Psychophant's Rants
16.8.12
My solution
This is how, if somehow I became Earth Tyrant, charged with restructuring the world, I would tackle the current crisis.
First of all, I would like to point out that there is a real crisis, or several, and they will change our societies. On one hand, and it has been increasing lately, in the densely populated advanced countries (sparsely populated countries still have enough resources to keep the people employed) there are less jobs than people. One of the good points of the welfare state is that it employs a lot of people, with all kinds of qualifications. However it means those actually producing have to pay for all of that. The state therefore has been growing steadily, though there was a golden moment, when population growth stabilized or even became negative, where it could have worked. Now, with big immigrant influxes and increasing populations where the state has in many countries, due to mismanagement, corruption or simply production/welfare imbalances, become economically unsustainable. And it is difficult to lean the state when it just means unemployed people to support anyway.
The second problem, a more global one, lies in the reduction in resources as population and consumerism grows. I am an optimist, so I think we can solve the energy problem through technology, but that still means sharing a decreasing resource base with increasing people, as even if population stabilizes, people want more equality in the distribution.
The traditional solution, because similar resource crisis have arrived in the past, is to decrease population till we find a new balance point. War, Famine, Pestilence... Old companions of human society. Roughly what apocalyptical nuts have been waiting for, as that means you do not have to work to solve the problems, as "unstoppable historical forces" will do that for you. I like to compare the attitude of the Western and the Eastern Roman Empires. One tried to hold on, using all the old empire tricks, while the other changed the emphasis, changed the rules, became traders and power brokers, accepting (most of the time) they were an empire no more. One thousand years is the difference.
As I am not willing, even as global tyrant, to kill off thousands of millions of people, I need a different way. Which puts me in American Militia territory, as I will want to take away their weapons, their resources, and share them with poor Latin people. It just will take a bit longer than what they are expecting, as there are bigger fishes to fry.
They used to be the big evil a couple decades ago. But they took control of the media, and with the help of the War on Terror, they went back into obscurity. I am referring of course to the big multinational groups, and their specially evil sibling, the multinational financial corporation.
They are not evil in themselves, but when you combine compulsory greed with control of politicians things get nasty very quickly. Including a sharp decline in public income from this kind of companies, as they do accounting engineering, political freebies, and if all else fails, outright blackmail with the possibility of leaving. All of them very bad news for the estate financial stability.
Multinational groups are quite resilient if the target of a single government. You need to combine a strong block, representing a sizeable market, to make their own greed make them play by the rules, and then watch them to keep them from changing the rules. Just what certain groups should be doing, but they seem focused on other things.
Of course while the pressure mounts you need to clean up the political scene, both to reduce the corruption loss factor and to minimize the corporate interference in the government. That way, with the multinational companies playing by the same rules as the nationals, it may be even economically interesting to bring back some jobs, if only to spend some money and reduce the taxes on profits.
The increased income for the state would allow it to keep/retake control on those services that society needs to run at a loss, or that it cannot afford not to run, like energy, healthcare or public transportation. And create many unnecessary jobs for all those people that the "real economy" cannot employ because they are not needed. Then comes why I need to be tyrant of the whole world, because that way the rich will not be able to find a place willing to tax them almost nothing in exchange of their patronage. Alternately I am willing to consider considering corporations as people, and apply progressive income tax to them. Just making sure they fall in the 80% bracket.
Hard? Probably. Likely? Unfortunately no. But I do not see any other way that does not end with a lot of people dead. ¶ 12:00 PM
This is how, if somehow I became Earth Tyrant, charged with restructuring the world, I would tackle the current crisis.
First of all, I would like to point out that there is a real crisis, or several, and they will change our societies. On one hand, and it has been increasing lately, in the densely populated advanced countries (sparsely populated countries still have enough resources to keep the people employed) there are less jobs than people. One of the good points of the welfare state is that it employs a lot of people, with all kinds of qualifications. However it means those actually producing have to pay for all of that. The state therefore has been growing steadily, though there was a golden moment, when population growth stabilized or even became negative, where it could have worked. Now, with big immigrant influxes and increasing populations where the state has in many countries, due to mismanagement, corruption or simply production/welfare imbalances, become economically unsustainable. And it is difficult to lean the state when it just means unemployed people to support anyway.
The second problem, a more global one, lies in the reduction in resources as population and consumerism grows. I am an optimist, so I think we can solve the energy problem through technology, but that still means sharing a decreasing resource base with increasing people, as even if population stabilizes, people want more equality in the distribution.
The traditional solution, because similar resource crisis have arrived in the past, is to decrease population till we find a new balance point. War, Famine, Pestilence... Old companions of human society. Roughly what apocalyptical nuts have been waiting for, as that means you do not have to work to solve the problems, as "unstoppable historical forces" will do that for you. I like to compare the attitude of the Western and the Eastern Roman Empires. One tried to hold on, using all the old empire tricks, while the other changed the emphasis, changed the rules, became traders and power brokers, accepting (most of the time) they were an empire no more. One thousand years is the difference.
As I am not willing, even as global tyrant, to kill off thousands of millions of people, I need a different way. Which puts me in American Militia territory, as I will want to take away their weapons, their resources, and share them with poor Latin people. It just will take a bit longer than what they are expecting, as there are bigger fishes to fry.
They used to be the big evil a couple decades ago. But they took control of the media, and with the help of the War on Terror, they went back into obscurity. I am referring of course to the big multinational groups, and their specially evil sibling, the multinational financial corporation.
They are not evil in themselves, but when you combine compulsory greed with control of politicians things get nasty very quickly. Including a sharp decline in public income from this kind of companies, as they do accounting engineering, political freebies, and if all else fails, outright blackmail with the possibility of leaving. All of them very bad news for the estate financial stability.
Multinational groups are quite resilient if the target of a single government. You need to combine a strong block, representing a sizeable market, to make their own greed make them play by the rules, and then watch them to keep them from changing the rules. Just what certain groups should be doing, but they seem focused on other things.
Of course while the pressure mounts you need to clean up the political scene, both to reduce the corruption loss factor and to minimize the corporate interference in the government. That way, with the multinational companies playing by the same rules as the nationals, it may be even economically interesting to bring back some jobs, if only to spend some money and reduce the taxes on profits.
The increased income for the state would allow it to keep/retake control on those services that society needs to run at a loss, or that it cannot afford not to run, like energy, healthcare or public transportation. And create many unnecessary jobs for all those people that the "real economy" cannot employ because they are not needed. Then comes why I need to be tyrant of the whole world, because that way the rich will not be able to find a place willing to tax them almost nothing in exchange of their patronage. Alternately I am willing to consider considering corporations as people, and apply progressive income tax to them. Just making sure they fall in the 80% bracket.
Hard? Probably. Likely? Unfortunately no. But I do not see any other way that does not end with a lot of people dead. ¶ 12:00 PM
15.8.12
Sports and passion
The Olympics have something that I cannot explain. I despise nationalism, the belief that somehow where you are born makes you different, or even worse, better than someone else. Yet the Olympics, nation-state glorification, so that those who can afford it promote sports as a way to promote your own national system. The strange message that if your society has better sports results, it is better, a remnant from the original Olympics when it was taken as a sign that you were favoured by the gods.
The reason the games fascinate me is not the countries or the flags, but the athletes themselves. Because, besides a few exceptions, they are humans first and nationals second. Because once you take away the TV deals and the sponsors you have people at a turning point, the most important moment for them in the last four years, if not their whole life. It may be voyeuristic, but as a naturally cold and restrained person, such a raw emotion, the passion, regret, sorrow and joy that is so concentrated in those competitions is addictive. I do not care much about the particular sport, though the nationality colours a lot how they react, both in failure and success. Because this is about people, exceptional people, gifted ones, but people after all.
And no matter how rational, it is human to identify with a group, so seeing those you identify as "yours" winning has a strong effect, stronger the lower your perceived status is.
For a society, I think it is a sign of maturity to be able to spend resources in athletes beyond what is considered spectacle. It shows you are beyond basic necessities. It does not mean it is a just society, or equal, though it is always a good sign if minorities or women take part as equals in the games.
No matter how changed or unreal Pierre de Coubertin's aims were, he had several great ideas, such as keeping the athletes together so they could interact. All the claims of wild parties and sex among the athletes is what I feel the Olympics try to represent. We are all in this together. The IOC selling to corporate interests was beyond his control, tied to the unavoidable loss of the "gentleman" spirit, probably more unequal than the current spectacle and national promotion.
¶ 1:27 PM The Olympics have something that I cannot explain. I despise nationalism, the belief that somehow where you are born makes you different, or even worse, better than someone else. Yet the Olympics, nation-state glorification, so that those who can afford it promote sports as a way to promote your own national system. The strange message that if your society has better sports results, it is better, a remnant from the original Olympics when it was taken as a sign that you were favoured by the gods.
The reason the games fascinate me is not the countries or the flags, but the athletes themselves. Because, besides a few exceptions, they are humans first and nationals second. Because once you take away the TV deals and the sponsors you have people at a turning point, the most important moment for them in the last four years, if not their whole life. It may be voyeuristic, but as a naturally cold and restrained person, such a raw emotion, the passion, regret, sorrow and joy that is so concentrated in those competitions is addictive. I do not care much about the particular sport, though the nationality colours a lot how they react, both in failure and success. Because this is about people, exceptional people, gifted ones, but people after all.
And no matter how rational, it is human to identify with a group, so seeing those you identify as "yours" winning has a strong effect, stronger the lower your perceived status is.
For a society, I think it is a sign of maturity to be able to spend resources in athletes beyond what is considered spectacle. It shows you are beyond basic necessities. It does not mean it is a just society, or equal, though it is always a good sign if minorities or women take part as equals in the games.
No matter how changed or unreal Pierre de Coubertin's aims were, he had several great ideas, such as keeping the athletes together so they could interact. All the claims of wild parties and sex among the athletes is what I feel the Olympics try to represent. We are all in this together. The IOC selling to corporate interests was beyond his control, tied to the unavoidable loss of the "gentleman" spirit, probably more unequal than the current spectacle and national promotion.
7.8.12
Dare to see forward
The economic crisis weighs heavily at times on my mind. And yet, most of the time it feels like the natural steps of a rearrangement of wealth, and the financial sector and certain governments obsession with avoiding a default (to avoid people realizing how consensual paper money has become, which would make it worthless) will just end up with a huge Western default, one where we finally lose the preeminent role history has given us, and the power to make meaningful decisions moves away. Our countries are poorer while many poor elsewhere in the world are less poor. The Arab Spring was many things, but some, maybe most of them in Egypt or Tunis, were because many people stopped considering themselves poor, so they demanded the rights they expect to have.
In this XXIst century people want a cellular phone that works, they want internet access, they do not want a car, but a good road where to drive that car, the education they glimpse through the web for their children. They now have a window to compare to and they want what others have. But that works also in the so called rich countries, we just lack training and guts for a proper insurrection. Why I do not have a job? Why is my education shit/worthless? Why do I have to pay other people’s faults? Why is the bank taking my house?
In the end we will have the same source of unrest, the rage over the unfulfilled expectations of the middle class. People just fight harder and are more willing to work together to get something new than what they will do to avoid losing something. Middle Class then would be when you stop begging or feeling owned to believe you earn your future. Earn with work, or looking back in history, blood. Quite different from the standard marxist view, but you need that feeling of entitlement to organize a lasting revolt.
If there is a real influence from the European conflicts from the French Revolution onwards it is this idea of equality, the true heart of post war European politics, the politician-citizens, lost now among the elite, in the conflict between privilege and equality. Privilege that does not really mean riches, though they are often together, but all the perks that used to go with nobility and now is being seized by the newly privileged rich and their political servants. That is the coming conflict, and indeed what I feel was the backdrop to the Arab Spring, superimposed with religion.
This study (warning, pdf) gives me hope for the world, though not for us, the privileged, as more people get to enjoy a similar level of life. Though it also worries me, when we see the penetration of global brands in the consumer’s perception. The neighbor’s grass, always appearing greener.
So, is there anything to do, or is our fate like Cassandra’s, to see our doom fall upon us without a chance to change it? I will borrow the bright words of a dark poet, a strange way to feel optimist. Maybe because as he himself wrote, these are poems crafted from rage and patience:
Plonger au fond du gouffre, Enfer ou Ciel, qu'importe?
Au fond de l'Inconnu pour trouver du nouveau !
Plunge into the abyss, Hell or Heaven, who cares?
To the limits of the Unknown to find the new! ¶ 6:42 PM
The economic crisis weighs heavily at times on my mind. And yet, most of the time it feels like the natural steps of a rearrangement of wealth, and the financial sector and certain governments obsession with avoiding a default (to avoid people realizing how consensual paper money has become, which would make it worthless) will just end up with a huge Western default, one where we finally lose the preeminent role history has given us, and the power to make meaningful decisions moves away. Our countries are poorer while many poor elsewhere in the world are less poor. The Arab Spring was many things, but some, maybe most of them in Egypt or Tunis, were because many people stopped considering themselves poor, so they demanded the rights they expect to have.
In this XXIst century people want a cellular phone that works, they want internet access, they do not want a car, but a good road where to drive that car, the education they glimpse through the web for their children. They now have a window to compare to and they want what others have. But that works also in the so called rich countries, we just lack training and guts for a proper insurrection. Why I do not have a job? Why is my education shit/worthless? Why do I have to pay other people’s faults? Why is the bank taking my house?
In the end we will have the same source of unrest, the rage over the unfulfilled expectations of the middle class. People just fight harder and are more willing to work together to get something new than what they will do to avoid losing something. Middle Class then would be when you stop begging or feeling owned to believe you earn your future. Earn with work, or looking back in history, blood. Quite different from the standard marxist view, but you need that feeling of entitlement to organize a lasting revolt.
If there is a real influence from the European conflicts from the French Revolution onwards it is this idea of equality, the true heart of post war European politics, the politician-citizens, lost now among the elite, in the conflict between privilege and equality. Privilege that does not really mean riches, though they are often together, but all the perks that used to go with nobility and now is being seized by the newly privileged rich and their political servants. That is the coming conflict, and indeed what I feel was the backdrop to the Arab Spring, superimposed with religion.
This study (warning, pdf) gives me hope for the world, though not for us, the privileged, as more people get to enjoy a similar level of life. Though it also worries me, when we see the penetration of global brands in the consumer’s perception. The neighbor’s grass, always appearing greener.
So, is there anything to do, or is our fate like Cassandra’s, to see our doom fall upon us without a chance to change it? I will borrow the bright words of a dark poet, a strange way to feel optimist. Maybe because as he himself wrote, these are poems crafted from rage and patience:
Plonger au fond du gouffre, Enfer ou Ciel, qu'importe?
Au fond de l'Inconnu pour trouver du nouveau !
Plunge into the abyss, Hell or Heaven, who cares?
To the limits of the Unknown to find the new! ¶ 6:42 PM
