natural resources. Also, a huge part of the world-trade goes through this sea in form of enormous ships. If it is controlled by a single country that country has a lot of power over everyone else in the world, because everyone is trading. At the moment the South China Sea is international waters. No single country controls it, and there are international contracts that enable everyone to use it. China wants to occupy it, the US wants to push back. China would also like to occupy Taiwan. Taiwan is an independent country, but it is in a strategically very important location in the sea, not too far from China. If it is not a part of China, it can be an enemy of China and China doesn't like this at the moment. The US is happy to have a neutral country near the Chinese border because it keeps China on its toes. It doesn't want China to occupy the island. And there are plenty more issues.
Trump has a very big mouth. He has been very verbal about doing big things. None of it has happened. Xi and Putin wanted to test whether Trump has any balls when it comes to military threats. They wanted to see whether they can put pressure on him if they take some actual military action. Will Trump again just talk but not do anything and shrink from retaliation, as he did on a host of other issues?
That is why North-Korea suddenly acquired the capabiltiy to fire long range rockets. And that is why there was suddenly a horrible chemical attack on civilians and on opposers of Assad in Syria. These were ways for Russia and China to test Trump without getting into a new conflict. They could also mask these questions easily as movements in already ongoing conflicts.
Why I was surprised was this: Trump was earlier very verbal about cutting back on military spending and being friendly with Russia. Standing up to Russia was a smart move in this case. No doubt, it wasn't Trump's idea. Why I'm still glad is because he listened to his more talented military and foreign policy advisors.
Why was it a good idea to demolish some Syrian military capability? Because it shows that the US is willing to engage in a counterstrike if Russia or China (or their proxies, North-Korea or Syria) make nasty moves.
Trump also has his own agenda: his dangerous and corrupt Russian ties have been exposed. He hopes that this strike will make people think that he can't be a friend of Russia, if he was willing to order a strike on Syria. Of course the strike means nothing like this in real life. Before the rockets hit the airbase the Syrians and Russians were informed of the attack and they could move out. It was also only one of several well equipped military air bases. Russia is still operating in the region without any issues. Still, some not well informed people will believe that Trump is some kind of hero, that he has integrity and he isn't compromised by Russian ties. He is. But at least he listened to his advisors and stood up to the pressure of Russia and China in this case.
This means that in the Xi-Trump talks Xi will have to be less brazen and more careful.
There is conflict in Syria because Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran would all like to be the dominating state in the region and try to carve it up between them. Russia support Iran and Assad, the US backs Saudi Arabia and to some extent Irak, the EU backs to some extent Turkey, and China is stirring the shit in the background. As long as the regional big three - Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran - don't settle things there won't be peace.
However the chemical weapon strike by Assad's troops a few days ago was not a random thing or part of Assad regular plans. Here is why it happened.
The US is trying to maintain the current power balance both in the Middle-East and in the Pacific.
Russia and China don't like this. They would like more power and everything that comes with that: easier and cheaper access to resources, more military influence in the regions, more political influence, less scrutiny into their corruption and despotic acts. And so on.
Russia and China are at the moment working together and concerting their efforts therefore to erode US dominance everywhere. They do this mostly through proxy-states, since at the moment neither Xi, nor Putin want a conflict on their home territory. That would make them unpopular and lead to their losing their might potentially. So they both finance North-Korea who constantly pressures South-Korea and Japan, both US allies. Russia and China must have lent money and technology recently to North-Korea since it suddenly became able to launch very destructive long range rockets. That's a big danger for Japan and the US too.
Xi and Trump will soon meet. They will have a lot to discuss. Trump has a naive vision that he should lead the US into an economic war with China. This would be horrible for both countries, so Xi wants to avoid this. China wants to occupy and claim the whole of the South-China Sea. This is an extremely rich territory in natural resources. Also, a huge part of the world-trade goes through this sea in form of enormous ships. If it is controlled by a single country that country has a lot of power over everyone else in the world, because everyone is trading. At the moment the South China Sea is international waters. No single country controls it, and there are international contracts that enable everyone to use it. China wants to occupy it, the US wants to push back. China would also like to occupy Taiwan. Taiwan is an independent country, but it is in a strategically very important location in the sea, not too far from China. If it is not a part of China, it can be an enemy of China and China doesn't like this at the moment. The US is happy to have a neutral country near the Chinese border because it keeps China on its toes. It doesn't want China to occupy the island. And there are plenty more issues.
Trump has a very big mouth. He has been very verbal about doing big things. None of it has happened. Xi and Putin wanted to test whether Trump has any balls when it comes to military threats. They wanted to see whether they can put pressure on him if they take some actual military action. Will Trump again just talk but not do anything and shrink from retaliation, as he did on a host of other issues?
That is why North-Korea suddenly acquired the capabiltiy to fire long range rockets. And that is why there was suddenly a horrible chemical attack on civilians and on opposers of Assad in Syria. These were ways for Russia and China to test Trump without getting into a new conflict. They could also mask these questions easily as movements in already ongoing conflicts.
Why I was surprised was this: Trump was earlier very verbal about cutting back on military spending and being friendly with Russia. Standing up to Russia was a smart move in this case. No doubt, it wasn't Trump's idea. Why I'm still glad is because he listened to his more talented military and foreign policy advisors.
Why was it a good idea to demolish some Syrian military capability? Because it shows that the US is willing to engage in a counterstrike if Russia or China (or their proxies, North-Korea or Syria) make nasty moves.
Trump also has his own agenda: his dangerous and corrupt Russian ties have been exposed. He hopes that this strike will make people think that he can't be a friend of Russia, if he was willing to order a strike on Syria. Of course the strike means nothing like this in real life. Before the rockets hit the airbase the Syrians and Russians were informed of the attack and they could move out. It was also only one of several well equipped military air bases. Russia is still operating in the region without any issues. Still, some not well informed people will believe that Trump is some kind of hero, that he has integrity and he isn't compromised by Russian ties. He is. But at least he listened to his advisors and stood up to the pressure of Russia and China in this case.
This means that in the Xi-Trump talks Xi will have to be less brazen and more careful.
The larger game
At any given time several large political, economic, and military contests are going on. These are driven by powerful people and the employees who serve them without questioning their goals. Some people say that America or Israel is driving conflicts.
The truth is this: America and Israel are driving conflicts. And so is Russia, so is China, so is Iran, so is Turkey, so is the UK, so is Saudi Arabia, and so is a host of other countries. If the US and Israel would not do anything, others would. We would see an even more aggressive Russia, and an even more aggressive and assertive China.
This does not morally or politically excuse any of the horrible things the US military and secret services, or the Israeli military services did in the last decades. It just serves to clarify, that there is a legitimate and necessary push-back against other countries that are just as aggressive.
Also, it is not news that there are conflicts. Conflicts are also there. It is just that the average person only learns about them when the tension becomes so high as in the case of North-Korea at the moment.
The truth is this: America and Israel are driving conflicts. And so is Russia, so is China, so is Iran, so is Turkey, so is the UK, so is Saudi Arabia, and so is a host of other countries. If the US and Israel would not do anything, others would. We would see an even more aggressive Russia, and an even more aggressive and assertive China.
This does not morally or politically excuse any of the horrible things the US military and secret services, or the Israeli military services did in the last decades. It just serves to clarify, that there is a legitimate and necessary push-back against other countries that are just as aggressive.
Also, it is not news that there are conflicts. Conflicts are also there. It is just that the average person only learns about them when the tension becomes so high as in the case of North-Korea at the moment.
Break
I took a longer break from blogging. I did this mainly for two reasons.
One was that I simply did not want to write about Trump. Everyone writing about Trump during the election was basically advertising him. As we now see, all that advertisement was advertisement for a lot of hot air. A big nothing. No policy, no knowledge, no directions, no performance. It doesn't matter anymore. The idiot is in the house, in the chair. Let's hope he gets impeached soon, or otherwise becomes incapable of going on.
The other was that Brexit was still hanging in the air, there was still hope that some preliminary positive agreements would be put in place between May's 'dazed and confused' government and the very calm and calculative EU leadership. Sadly, this did not happen. May drove the car full speed against the wall. We will see how things go from now. Not much can be known at the moment, so I do not see any good reason either to panic or to confuse people.
The following is imperative:
Stay calm. Things are NEVER as bad as politicians would like you to believe. Like any manager, politicians are trying to sell ideas and push them through. Then they claim credit for the changes they made. Most things are going OK in the world, and smart people are working on the ones which aren't (disease, illness, inequality, education, etc.). Politicians stir up shit to create an opportunity to rise and shine. They create most of the problems and issues that they claim only they can solve. So they can claim credit and cement their rule. This happens in the US, in Russia, in China, in Africa, and elsewhere. For example see the UK, where this artificial-shit-storm-mongering created a change in the political leadership, or Hungary, where Orban's authoritarian government is still using the migrant issue to create panic and rally its supporters.
We need to stay calm. We need to send the politicians who try to drive us into wars to prison. We need to kick those out who make us believe that it's rational that the rich shouldn't pay more taxes, but the poor should, and social services should be cut too. These people are doing a bad job.
We need to keep our calm and our cool heads to organize kicking them out and keeping them under check. Everywhere. Whether you read this in Zimbabwe, in Peru, in Afghanistan, in Chile, in Austria, Saudi Arabia, in Finland, in China, in Myanmar, in the US: it doesn't matter. Organize, and keep your politicians, your military leaders, and your top managers under check. Create unions, reading groups, parties. Invite researchers - not hacks, not journalists, not 'public speakers', not think tank people. Invite the researchers who are publicly funded and publish everything in journals that can be publicly accesses. They are the people doing an honest job, giving their years and name to what they do.
Keep calm. Don't fall for the propaganda. It is not the US that is evil. Not Russia. Not China. Not Syria. The average person doesn't want to do any harm, nor does he or she care about others in other countries. The average person wants to go on in a decent life. It is the power-crazy brutal loonies who are the real danger. Not that minority your local MP accuses. Not that other religion your imam is warning you about. Not people who like something else in sex or in love. It is the corrupt and greedy leaders and their henchman, those serving them.
One was that I simply did not want to write about Trump. Everyone writing about Trump during the election was basically advertising him. As we now see, all that advertisement was advertisement for a lot of hot air. A big nothing. No policy, no knowledge, no directions, no performance. It doesn't matter anymore. The idiot is in the house, in the chair. Let's hope he gets impeached soon, or otherwise becomes incapable of going on.
The other was that Brexit was still hanging in the air, there was still hope that some preliminary positive agreements would be put in place between May's 'dazed and confused' government and the very calm and calculative EU leadership. Sadly, this did not happen. May drove the car full speed against the wall. We will see how things go from now. Not much can be known at the moment, so I do not see any good reason either to panic or to confuse people.
The following is imperative:
Stay calm. Things are NEVER as bad as politicians would like you to believe. Like any manager, politicians are trying to sell ideas and push them through. Then they claim credit for the changes they made. Most things are going OK in the world, and smart people are working on the ones which aren't (disease, illness, inequality, education, etc.). Politicians stir up shit to create an opportunity to rise and shine. They create most of the problems and issues that they claim only they can solve. So they can claim credit and cement their rule. This happens in the US, in Russia, in China, in Africa, and elsewhere. For example see the UK, where this artificial-shit-storm-mongering created a change in the political leadership, or Hungary, where Orban's authoritarian government is still using the migrant issue to create panic and rally its supporters.
We need to stay calm. We need to send the politicians who try to drive us into wars to prison. We need to kick those out who make us believe that it's rational that the rich shouldn't pay more taxes, but the poor should, and social services should be cut too. These people are doing a bad job.
We need to keep our calm and our cool heads to organize kicking them out and keeping them under check. Everywhere. Whether you read this in Zimbabwe, in Peru, in Afghanistan, in Chile, in Austria, Saudi Arabia, in Finland, in China, in Myanmar, in the US: it doesn't matter. Organize, and keep your politicians, your military leaders, and your top managers under check. Create unions, reading groups, parties. Invite researchers - not hacks, not journalists, not 'public speakers', not think tank people. Invite the researchers who are publicly funded and publish everything in journals that can be publicly accesses. They are the people doing an honest job, giving their years and name to what they do.
Keep calm. Don't fall for the propaganda. It is not the US that is evil. Not Russia. Not China. Not Syria. The average person doesn't want to do any harm, nor does he or she care about others in other countries. The average person wants to go on in a decent life. It is the power-crazy brutal loonies who are the real danger. Not that minority your local MP accuses. Not that other religion your imam is warning you about. Not people who like something else in sex or in love. It is the corrupt and greedy leaders and their henchman, those serving them.
Monday, 12 December 2016
Inequality, income, and democracy
I've always been committed to the idea that economic growth is important, that the interests of companies and employers had to be taken into account and given due weight in considering policies and in politics in general. Still, what we are witnessing at the moment is similar to what people have witnessed in the second half of the 19th century, and the first decades of the 20th. We are witnessing an enormous inequality between people who own companies, shares in companies, land, and estates. And we see that instead of more fair and and egalitarian re-investment of significant portions of these gigantic amounts of wealth, a few individuals are sitting on them. This is so in the US, West and East Europe, just as much as in Japan, Australia, or in Russia, India and China.
Governments are more and more reluctant to intervene and do their job in running societies well by creating legal and financial environments that are conducive to good societies. And they are more and more inclined to make their members extremely wealthy in exchange of giving the richest even more freedom. These governments are failing the societies which elected them, and know that they do. So they spend large sums on expert marketing and communication, and highlight issues and direct common talk in ways so that people are occupied with questions of nationalism, immigration, belonging and being a member of the community, personal and community identities. Such issues are important, but they should be issues where tolerance reigns, and communities take care of their own identities. People are not imbeciles in need of constant guidance. Especially not from politicians.
However, politicians and their advisory teams know very well that such questions sell, that it is easy to create stifle and tension between people, and they can be distracted from their further exploitation by such topics. What we need to start focusing on is a fight. It is a fight in which we need to engage in. We need to push back on the governments, the political and the business elite, the large owners, and the estate moguls. We need to force them to create the kind of societies we want to live in. We need to do this peacefully, but firmly. No votes for people who don't represent our interest. In fact, no money for them. We need much stronger checks and balances, and much higher levels of civilian engagement. We need to be there, call these people back, and sack them if they are not representing the interests which they should be representing. And we need politicians who are willing and able to stand up against the private players lurking in the backgrounds.
People like Trump, Xun, Putin, May and others won't do this job. They are part of the wealthy class and are very much willing to run their countries so that while stability is ensured, as much money as possible is diverted to their supporting clubs and circles. This is not a global issue, independent or race, nation, colour. It is a moral, political, and a class issue. People who have wealth and influence out of proportion are running the game. And they don't run it fairly.
What we need is to stand up and organize our representation. We desperately need a union that represents all workers in the EU. Not based on nation, not based on cultural background, but on the fact that capitalism does not ensure that workers and employers are in the same position when bargaining for wages. When people are selling their time and energy they are vulnerable, while a class of huge owners could live comfortable lives even if they would never again work. We need to change this. Security, safety, wellbeing are things we all need. And the current system does not ensure that hard work gets you any of this.
Governments are more and more reluctant to intervene and do their job in running societies well by creating legal and financial environments that are conducive to good societies. And they are more and more inclined to make their members extremely wealthy in exchange of giving the richest even more freedom. These governments are failing the societies which elected them, and know that they do. So they spend large sums on expert marketing and communication, and highlight issues and direct common talk in ways so that people are occupied with questions of nationalism, immigration, belonging and being a member of the community, personal and community identities. Such issues are important, but they should be issues where tolerance reigns, and communities take care of their own identities. People are not imbeciles in need of constant guidance. Especially not from politicians.
However, politicians and their advisory teams know very well that such questions sell, that it is easy to create stifle and tension between people, and they can be distracted from their further exploitation by such topics. What we need to start focusing on is a fight. It is a fight in which we need to engage in. We need to push back on the governments, the political and the business elite, the large owners, and the estate moguls. We need to force them to create the kind of societies we want to live in. We need to do this peacefully, but firmly. No votes for people who don't represent our interest. In fact, no money for them. We need much stronger checks and balances, and much higher levels of civilian engagement. We need to be there, call these people back, and sack them if they are not representing the interests which they should be representing. And we need politicians who are willing and able to stand up against the private players lurking in the backgrounds.
People like Trump, Xun, Putin, May and others won't do this job. They are part of the wealthy class and are very much willing to run their countries so that while stability is ensured, as much money as possible is diverted to their supporting clubs and circles. This is not a global issue, independent or race, nation, colour. It is a moral, political, and a class issue. People who have wealth and influence out of proportion are running the game. And they don't run it fairly.
What we need is to stand up and organize our representation. We desperately need a union that represents all workers in the EU. Not based on nation, not based on cultural background, but on the fact that capitalism does not ensure that workers and employers are in the same position when bargaining for wages. When people are selling their time and energy they are vulnerable, while a class of huge owners could live comfortable lives even if they would never again work. We need to change this. Security, safety, wellbeing are things we all need. And the current system does not ensure that hard work gets you any of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)