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.
Sunday, 2 September 2018
Saturday, 25 August 2018
On bullshit jobs, again
David Graeber's (LSE) silly stuff on bullshit jobs is making the rounds again. I wrote about it already back when he came up with this. Graeber is a good guy and he wrote some interesting things on debt and topics in anthropology. Bad sadly he has become one of those folks who think that because they are smart in their field they know about everything.
Many of the jobs Graeber describes as bullshit - in admin, customer services, etc. - are only bullshit if you don't have any clue about running an organisation, if you don't understand anything about customer service, and so on. Graeber doesn't seem to have much first hand experience in doing these things (I don't doubt that he has read up on them, done interviews, but that's not the same). Like many academics he doesn't see nor does he take the time to learn about how the institutions he is/was working. If he would have to do a tiny fraction of all the things a university needs to do for its students to stay afloat these days he would go nuts and wouldn't have any time to write books about how these same jobs are meaningless. Think of organising exams, making sure students all get the same quality of services for the same money, sorting out the legal and financial issues of an institution and so on.
One could of course say that we should drastically cut back on admin and management positions. That's possible but then companies and public institutions won't be able to serve people. We are not in 1800 anymore, the population numbers are through the roof. The number of people attending higher education institutions, using banks, shopping, traveling, etc. has increased by several magnitudes.
To give just one example, no country could have broadened its higher ed system and admitted more students to more courses if there wouldn't be a professional administration to deal with the issues connected to this and an efficient and competent management to oversee and organise this.
Graeber is right that management, especially in competitive for profit sectors, takes a view that helps maintain a bad social track we are on towards inequality. But the solution is not to create nicer jobs or to banish ones he feels are useless. The solution is to change redistribution patterns. Yes, we might be able to work less, but no, we don't want to give up on quality standards in education, food processing, banking, we don't want to live without audits for government institutions, social services, car making, iron and steel production, etc.
Second, just because a job doesn't change the world and is not crucial to our survival, it isn't bullshit. It's not a bad thing that we don't all have to work on the fields every day just to have enough food for our community to survive a cold winter. Or that we don't all have to participate in war planning or other such activities which have a big impact and high intensity.
There are plenty of jobs that won't change the world, but they make it the more and more safe and increasingly convenient and pleasant place that it is becoming, at least in terms of services and support we get. This enables us to do a lot more with our free time and also in our jobs if we chose to do something creative.
Many of the jobs Graeber describes as bullshit - in admin, customer services, etc. - are only bullshit if you don't have any clue about running an organisation, if you don't understand anything about customer service, and so on. Graeber doesn't seem to have much first hand experience in doing these things (I don't doubt that he has read up on them, done interviews, but that's not the same). Like many academics he doesn't see nor does he take the time to learn about how the institutions he is/was working. If he would have to do a tiny fraction of all the things a university needs to do for its students to stay afloat these days he would go nuts and wouldn't have any time to write books about how these same jobs are meaningless. Think of organising exams, making sure students all get the same quality of services for the same money, sorting out the legal and financial issues of an institution and so on.
One could of course say that we should drastically cut back on admin and management positions. That's possible but then companies and public institutions won't be able to serve people. We are not in 1800 anymore, the population numbers are through the roof. The number of people attending higher education institutions, using banks, shopping, traveling, etc. has increased by several magnitudes.
To give just one example, no country could have broadened its higher ed system and admitted more students to more courses if there wouldn't be a professional administration to deal with the issues connected to this and an efficient and competent management to oversee and organise this.
Graeber is right that management, especially in competitive for profit sectors, takes a view that helps maintain a bad social track we are on towards inequality. But the solution is not to create nicer jobs or to banish ones he feels are useless. The solution is to change redistribution patterns. Yes, we might be able to work less, but no, we don't want to give up on quality standards in education, food processing, banking, we don't want to live without audits for government institutions, social services, car making, iron and steel production, etc.
Second, just because a job doesn't change the world and is not crucial to our survival, it isn't bullshit. It's not a bad thing that we don't all have to work on the fields every day just to have enough food for our community to survive a cold winter. Or that we don't all have to participate in war planning or other such activities which have a big impact and high intensity.
There are plenty of jobs that won't change the world, but they make it the more and more safe and increasingly convenient and pleasant place that it is becoming, at least in terms of services and support we get. This enables us to do a lot more with our free time and also in our jobs if we chose to do something creative.
Thursday, 23 August 2018
Orban's divisie rhetoric and tricks explained - it won't work anymore
Seeing through Fidesz's right wing deception: the trick the Republicans, the Conservatices, Le Pen and now Orban employs
Hungary is descending further and further into the abyss under Orban. Economically only the EU subsidies keep the country afloat. Recently to keep his campaigning - entirely based on artificial fear from migration - Orban's government even stopped feeding those who apply for a refugee permit. This procedure can last for days. They try to tell people to leave before an official decision has been made, thereby basically cancelling out their application. As inhumane and evil as it can get.
Luckily, more and more people are starting to understand the communication strategy of Orban's Fidesz. And besides communication there is nothing that keeps them afloat. Orban gets support basically for reiterating every week a nice, romantic, nationalist fairy tale to his voters.
I describe here this strategy, give some examples, and tell you how to avoid falling for it.
This fairy tale is based on the schematics that there is always a new challenge or threat to Hungary. The evil person, the source of the threat is always portrayed by Fidesz as someone who is or can legitimately challenge Orban's rule, or who points out real faults with it. Such institutions and people get depicted as the evil ones and Fidesz as the saviors. Fidesz repeates its lies so often at every possible time that after a period people start discussing non-existent issues. They forget that the issue doesn't exist and start behaving as if it would.
For example Fidesz started talking of 'the liberals'. There is and never was a unified camp either in politics or among voters in Hungary that could have been identified meaningfully as such. But they repeated this lie often enough and it stuck. Now many journalists and opposition people debate as if they would be liberals and the issue would be to show that Fidesz is wrong about liberals, or that liberals and right and Fidesz is wrong.
But more and more people see it now that the correct solution is simply to point out that Fidesz is lying in the first place. There are no liberals. The problem they are talking about doesn't exist. And hence, they are just bullshitting very expensively at the voters' money instead of working.
There is a simple method to counter the effects of this rhetoric. Every time Orban, Le Pen, the Brexiters, Republicans, or people saying they are 'conservative' or 'liberal' state that there is a problem and they are the only ones who can solve it do one thing. Calmly ask yourself: is that a real problem? When Orban says that he is the only one looking at the nation's interest is that true? No. I'm against Orban and I look at it. So his claim is false. Our values and goals are the same. Where is the difference? In the facts: namely, the facts Orban wants to build his case on are non-existent. Plainly said, they are lies. This is how easy it is.
Another example: there is no threat of gay people in the world or threat of 'genders' or 'feminism'. Does any sane people disagree with the following 3 claims?
1 Gay people should be left alone to live their lives as everyone else.
2 People with all kinds of genders should be left alone to live their lives as everyone else.
3 In areas where women are disadvantages simply because they are women - in some jobs in their pay, in some legal procedures, in some stereotypes and educational institutions - they should be treated as equals.
No one disagrees with these things. This is what sane gay activists, gender activists, and feminists ask for. Since every normal grown up understands these things and agrees on this, there is no threat.
So, where is the issue? The issue is with the likes of Jordan Peterson lying that there are bigger threats (to freedom of speech, gosh), Trump railing against women because some are protesting against him, and so on. The problem is with the hate mongers who get hung up on non-issues, like how someone experiences their gender.
Call these liars out, and just move on. Don't give them attention, time, energy. Let's keep building a normal world, work, spend quality time with our families. Not everything is politics. Folks like Orban and his Fidesz would like us to believe everything is. Politics is in how we behave in our families, what we think of food, art, literature, fun, gender, etc. That is not true. Politics has nothing to do in most of these places. But sensationalist and populist politicians gain power by pretending that there is. I don't blame people who are tired and confused by the world for getting duped. It happens to all of us. Just make sure you turn away and don't vote for these people. Take a break, enjoy your life, build you community, talk with your neighbour and vote for sensible people, not sensationalists.
Hungary is descending further and further into the abyss under Orban. Economically only the EU subsidies keep the country afloat. Recently to keep his campaigning - entirely based on artificial fear from migration - Orban's government even stopped feeding those who apply for a refugee permit. This procedure can last for days. They try to tell people to leave before an official decision has been made, thereby basically cancelling out their application. As inhumane and evil as it can get.
Luckily, more and more people are starting to understand the communication strategy of Orban's Fidesz. And besides communication there is nothing that keeps them afloat. Orban gets support basically for reiterating every week a nice, romantic, nationalist fairy tale to his voters.
I describe here this strategy, give some examples, and tell you how to avoid falling for it.
This fairy tale is based on the schematics that there is always a new challenge or threat to Hungary. The evil person, the source of the threat is always portrayed by Fidesz as someone who is or can legitimately challenge Orban's rule, or who points out real faults with it. Such institutions and people get depicted as the evil ones and Fidesz as the saviors. Fidesz repeates its lies so often at every possible time that after a period people start discussing non-existent issues. They forget that the issue doesn't exist and start behaving as if it would.
For example Fidesz started talking of 'the liberals'. There is and never was a unified camp either in politics or among voters in Hungary that could have been identified meaningfully as such. But they repeated this lie often enough and it stuck. Now many journalists and opposition people debate as if they would be liberals and the issue would be to show that Fidesz is wrong about liberals, or that liberals and right and Fidesz is wrong.
But more and more people see it now that the correct solution is simply to point out that Fidesz is lying in the first place. There are no liberals. The problem they are talking about doesn't exist. And hence, they are just bullshitting very expensively at the voters' money instead of working.
There is a simple method to counter the effects of this rhetoric. Every time Orban, Le Pen, the Brexiters, Republicans, or people saying they are 'conservative' or 'liberal' state that there is a problem and they are the only ones who can solve it do one thing. Calmly ask yourself: is that a real problem? When Orban says that he is the only one looking at the nation's interest is that true? No. I'm against Orban and I look at it. So his claim is false. Our values and goals are the same. Where is the difference? In the facts: namely, the facts Orban wants to build his case on are non-existent. Plainly said, they are lies. This is how easy it is.
Another example: there is no threat of gay people in the world or threat of 'genders' or 'feminism'. Does any sane people disagree with the following 3 claims?
1 Gay people should be left alone to live their lives as everyone else.
2 People with all kinds of genders should be left alone to live their lives as everyone else.
3 In areas where women are disadvantages simply because they are women - in some jobs in their pay, in some legal procedures, in some stereotypes and educational institutions - they should be treated as equals.
No one disagrees with these things. This is what sane gay activists, gender activists, and feminists ask for. Since every normal grown up understands these things and agrees on this, there is no threat.
So, where is the issue? The issue is with the likes of Jordan Peterson lying that there are bigger threats (to freedom of speech, gosh), Trump railing against women because some are protesting against him, and so on. The problem is with the hate mongers who get hung up on non-issues, like how someone experiences their gender.
Call these liars out, and just move on. Don't give them attention, time, energy. Let's keep building a normal world, work, spend quality time with our families. Not everything is politics. Folks like Orban and his Fidesz would like us to believe everything is. Politics is in how we behave in our families, what we think of food, art, literature, fun, gender, etc. That is not true. Politics has nothing to do in most of these places. But sensationalist and populist politicians gain power by pretending that there is. I don't blame people who are tired and confused by the world for getting duped. It happens to all of us. Just make sure you turn away and don't vote for these people. Take a break, enjoy your life, build you community, talk with your neighbour and vote for sensible people, not sensationalists.
Interesting developments in Turkey and Europe
The Turkey-Trump brawl might have a good outcome for the EU
Turkey got into a huge trade brawl with the US (or rather: with Trump). It is seeing some bad consequences of this at the moment. However it is a big and robust economy so this might not stick.
Behind Trump's warlike attitude to trade there is another reason for him to target Turkey. In the Middle-East/West-Asian region Saudi Arabia is the most powerful ally and proxy of the US (besides Israel), Iran is the key partner of Russia. Turkey is a regional competitor for the Saudis, Israel, and Iran. And it has several conflicts of interests with Russia. Trump coordinates several of his movements with Russia now. One of Trump's aims is to weaken the EU. He is afraid of a strong and well-coordinated EU policy that he can't push around easily so he is trying to weaken the bloc in every way he can (that's the same strategy that Putin and Xi Jinping are pursuing).
Attacking Turkey, which is usually aligning with the EU on global scale issues is one way of doing this. Turkey is now in a difficult position. The president, Erdogan has made several political, legal, economic, and military moves which make the EU distrustful of him. The population of the EU in general has a strongly negative opinion of him and his government. So, he is in a hard position when needs help and financial support. In the long run of course it is not in the EU's interest to lose one of their key allies in the region, or to see them destabilised.
However, Trump's push might also come in handy for the EU. Challenging Erdogan proved to be a hard task so far since Turkey is big enough and Erdogan popular enough not to have to rely on the EU too much in the short run. The joint US-Russian pressure on Turkey might weaken it enough to prompt Erdogan seek EU favour and support and to be willing to give up some of his prerogatives. The EU shouldn't give in at that point. If Erdogan becomes unpopular enough and he can be removed so much the better for Turkey and for the EU. In the long run this could get Erdogan out of the way and enable transition to a more democratic, transparent legal governance in Turkey. That would be a wonderful result. Trump inadvertently might enable this.
Turkey got into a huge trade brawl with the US (or rather: with Trump). It is seeing some bad consequences of this at the moment. However it is a big and robust economy so this might not stick.
Behind Trump's warlike attitude to trade there is another reason for him to target Turkey. In the Middle-East/West-Asian region Saudi Arabia is the most powerful ally and proxy of the US (besides Israel), Iran is the key partner of Russia. Turkey is a regional competitor for the Saudis, Israel, and Iran. And it has several conflicts of interests with Russia. Trump coordinates several of his movements with Russia now. One of Trump's aims is to weaken the EU. He is afraid of a strong and well-coordinated EU policy that he can't push around easily so he is trying to weaken the bloc in every way he can (that's the same strategy that Putin and Xi Jinping are pursuing).
Attacking Turkey, which is usually aligning with the EU on global scale issues is one way of doing this. Turkey is now in a difficult position. The president, Erdogan has made several political, legal, economic, and military moves which make the EU distrustful of him. The population of the EU in general has a strongly negative opinion of him and his government. So, he is in a hard position when needs help and financial support. In the long run of course it is not in the EU's interest to lose one of their key allies in the region, or to see them destabilised.
However, Trump's push might also come in handy for the EU. Challenging Erdogan proved to be a hard task so far since Turkey is big enough and Erdogan popular enough not to have to rely on the EU too much in the short run. The joint US-Russian pressure on Turkey might weaken it enough to prompt Erdogan seek EU favour and support and to be willing to give up some of his prerogatives. The EU shouldn't give in at that point. If Erdogan becomes unpopular enough and he can be removed so much the better for Turkey and for the EU. In the long run this could get Erdogan out of the way and enable transition to a more democratic, transparent legal governance in Turkey. That would be a wonderful result. Trump inadvertently might enable this.
Tuesday, 21 August 2018
Good explanation of why Trump's North-Korea posturing was inefficient
Trump tried to appear as if he would call the cards in the issues around North-Korea. But of course anyone worth their salt knows that the two Koreas, China, Russia and Japan are the main players on this one. In fact, mostly the two Koreas and China. The question is whether South-Korea is willing to change long-term strategy and integrate more into the East-Asian order, and accept the lead of China, in exchange for peace and more cooperation or even unification with North-Korea.
See this detailed, readable and clear analysis in Paste Magazine for more.
See this detailed, readable and clear analysis in Paste Magazine for more.
Monday, 20 August 2018
Europe, migration and the future
It is beyond doubt that the so called 'migration crisis' in Europe had as its causes 1 the Syrian war, and 2 global warming (crops failed for years in a region traditionally good in agriculture).
The lesson is: since global warming is going to make more places uninhabitable we need to work out better frameworks for mass relocation. Even the South of Europe will need it.
The lesson is: since global warming is going to make more places uninhabitable we need to work out better frameworks for mass relocation. Even the South of Europe will need it.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)