Posts Tagged ‘The Economist

02
Feb
11

Democracy in the Arab world – Everyone’s a winner

She wont vote for militant Islam

She wont vote for militant Islam

This evening BBC Radio 4′s Moral Maze is discussing the unrest in Egypt. I usually find this program to irritating to listen to. The panelist seem to consider that it is their soul objective to be obnoxious and insulting to the “witnesses”.

In describing tonight’s program the BBC web site asks: “Is it morally justifiable to tolerate or support unpleasant, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes because we feel the likely alternatives might prove worse for the citizens of Egypt.”

My answer is simple: NO! No because it is wrong to support unpleasant, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes. NO because we cannot know what the alternative will be. And NO because we have experience of what happens when revolution finally breaks out in countries where the West has connived to suppress democracy. i.e. the people despise the West along with the dictator which they have just thrown off.

The classic example of this is Iran. In 1953 the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d’état instigated by the United States and the United Kingdom. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed as Shāh and propped up by the United States until the revolution in 1977.

From what I have read the revolution was initially backed by a secular movement but militant Islamists used the chance to grab power. Secular Iranians tried to resist but were crushed by the new regime of Ayatollah Khomeini. They could have received help from the West but having been responsible for 20 years of their repression we were not trusted and there followed a caustic division between Iran and the West that lasts ’till this day. That is an example of what happens when we support unpleasant, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes because we feel the likely alternatives might prove worse.

We should support the people of Egypt in ejecting their dictator. If they then elect an authoritarian Islamist government then more fool them. At least the responsibility will not be ours and when they are finally in a position to reject authoritarianism we will be in a position to help.

More optimistically I believe that Egyptians will have learned from the experiences of Iran and Afghanistan and will reject outright Islamist rule though Islamists may have some role in a coalition. It is possible that Egypt could finally break the curse that has afflicted the Arab world for decades and start to modernise.

Imagine a middle east of modern democratic countries right on the border of the largest trading block in the world. I am talking of the European Union. While the world obsesses over whether China will supplant America as the largest economy in the world they overlook the fact that the EU has an economy larger than both. With the Arab world modernising trade would take off and this would be great news for Arabs and Europeans.

The financial crisis has caused market uncertainty and companies have been nervous about initiating capital projects. Investors are also unenthusiastic as many assets appear overpriced; there is even talk of a Chinese asset bubble. Consequently some sectors, such as insurance, are awash with capital.

If democracy were to blossom then this capital could find it’s way to infrastructure projects in the Arab world. There was speculation in The Economist in 2009 of solar powered electricity generation in the Sahara with the electricity transported to Europe across the Mediterranean. That is not going to happen while the region is ruled by unstable dictators.

Lastly consider the effect on the Arab / Israeli conflict. Today the subtext of much of Israel’s argument is that the Palestinians are just Arabs who are used to being oppressed and the Palestinians are no worse off than citizens of other Arab countries.

Imagine if Israel were surrounded by thriving democracies. Israel would be forced to confront it’s oppressive and racist policies toward the Palestinians. Could The United States continue to support the siege of Gaza or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? Shame on them if they did.

About these ads
14
Jan
11

Choose debt?

Choose Debt

Choose Debt

I just caught the end of The World Tonight a serious pontificating BBC Radio 4 program where the “expert” said that everyone is treating the financial crisis as a crisis of liquidity whereas in reality it is a crisis of debt. I’m no expert on this but Wikipedia defines Market liquidity as “an asset’s ability to be sold without causing a significant movement in the price and with minimum loss of value” and Accounting Liquidity as “a measure of the ability of a debtor to pay his debts as and when they fall due.”

I think that what the guy was getting at is that the great and the good thought that if we print more money then we can introduce liquidity and buy the distressed debt. Yeh, great, but all that achieves is that some other sucker (the tax payer) owns the debt.

The Economist this week mentioned again that all that has really occurred since the financial crisis is that the private debt which the banks owned has become public debt.

So in the opinion of both BBC expert and The Economist the debt has not gone away. The BBC expert said that some countries (implicitly Greece and Ireland) do not have the resources to repay their debt and merely giving them loans from the EU does not change this.

I believe that free market capitalist theory says that when the debtor cannot repay then the debt is written off and the lenders lose their money. It is easy to scoff that the money is lent by a lot of rich institutions but we must remember that in many cases these institutions are the pension funds of ordinary working people.

So what is to be done?

I have heard that Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2002 yet my recollection is that The Economist has had some good things to say about its economy recently. Iceland also hit troubled times and let its investors face write offs yet an Economist article on Ireland cagily suggested that Ireland could learn a thing or two from the way Iceland handled its crisis.

It seems that all the “experts” are suggesting that the debts be written off. Yes, the lenders (read your pension funds and rich bastards) will lose out in the short term but perhaps this is no worse than dragging the problem out for years and arriving at the same conclusion years later.

So why are the debt not being written off? In whose interest is it to maintain bad debt on a companies book?

Ah yes, The Bankers. It is in the interest of the bankers to pretend that the idiotic loans which they made will eventually come good because it make the banks balance sheet look better and therefore gives the CEO some leverage in bumping up his already considerable salary.

07
Jan
11

Google ngram

Talking Bollocks ngram

Talking Bollocks ngram

I’ve known for a while that Google have been digitizing books. Good plan. Hopefully by the time the decade is out they will have digitized the whole of reality. If they do then one hopes that they can contain the whole of creation in a smaller space than it currently takes otherwise the question arises: Where will they put it.

But I digress. The Economist informs me that Google have started analysing the digitized books and collating the derived data. This is an amazing idea. This means that we can now perform statistical anayslsys on massive quantities of text. We can analyze what ideas and subjects people were engaged with throughout recent history. One upshot is Ngram Viewer which allows us to plot a graph of the occurrence of a word or phrase in all the books analysed by Google.

I have to say that this is FANTASTIC! Until now this sort of thing has been completely impossible yet now anyone with Web access can get results in seconds. For example the occurrence of the word Glory has declined drastically whereas the occurrence of  police is generally on the rise. Lust has declined gradually and is now into something of a plateau whereas sex is on the rise despite a brief dip in the 90s. – Ooh Mrs!

These may be frivolous examples but sociologists must love this tool. One interesting finding, though counter intuitive, is that the occurrence of the word terror has been declining for 200 years.

Lastly it is satisfying that the phrase Talking Bollocks began a steep increase in popularity in the 1990s though this  dipped around the year 2000. Surprising as New Labour did not get evicted until 2010.

30
Dec
10

The last of England

When you have lost your inns, drown your empty selves, for you will have lost the last of England

When you have lost your inns, drown your empty selves, for you will have lost the last of England

The Christmas edition of The Economist had a fantastic elegy on the British pub written by their obituaries editor. This is well timed.

When I first moved to Hove I of course researched the pubs. I found several good boozers quite close. Pubs, not bars. Places for a pint and some conversation. That was years ago and I have watched as one by one they have been “renovated”. The comfortable furniture has been removed and floor space maximised for vertical drinking. The landlords have been replaced with managers. Huge TVs have been hung on the walls, the music has been turned up to quash conversation and the interesting people have gone home. In line with the hyper-commercialisation of the rest of British society the hearts of the pubs have been torn out and the cadavers assimilated into the coproate Borg culture. A modern pub’s function is to generate profit for big business.

I could go on but The Economist article is far more eloquent. It quotes the Frenchman Hilaire Belloc who said: “When you have lost your inns, drown your empty selves, for you will have lost the last of England.”

The article claims that, since 2005, more than 6,000 pubs have closed and “Communal imbibing with neighbours and passers-by is fading, in favour of the glass of wine by the television alone………pubs go bust, realising more value as awkward private houses…..”. The article is beautifully written and epitomises the spirit of the pub.

“The church can go, long since the preserve of a flower-arranging few.……but the vanishing of a pub means, by common consent, the loss of the beating heart of a community, in town or countryside. A pub can become a sort of encapsulation of place, containing some small turning’s grainy photographs, its dog-eared posters for last year’s fete, its snoozing cats, its prettiest girls behind the bar and its strangest characters in front of it.”

“They hold ghosts, myths, the memory of kings; Green Men live on in them, White Horses carry Saxon echoes, Royal Oaks keep the drama of civil war and restoration……the old names won’t go. They cling on in the soil and the air, as tenacious as the past itself.”

“In the pub he met his fellow men and, with them, formed a society of musers and drinkers. He mingled with people he might not otherwise meet, had words with them, was obliged to take stock of their opinions.”

The Economist is right. There are many reasons for England to lose it’s pubs but the main reason will be that we do not care. A brief look around the web reveals that people are starting to care and the theme of saving the pubs is becoming popular.

The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Mail and The Metro have carried articles on the subject and several campaigns are under way including one by UKIP.

Axe The Beer Tax

Save the Great British Pub campaign

SunTalk Campaign to Save the Great British Pub

London Pubs on Flickr

15
May
10

Low interest rates to blame for financial crises – The Economist

“It would, though, be simplistic to blame the crisis solely, or even mainly, on sloppy risk managers or wild-eyed quants. Cheap money led to the wholesale underpricing of risk; America ran negative real interest rates in 2002-05, even though consumer-price inflation was quiescent. Plenty of economists disagree with the recent assertion by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, that the crisis had more to do with lax regulation of mortgage products than loose monetary policy.” – The Economist, 13th May 2010

08
Apr
10

ignorance of asset price inflation reveals Brown’s incompetence

Gordon "Slopey Shoulders" Brown

Gordon "Slopey Shoulders" Brown

This morning I listened to John Humphrys interview British Prime Minister Gordon brown on BBC Radio 4′s Today program. Quite a good interview, Humphrys pushed Brown fairly well.

Humphrys tried to pin the Prime Minister down on a couple of points. He posited that while Gordon Brown was Chancellor he had bragged endlessly about prudent stewardship of the British economy claiming that he had “abolished boom and bust”. This false promise had encouraged everyone to borrow on the assumption that the economy was in safe hands. So much so that this led the the economic mess in which we now find ourselves.

Mr. Brown’s response to this was that previous “busts” had been caused by high inflation and that Brown had not let inflation get out of control. He claimed that the credit crunch had been caused by property loans being packaged up into derivative financial instruments where the risk could not be easily assessed.

Gordon is TALKING BOLLOCKS!

If one reads The Economist one discovers that the generally accepted view of the cause of the credit crunch was low interest rates.Yes, the impenetrable derivatives exacerbated the situation but the cause was cheap credit which was made available by the likes of Gordon Brown (as UK Chancellor) and Alan Greenspan (as chairman of the America Federal Reserve).

Cheap credit might normally give rise to inflation but China became a member of the World Trade Organisation in 2001 allowing it to supply cheap products to the developed world keeping high street inflation low. Note that inflation stayed low not because of Brown and Greenspan’s low interest rates but in spite of them.
But the cheap money that Brown and Greenspan were making available had to go somewhere so it went into fueling aasset price bubbles in equity and property.

This is not the reasoning of one lone blogger but a précis of the opinion of main stream economists as reported in The Economist newspaper. However, speaking personally, I recall that around the year 2001 the silicon chip maker ARM was trading at a Price Earnings Ration which would mean it would take a thousand years to pay back it’s offer price! If I could see this was absurd how did the situation evade the Chancellor of a major world economy? If taxi drivers could see that providing mortgages to people for more than the price of their home without checking their income was reckless why did this escape Gordon Brown?

It is worth noting that The Economist had been warning of the asset price bubbles for years before the credit crunch arrived. If they knew then Mr. Brown should have known. So when Mr. Brown claims that he kept inflation low he is either incompetent or deliberately misleading the general public.

I suggest that Gordon Brown is like any number of technocrats who are amazingly knowledgeable about a subject but have no judgement or understanding. Mr. Brown read of the mistakes made with inflation in the past, learnt the accepted remedy and then blindly applied this remedy without once stepping back and seeing the enormous bubble in property and share prices.

Mr. Brown is like some bureaucratic ticket collector, deaf to the beseeching cries of the passengers, he insists on following rules and clipping everyone’s tickets while the train careers across a cliff.

Mr. Humphrys pointed out this morning that the stock market valuation for The Royal Bank of Scotland had grown larger than the UK economy. Even with this alarm bell the size of the Mount Everest Mr. Brown did not think that there had been any indication of the impeding disaster.

This morning, on Radio 4′s Today program, Gordon Brown was TALKING BOLLOCKS!

Even during the boom years Gordon Brown was spending more than the exchequer was raising in tax. The Budget deficit in 2007 was 2% of GDP! If he was borrowing in the good years then what on earth did he think he would do in the bad years? The truth is that this arrogant fool thought that he was so clever that he had ensured that never more would there be bad years. Now we have the bad years  New Labour have  resorted to the same tactic as Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe – they are printing money which in turn is devaluing the pound.

Gordon Brown has presided over a decade in which the United Kingdom has morphed from a leading developed country to a major debtor nation. The UK has never defaulted on it’s debt before but now there is talk of the UK losing it’s triple A credit rating meaning that investors consider default a possibility.

That this moron considers that his record shows prudence  and competence only serves to underline that he is not fit to be in government let alone Prime Minister.

If readers are undecided on which party would be best placed to lead us out of the economic mess then consider that judgement and understanding will be necessary and Gordon Brown has neither. Also consider that, as imperfect as Western democracy is, the one advantage it has is the ability to throw out a bunch of leaders who have messed up.

New Labour and Gordon Brown especially have messed up big time and should be thrown out by the British electorate!

20
Dec
09

Santa Claus in Brazil – Illusion and Reality

Brazil Takes Off

Brazil Takes Off

The following is the first article from our corespondent in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Lula (the nickname of Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva) is on a roll. He will complete his second and final term in office next year, basking in adulation both at home and abroad. He was everywhere at Copenhagen, schmoozing with world leaders from China, India, America … anybody who really mattered. He has an 80% popularity rating at home, and, according to Barack Obama, “He’s the man!”

It is hard to see his smiling, round and bearded face at this time of year without thinking about Papai Noel. After all, under his leadership Brazil has finally “emerged”. In spite of the global economic crisis, its economy is booming, its currency and stock markets are near all time highs, and the world is finally paying attention. The Economist magazine recently displayed a cover entitled “Brazil takes off” and the BRIC (Brazil – Russia – India – China) acronym has become one of the foundations of current day economic terminology. The future is even more encouraging: Brazil’s potential for growth in agricultural production is one of the highest n the world (even without damaging more of the Amazon rainforest), and a recent massive offshore oil find called the “presal” holds out the promise of major income flows for many years to come.

Lula's no Papai Noel

Lula's no Papai Noel

It hasn’t been all luck; Brazil’s Papai Noel can indeed claim a great deal of credit. When the former machine operator and his Workers Party came to power in 2002, in spite of fears to the contrary, they sensibly continued the liberal economic policies of the preceding government, but also introduced a range of policies to better the plight of the Brazilian poor. The Bolsa Familia, a monthly allowance to poor families who keep their children in school and their medical inoculations up to date, has been credited with allowing millions of Brazilians to move into the “lower middle class”. Sales of consumer goods, from refrigerators to TVs to small cars have exploded in recent years and the malls are packed this Christmas. To counter the economic crisis, the government has invested billions in affordable housing and infrastructure projects. Brazilians have a sense of pride and confidence about the future that has been lacking until recently (in everything other, of course, than the country’s prowess in football).

And yet … so much of the optimism seems to be based on an illusion. Some of the signs are glaring. This government, like those before it, has made little progress in improving the abysmal state of public education and health care. Violence and crime remain rampant. The favelas (slums) of Rio de Janeiro at times resemble war zones, with invading police units facing drug gangs armed with equal or superior fire power. Public infrastructure, especially in the north of the country, is totally inadequate and a major impediment to development. Politicians at all levels are assumed to be corrupt. Recent hidden camera footage shown on national television, of politicians stuffing wads of cash from contractors into their underwear and socks, has confirmed existing perceptions (and provided enormous scope for satirists and cartoonists).

Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that Papai Noel isn’t quite the altruistic benefactor he seems to be. What he gives so generously and publicly with one hand, he quietly takes away with the other. Brazil is one of most highly taxed countries in the world. Yes, the expensive toys of the middle and upper class, such as imported luxury cars and large LCD TVs, cost two to five times as much as elsewhere. But, far more importantly, many struggling Brazilians must spend excessive portions of their income on drugs not covered by or available from the public health system, at prices that include some 30-40% of government tax. Likewise many of the basic food items sold in Brazilian shops and supermarkets have prices inflated by excessive taxes.

The poor working Brazilian who needs to buy a fan, stove or refrigerator for his home soon finds another hand in his pocket as well. The good news is that he can buy these items on credit with a small down payment. The bad news is that he will pay effective annual interest rates well in excess of 40%. In a country with stable inflation hovering around 4-5%, an unholy alliance of powerful banks and apparent government indifference has kept interest rates at totally unjustifiable levels, further reducing the limited purchasing power of the average Brazilian. Yes, the Brazilian worker  is justifiable proud of his country, but he is also very angry.

Brazil has some of the nicest people, finest music, and most beautiful beaches in the world, but it is a long way from being a paradise, even at Christmas.

17
May
09

General election now! – Sign the petition

I have been mulling over the expenses scandal currently bubbling away in the British press and it seems to me that this is the straw that broke the camels back. The expenses scandle is the last in a long stream of betrayals by our leaders and specifically by New Labour. It is time for a general election. (See petition information below).

New Labour came to power promising an end to the sleaze that defined the fag end of the last Tory government. Tony Blair portrayed himself as embracing an innovative vision of The United Kingdom and promulgated a bold modern vision of the future of the UK.

MPs who tried to stop you seeing their expenses

MPs who tried to stop you seeing their expenses

However, it quickly became apparent that the cardinal attribute of New Labour was not vision but spin. One after another New Labour ministers proved themselves corrupt and were dismissed from office only to be brought back in once the fuss had died down.

New Labour policies turned out to be the wholesale adoption of Thatcherism but, as with all converts, the policies were embraced as a doctrine and without understanding or judgement. Privatisations continued and New Labour became the bitch of big business.

Tony Blair began hobnobbing with the super rich and power went to his head. At the frenzied height of New Labour devotion to hyper-capitalism he tried to introduce super casinos. That a Labour government should consider the massive expansion of gambling in this country when the only people calling for it were greedy American business men beggars belief but by this time he was so far gone he could not see further than the Gordon Brown’s balance sheet.

When George Bush decided to go to war with Iraq Blair’s dragged us in too. The Islamist terrorism unleashed the Big Brother tendency that is never far from the minds of any Labour government. New laws were introduced to detain people without trial, CCTV became almost ubiquitous

The credit crunch brought claims from our leaders that this was a global phenomena that had little to do with their policies ignoring the frequent articles in newspapers such as The Economist describing the dangerous asset price bubble which was being fueled by cheap money and would eventually burst.

When ordinary people protested against the bankers in London the police responded with highly questionable tactics such as kettling and casual violence which may have left one man dead. Yet our leaders supported the outrageous tactics and trotted out the usual platitudes about violent demonstrators.

Luckily the widespread use of video technology by the general public revealed that the violence was mainly perpetrated by the police.

Now we learn that those we trust with the leadership of our country are fiddling their expenses like so many seedy second hand car salesmen.

On The BBC, Radio 4 program Any Questions this week it was suggested that the British people use the upcoming European elections to withhold votes from the major parties. Our leadership on the panel showed the depth of their depravity once again by attempting to scare the public with the spectre of racism and erroneously implying that this meant a vote for the BNP.

Lord Falkner went on to complain that it was a tragedy that New Labour would be judged on the expenses story and that this was a distraction when more important issues were at stake.

Lord Falkner is Talking Bollocks!

There can be no more important issue than whether our leaders are trustworthy. Their policies and promises mean nothing if the are prepared to waive aside their probity and obligations for a few thousand pounds.

While preaching prudence our leaders have led us into the worst economic crisis for decades. They led us into an illegal war that caused the deaths of thousands and severely damaged Britain’s reputation abroad. They continue to introduce ever more draconian laws which erode our civil liberties and they encourage the police to suppress protest using methods not dissimilar to those found in Zimbabwe.

Now we hear that they have been fiddling their expenses.

During the Any Questions program Susan Kramer, MP, suggested that we need a general election. She is right. The British people must be given the chance to decide whether their representatives deserve the confidence and the responsibility with which they are entrusted.

We need a General election now.

But don’t stop there!!!!!

Sign the petition on the Downing Street web site:  

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/GoToCountryNow/

 

Matt - The Daily Telegraph

Matt - The Daily Telegraph




Enter email address to receive notifications of new posts.

Join 138 other followers

Jonesxxx on Twitter

Images

Window

Self Portrait

Sunset

Low Tide

Low Tide

Yonge  Street

Rainy Window

Yacht

Fridge

Back Packs & Sausage Dog

More Photos
May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 138 other followers