Showing posts with label political economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political economy. Show all posts

Thursday, February 6, 2020

The Three Powers


The impeachment struggle  has been a three-cornered contest, among the three branches of government.   Such a delicate triangular balance  is what keeps things interesting; a contest between but two  comes down to arm-wrestling, and is quickly settled, though maybe settled amiss.

Elizabethan times witnessed a similar struggle among a triad, with monarch corresponding to the Chief Executive, Parliament to the Congress, and the third, robed branch, the clergy, replaced now with the judiciary.

In Elizabeth’s time, the puritans had endeavoured to bring ecclesiastical grievances before the House of Commons;  this, the queen resented, as it seemed that the commons were endeavouring to go outside their province  and legislate on matters which could only be constitutionally dealt with by the clergy in convocation, and by the crown.  In this way, the religious question assumed a constitutional form.
-- Ward & Waller, eds. The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. IV: North to Drayton (1909), p. 305


The parallels here are more than we would have expected, right down to the detail about the “puritans”, neatly re-incarnated in our own day  by the Woke brigade.  And that of the monarch being a Queen -- like our POTUS, though he is  of the drama kind, and not of Tudor blood.


~

The motif of the “Trivet of Conflict” finds its supreme cinematic embodiment in the final scene-sequence of “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” -- not a circular firing-squad, but an equiangular shoot-out.   The act plays out, as ideally in the  Seventh Art, without words or sudden motion  till the fatal climax, silent but for the tinkling melody of an antique music-watch  winding down.  Here too, for our own amusement (or that of the blog-observing gods) we may match personages across the spheres:  here,  Good (a.k.a. Blondie) is the Supreme Court (granted, partisans carp at decisions that do not go their favorite way, but that branch is surely the most dignified and even relatively impartial);  Bad  is our naughty POTUS;  and Ugly -- who could that be, but our quarrelsome Congress.

To spare our readers further metaphor, we shall not be drawing comparisons between the branches as enumerated in the Constitution, and the Persons of the Trinity (as explicitly enumerated  nowhere in Scripture, but now held dear).


~

[Update 8 Feb 2020]  For any who deem the Elizabethan analogy  too ennobling for our present sticky pickle, look ye rather to that trio of Stooges, who, in simpler days, brought delight to tots and idlers.  Our pushful POTUS is perfectly cast  as Moe.


[Update 9 Feb]  What sketch of the American polity, with any pretentions to, well, pretentiousness, could be considered complete, without the obligatory obeissance to Tocqueville?  We must check the Tocqueville box.

The basic dynamic of the first two branches of government, whether monarch and parliament, or President and Congress, is a matter of politics and power.   It is the third, robed element, whether the Church or the Judiciary, that is less obvious: with goals and methods less tangible, more nearly timeless.
Historically, as the sway of the Church retreated from the secular sphere, in general  it was not replaced by another body.  America, it seems, was an exception:

Aucun peuple n’a constitué  un aussi grand pouvoir judiciaire  que les Américains.
Chez toutes les nations policées de l’Europe, le gouvernement a toujours montré une grande répugnance à laisser la justice ordinaire  trancher des questions qui l’intéresent lui-même. … A mesure, au contraire, que la liberté augmente, le cercle des attribtions des tribunaux  va toujours en s’élargissant.  …Chez les nations de l’Europe, les tribunaux n’ont que des pariculiers pour usticible;  mais on peut dire que la cour suprême des Etats-Unis  fait comparaître des souverains à sa barre.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, De la démocratie en Amérique (1835), vol. I, p. 225-6



[Update]  To have three pre-eminent and even quasi-coequal powers within a polis, is inherently metastable and dramatic, and indeed has found its way into drama.  Cf. the Scottish poet David Lindsay’s morality-play A Pleasant Satire of the Three Estates (Ane Pleasant Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis, in contemporary spelling), 1552

[Update / Antedating]  The structural theme appears in a play of the sixteenth-century dramatist John Haywood.  "The climax to the triangular duel  which forms the main episode of The foure P.P.  is an effective piece of dramatic technique." 
(Ward & Waller, eds. The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. V: The Drama to 1642, Part One (1910), p.95)

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Word of the Day: “Pigovian” (expanded)

[update of a note originally published  4 Dec 2012]

The lead item in this week’s New Yorker introduces (with considerable fanfare) a new word:  Pigovian, as the adjective derived from the name of an otherwise little-celebrated economist, one Pigou, who, many years ago, floated the idea (which had surely been floating of its own accord, for millennia) that if you make a mess, you should maybe chip in to the costs of cleaning it up.   The author of this “Talk” piece, Elizabeth Kolbert, is a frequent writer on climate-change matters, and her proposal is that the general public now embrace the designation of a carbon tax as “Pigovian”, in that it pays back some of the costs of global warming.
Now, it might well be imagined that the suggestion is superfluous, and that the notion already has a name:  nuisance tax.  Yet that phrase has already long been defined in an entirely unrelated sense:  not of a tax on nuisances, (the way a luxury tax is a tax on luxuries), but (apparently -- it is really not a happy coinage) a tax that is considered to be itself a nuisance (in that it is not large enough to qualify as a burden, say).  As Merriam-Webster © defines it:

an excise tax collected in small amounts on a wide range of commodities directly from the consumer

Yet, even did the old phrase nuisance tax mean what, syntagmatically, it ought to mean, there is an argument for using a more distinctive word for a category that is growing in importance, as ever-wider circles of citizens become alert to what economists have long called the tragedy of the commons.   For, once you have a word like Pigovian, entirely unburdened by other associations, you can readily extract it from the phrase Pigovian tax, and use elliptic derivata like “Pigovian considerations” or “counter-Pigovian” (where “counter-nuisance” here wouldn’t work at all, since it means the opposite of what “counter-Pigovian” would mean, i.e. ‘pro-nuisance’).  Such relationships between morphology and semantics are discussed in my book The Semantics of Form in Arabic, and form the core of the chapter “The Stokes Conjecture”.

[Update 23 April 2017]  This just in:  a Pigovian accord:
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/norway-first-to-ratify-polluter-pays-treaty


So!  Now for the morpho-phonological characteristics of this rather odd-looking word, Pigovian.   The base-form is pronounced pig-OO, yet the adjective comes out pig-OH-vee-an.  Why?

Unlike sturdy old Anglo-Saxon suffixes like -ness, -dom, -hood-, -kin-, or -ly, which allow themselves to be simply tacked-on at the end of a word, leaving all else as is, the Latin-derived -ian is a tyrant, demanding that the stress be moved to the immediately preceding syllable (if it wasn’t already there), and that its vowel (if not tense already) be tensed.  Thus:  Dickens (DIK-enz) vs. Dickensian (dik-ENZ-ee-an), and (with vowel-tensing) Jacob (JAY-kub) vs. Jacobian (ja-KOH-bee an).  (Thus the derivative is pronounced in the mathematical community. An unrelated adjective with a different suffix, Jacobean, relating to history and literature, is pronounced jak-ub-EE-an.)  And as a further impudent exigency, this tyrannical suffix spurns unmediated Anschluss onto a vowel, demanding rather a bridge-consonant -v-:  thus (Bernard) Shaw vs. Shavian (SHAY-vee-an, with both vowel-tensing and inserted bridge).   As well as (in a more roundabout fashion -- this one doesn’t really count) Warsaw vs. Varsovian (rhymes with Nabokovian).  It is thus that our poor unassuming Mr. Pigou (whom I picture rather as Mr. Magoo)) becomes, adjectivally, a roaring shouting syllable-rattling PIGOVIAN.


*     *     *
~ Commercial break ~
Relief for beleaguered Nook lovers!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled essay.

*     *     *


Note:  Strictly, the derivatum should have been Pigouvian, on the model of Peru :  Peruvian.  The word succumbed to the gravitational attracion of the plethora of words in -ovian (a productive category, given all the Slavic names in -ov/-off).  Further, why burden an already ungainly word with the stressed syllable GOO, as opposed to GO ?  This way, it gets to rhyme with a cool studly word like Jovian.

Cf. this derivatum, re Richard Montegue:   "Montegovian compositionality" (Alice ter Meulen, in
Frederick Newmeyer, ed. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey (1988: CUP), vol. I, p. 441)

Footnote:  Something in our Teutonic blood  disdains such tricks.  Thus, instead of a morphological equivalent of Pigovian tax, German just says Pigou-steuer.  And rather than submit to the indignity of a  *Hemingwavian (hem-ing-WAY-vee-an), we go with a different suffix altogether, once that leaves vowels as they are and requires no bridge-consonant:  Hemingwayesque.    (Still not very dignified, though, as the suffix here hogs the main stress to itself, and tends to make you think of words like grotesque and burlesque.)

Morphophonology:
Compare and contrast  Babeuf => Babouvisme.


French in particular is pre-attuned to such vocalic ablaut  by the existence, side by side, of  locally-developed place-names, along with gentilés derived more transparently from the original Latin toponym.  As, Loire (from Latin Liger) => Ligérien.  Such transformations may be found even when the etymon is not Latin, as
   Aisne => Axonais
   Rhône
=> Rhodanien
   Reims (earlier Rheims) => Rémois
and even such acrobatics as

    Saint-Germain-des-Prés => germanopratin
    Seine-Saint-Denis => Séquanodionysien

Compare, in (British) English,  Cambridge => Cantabridgian.

There are parallels in Castilian:
   Salamanca => Salmantino

Compare, in (British) English,  Cambridge => Cantabridgian, Manchester => Mancusian.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

The Echo Chamber


It has been well remarked, that in pre-packaging the selection of articles they show you, based on your personal browsing history and what their metrics predict you’ll want to see, news outlets and news aggregators are swaddling their readers in solipsism, so that what you ever get to see is a foregone conclusion.  That, superadded to the bias problems of outlets with an agenda to push.


I try to fight this, in part by sampling a wide variety of outlets in various languages and countries (the taboos in America differ from those in Europe, for example, so that a story suppressed in one venue  might be reported in another).   But access to these (apart from those I regularly check into as a matter of course, like nzz.ch and figaro.fr and heise.de/tp and derstandard.at, usw.) is generally, again, via aggregators -- news.google.*….  Naturally, the Google staff may have their own slant, but hopefully that differs from country to country.

Recently, however, something quite disturbing happened, on the British version --news.google.co.uk [not a typo:  .co, not .com]:  They suddenly started adding entire sections grouped by special-interest material. (This happened only on this Mac, not on our tablet running Android.)
The only previous one, “Suggested for You”, is unobjectionable, being clearly so labeled, and moreover they offer a “Still interested? Yes/No” opt-out option.  For example, they flag articles about the TV show Blindspot, a holdover from when I nursed hopes (since dashed) that it might prove any good.
But now additionally, all of a sudden, from nowhere, there are sections, titled with the same font as the standard ones that everybody sees (unless you specifically opt out), like “World” or “Business”, clearly culled (though very spottily) from my search history:

“Physics” [this, in addition to the “Sci/Tech” section that is standard]
“Computer Security”  [ditto]
“topological” [sic, this one lower-case; the relic of once search on the math topic; but results were flooded with engineering senses like “topological insulators”]
“yemen” [again lower-case -- bizarre]

That is marginally more concerning, since I didn’t ask for it, and since the selection is odd (I haven't searched on "topological" for well over a year).  But what is really hair-raising is that, here on news.google.co.uk, the section that I mostly log in for, namely “U.K.”,  has been entirely suppressed, and replaced by the same “U.S.” section (today’s top story on this supposedly U.K.-focussed site: “Headless body found in Texas Pick-up”).
Why they did that is baffling.  Certainly it bears no relation to my own clicking history (since that is the one and only section I ever click on at that site), let alone to common sense (suppress the U.K. section for someone specifically asking for .co.uk).
So now there are two countries whose press I cannot access via news.google -- the other being Spain, which Google stopped indexing a while back, in (justified, IMO) protest against an overreaching law passed by the Spanish parliament.

[The Label for this piece La société du spectacle, a notion popularized by the situationistes half a century ago, and in the U.S. by Boorstin’s The Image and subsequent works..  All that has changed since then is that, increasingly, the spectacle we watched is an individualized peep-show booth.]




~

The decline in quality -- in sheer competence -- at the news outlets (television especially, but newspapers as well) over the past couple of decades, is noticeable.
An interesting perspective from the White House messaging guy:

“40 percent of newspaper-industry professionals have lost their jobs over the past decade … The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”


~

Facebook (which I never go near -- or anyhow, not knowingly) likewise pushes certain news stories over others, and has lately been embroiled in controversy over their slant.  To be fair, though, the company has been under intense pressure from the Rot-Grün-Merkel faction  to censor  not only news recommendations, but individual Facebook pages, cleansing them of opinions that dissent from the Willkommenseuphorie route to the destruction of Germany.  (We here at WDJ suffer, as you see, from no such bias.)


At another level -- more fundamental -- than that of issue-specific bias, is the general self-generated self-reflecting echo-of(echo-of(echo-of…)) incestuous nature of “trending” stories -- trending because they’re trending, like celebrities  famous for being famous.


-- Well, so long as we’re beating up on Facebook, we hereby huffily object to their far-from-adequate plugging of this blogspot, the “World of Dr Justice”, pourtant the most respected source of worldly and otherworldly insight apart from The Onion  (en revanche, we’re much funnier than they are).


~



In an interview the other day, an economist called the market position of entities like Amazon and Google, monopolies on a scale not seen since the days of the robber barons -- of Standard Oil and the railroads.   But while those behemoths primarily impacted our pocketbooks, the current cyber-masters are in a position to mess with our minds.
The comparison is obvious enough, once made;  but it is hard to wrap your heads around it, since monopolists (we are brought up knowing) are men in suits, with smokestack hats and villain whiskers -- not cheeky dudes in chinos.
All the economist could come up with, by way of remedy, was to somehow nationalize all that stuff, “Like the Post Office” -- a comparison less than reassuring.

The segment struck me  since, just the day before, none other than Donald Trump had brought up much the same point, in the process  pointing out that the agenda-drenched billionaire Bezos, the king of the Amazon, bought up (the bedraggled remains of) the Washington Post -- his new toy.  
For this Trump was sniffily dismissed by the knowing, as naïve and ill-informed.  (Much as Hillary and her minions dismissed candidate Obama as “naïve”.)

(Hey, just sayin';  credit where credit is due.)
[TBC]

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Bank Robbery (erweitert)


[1 November 2015]  A new wrinkle has appeared, in the matter of transAtlantic economic strong-arming.  Excerpt from a richly detailed report, on a site that is nowise salonfähig  but which apparently sometimes does its due research:

Der VW-Skandal hat nicht nur Wolfsburg erschüttert, sondern wird als Rammbock gegen die deutsche Wirtschaft insgesamt missbraucht. Der Skandal ist medial inszeniert und hilft einzig der maroden Supermacht USA bei der Schwächung eines Konkurrenten.
Die Bild-Zeitung gab, wie so oft, den Takt vor: «Das Beben bei Volkswagen – warum tut es uns allen so weh? Weil es eben nicht nur um ein Auto geht. Es geht um Made in Germany.» Die Londoner Times, eines der Sprachrohre der dortigen Börse, stieß ins selbe Horn: «Unmittelbar ist der Skandal ein schwerer Schlag für einen zentralen Pfeiler der stärksten Wirtschaftsmacht Europas.» Auch in Italien wurde kolportiert, dass der VW-Skandal «den guten Namen von ganz Made in Germany zu untergraben» drohe (La Stampa).
Aber was war eigentlich geschehen? Der Börsenexperte Dirk Müller («Mr. Dax») war einer der Wenigen, die kühlen Kopf behielten. Unter der Überschrift «Volkswagen-Skandal ist gar keiner» schrieb er auf n-tv: «Volkswagen hat die Tests für Diesel-Abgaswerte manipuliert. An dieser Stelle ist es völlig unstrittig, dass dies intolerabel ist und Konsequenzen haben muss. Aber es sei noch einmal betont, dass wir über geschönte Abgaswerte reden und nicht etwa über funktionslose Airbags, versagende Bremssysteme, über die die Fahrer nicht rechtzeitig informiert wurden, oder wissentlich defekte Zündschlösser, die zu zahlreichen Todesfällen geführt haben.“ Im letzten Fall war General Motors der Schuldige gewesen – der Anlasserdefekt kostete 174 Menschen das Leben.

Ein anderes Beispiel: Seit Jahren ist es bei allen Automobilherstellern gang und gäbe, dass der Kraftstoffverbrauch unter Testbedingungen im Labor stark von dem unter alltäglichen Verkehrsbedingungen abweichen kann. Die Softwaresteuerung, die dafür verantwortlich ist, entspricht jener, die jetzt bei der Manipulation der Abgaswerte durch VW aufgeflogen ist. Die südkoreanischen Autobauer Hyundai und Kia mussten für die Angabe des falschen Spritverbrauchs 100 Millionen Dollar Strafe bezahlen, General Motors kam mit 900 Millionen Dollar für die 174 Toten im Zündschloss-Skandal davon. So billig wird es für VW nicht werden: Der Absturz seines Aktienkurses vernichtete zwischenzeitlich Papierwerte in Höhe von 30 Milliarden Euro – und von der US-Umweltbehörde droht ein Bußgeld von 16 Milliarden Euro. Es ist offensichtlich, dass hier mit zweierlei Maß gemessen wird.
Interessanterweise gab es nach dem Auffliegen der Manipulationen bei VW kurzzeitig auch Spekulationen über ähnliche Tricksereien bei anderen Automobilherstellern mit Sitz in Deutschland, nicht aber bei US-Herstellern wie Opel oder Ford. Auch die mehrheitlich im US-Besitz befindliche Daimler-Benz AG blieb verschont. (…) Beschäftigen uns etwas ausführlicher mit dem amerikanischen Hintergrund des sogenannten VW-Skandals. Die USA stehen wirtschaftlich mit dem Rücken an der Wand:

Da sie für ihre Staatsanleihen kaum noch Abnehmer finden, drängen sie diese europäischen Notenbanken auf oder kaufen sie selbst. 500 Milliarden US-Dollar, die die Volksrepublik China seit Frühjahr abgestoßen hat, wurden von europäischen Notenbanken übernommen und etwa bei der Banque Nationale de Belgique «zwischengeparkt».

Das jährliche Handelsbilanzdefizit von Uncle Sam ist auf annähernd eine Billion US-Dollar angewachsen, weil seine Exporte auf dem Weltmarkt immer schlechter abzusetzen sind. Hinzu kommen die Verteuerung der für die heimische Automobilindustrie nötigen chinesischen Importgüter durch die Yuan-Aufwertung und die Tatsache, dass die US-Industrie weiter Marktanteile an europäische Hersteller verliert.
Die US-Wirtschaft insgesamt kommt trotz Nullzinspolitik – sprich: kostenloser Kreditvergabe – nicht in Schwung. Die seit Langem angekündigte Erhöhung des Leitzins durch die Notenbank Federal Reserve (Fed) wird immer wieder verschoben.
Selbst die alles dominierende US-Rüstungsindustrie fällt als Lokomotive aus, da ein großer Krieg, der ausreichend Nachfrage generieren könnte, entweder nicht in Sicht ist, oder das Pentagon davor zurückscheut.
Beispiele hierfür finden sich zur Genüge. Im Sommer 2014 verpflichtete die US-Justiz in einem zweifelhaften Verfahren die französische Großbank BNP Paribas zu Strafzahlungen von rund neun Milliarden US-Dollar, weil das Geldinstitut Handel mit Staaten wie dem Iran, Kuba oder Sudan getrieben habe, über die Washington Sanktionen verhängt hat. Der Schlag traf Frankreich an seiner derzeit empfindlichsten Stelle, dem überschuldeten Bankensektor. Im August 2015 verursachten amerikanische Hedgefonds den größten Börsencrash in der chinesischen Nachkriegsgeschichte. Über Leerverkäufe – sogenannte short sales – setzten sie einen Abwärtsstrudel chinesischer Aktien in Gang, der von der Regierung in Peking nur mit Mühe aufgefangen werden konnte. Die Folge war ein regelrechtes Börsenmassaker in Shanghai und Shenzhen.

[Reposted below, our original take on the Paribas affair, from May 2014]

 
We earlier commented on the improvised foray into foreign policy on the part of the NYPD, backed by an unlikely alliance of local Erinnyes and the New York Post.   The result was a tremendous disruption of French politics, of which most Americans are unaware, nor do they care.
This week, another drama has been playing out, scarcely reported save in the usual bland manner of the fleeting financial bulletins (BNP stock falls on the news; meanwhile in Malaysia …), and analyzed from a political and legal perspective, almost not at all.   

In brief:  The Justice Department is demanding payment from the French bank Paribas, roughly equal to twice its annual income last year (and enough to tip it into the red for the present), for conduct that was quite legal in Europe, where the transactions in question were conducted, but which runs afoul of US regulations.   The purported legal basis for this:  the transactions were denominated in dollars (libellés en dollars).   That is rather as though we were to demand damages from some Indian pop-star, claiming jurisdiction simply on the grounds that the song in question was sung in English, over which we claim a kind of worldwise conservatorship.

Outre l'amende, BNP Paribas a fait appel aux meilleurs avocats de Wall Street pour éviter une autre sanction potentiellement lourde: la suspension temporaire de son droit à mener des transactions en dollars. Une telle limitation, outre son caractère humiliant, affecterait sérieusement nombre d'activités de la banque, pas simplement aux États-Unis. La loi de l'État de New York interdit à une banque de maquiller la documentation de transactions en dollars qui viennent se dénouer auprès de la Fed de New York, même si elles ont eu lieu hors des États-Unis. Or BNP Paribas est accusée d'avoir caché aux autorités américaines de multiples transactions en dollars, pourtant conformes au droit européen.

Adding spice to the ragout is the detail that the regulations in question, far from being an application of generally recognized ethics or equity, were pushed through by particular political lobbies, whose agendas are purely their own, and do not align with American interests save now and then by accident.   To wit:  the pariah status of Nation X (pushed through by partisans of what, during Iran-Contra, might not be named, other than as “Country A”), and of Nation Y (in obeissance to an even tinier but quite violent core of operatives bent upon restoring the Casino Culture to Country C).
Upon these narrow fanaticisms, the tip of the world’s inverted financial pyramid  now wobbles.


 “Nice little bank y’got there…
Be a shame if somefing was to happen to it.”


That this development goes uncommented at home -- a nation with a historically casual attitude towards breaking other people’s china -- is unsurprising; but foreign reporting has likewise been surprisingly muted.   We must delve into the Readers Comments section  to find opinions of the sort we might seek on the editorial page, though they be mentioned only to refute them:

Wie lange noch wollen sich die Banken der Welt von den USA vorführen lassen, und mit welchem Recht? So lange jede Bank für sich kuscht, werden die USA ihre Erpressungen fortsetzen können. Vielleicht hören wir ja aber bald mal: Banken aller Welt, vereinigt Euch...

Il y a une chose très pourri sur le fond (indépendamment que certaines transactions de la BNP soient condamnables ou non).
Les Américains nous ont imposé dans le passé le dollar US comme monnaie de référence après l'abandon du standard or (Bretton-Woods) en forçant ainsi, tous les banques de travailler en USD. Maintenant, ils prétendent que toute transaction en USD tombe sous le coup de leur justice. Le moindre chose qu'on puisse dire, que cette manipulation est extrêmement hypocrite.
Monsieur Hollande ferait bien d'annuler l'invitation officielle de M Obama pour le 6 Juin (s'il veut venir à titre privé, c'est son affaire). C'est la seule chose qui ferait réfléchir tout le monde.


There have long been grumblings about replacing the dollar as the unique reserve currency;  this sort of overreach may hasten the day.

A Suisse financial journalist comments here:


"We'd like to make a withdrawal."


~
~  Posthumous Endorsement ~
"Seems like I had it all backwards:
Don’t rob a bank from the sidewalk like I did;
rob it from the boardroom.
Oh well, too late now.
But never too late for an exciting mystery --  "
(My name is Jesse James, and I approved this message.)
~         ~
~


Ten billion big ones  is not chump change.  One reader puts it in perspective:

10 Milliarden Dollar, das entspricht dem Jahreseinkommen von 400.000 arbeitenden Otto-Normalverbrauchern.

 [Note:  "Otto-Normalverbraucher" = Joe Bloggs.]


Ah well -- A deadbeat raises the lolly however he can.  And ten billion is just about what Britain has just awarded itself, with some creative accounting:

The British Government has just announced, through the statistics office the ONS, that they will be adding around £10 billion to estimates of what the UK’s GDP actually is. This is to account for the activity going on in the drugs and prostitution sectors.



[Update]  It now appears that, in addition to a whopping fine, the U.S. is demanding that Paribas fire certain employees that have displeased their foreign masters.   The demand seems extraordinary -- what possible jurisdiction could apply? -- but a parallel does spring to mind, from the current offering of “24”, “Live Another Day”.  Here, some terrorists have hijacked a fleet of drones and have threatened to incinerate thousands unless U.S. President Heller give himself up.
Not a pleasant parallel.



[Flash update]  This just in!
The Supreme Court of China has found the U.S. banking sector guilty of doing business with Taiwan, and has assessed damages of ten trillion yuan.  Failure to promptly comply will result in an immediate cessation of Chinese purchase of T-bills, and calling-in all its loans, resulting in a swift collapse of the American economy.
In other news, OPEC has determined that the United States is guilty of commercial dealings with Israel, contrary to Islamist law.    Oil exports have been halted until the guilty parties are turned over to Hizballah for trial.



Sauce for goose, is gander-sauce


In another unexpected development, the Neighborhood Association of Monogamy Lane, Littletown USA, where Dr Justice and his bride and their companion-hamster make their home, has assessed the worldwide media the round figure of 10 quadrillion euros, for having repeatedly violated the airspace above their sylvan cul-de-sac with unauthorized transmission of electromagetic waves.  Early analysis suggests that the Association might be willing to settle for a lower figure in return for lifetime free streaming of “Leave it to Beaver”.


[Classroom assignment:  Figure out which portions of this post are satire, and which are straight news.  Harder than you might think.]


[Update 1 June 2014]  Finally, some politically alert commentary is appearing in the mainstream press, to probe beneath the lid.  Turns out the Credit Suisse shakedown was also questionable:

In Europe, people are beginning to question the continual stream of investigations, indictments and regulatory fines involving European banks. Some even go so far as to accuse US regulators of pursuing a “vendetta” against European banks to appease public anger about the banking industry without harming the US industry. The dominance of European banks on the US regulators’ hit list is indeed noticeable, and not just for sanctions-busting: European banks also feature prominently in regulatory investigations into rigging of benchmark rates.

But the US regulators don’t need to be “picking on” European banks for those banks to feature prominently in criminal prosecutions for sanctions breaking and tax evasion. Internationally, there is no consistency of law. The offenses for which these banks have been fined are not necessarily offenses in their countries of origin.

Consider Credit Suisse’s recent conviction for “conspiracy to evade taxes”. Credit Suisse helped US citizens to evade tax. Under US law, both Credit Suisse and the customers involved were guilty of a crime. But Credit Suisse is a Swiss bank, and tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland – but disclosing customer information is.


In these two cases,  then, the United States is not merely acting as international traffic cop, but as enforcing its own local regulations abroad -- ticketing Englishmen for driving on the left, as it were.
Now, I am not arguing from any position of blanket anti-interventionism. There are indeed a few unfortunate nations that seem perennially incapable of managing their own affairs.   But France and Switzerland are not among them.


[Update D-Day]   A disparity in press coverage across the Atlantic:

Une amende atteignant 16 milliards de dollars a été évoquée dans le cadre des débuts des négociations entre BNP Paribas et les autorités américaines, rapporte ce vendredi Reuters. De son côté, la presse américaine continue d'évoquer un montant compris entre 8 et 10 milliards de dollars.

And an interesting reader’s-comment on that page:

Déjà le 16 avril 2014 (www.latribune.fr) Le "diktat" du président américain oblige Renault à cesser toute activité en Iran. Faute de quoi, l'Alliance Renault-Nissan risquerait de ne plus pouvoir commercer avec les Etats-Unis. Renault a produit à travers ses partenaires 100.000 voitures en Iran l'an dernier... Déjà, PSA avait dû se retirer en 2012 sous la pression de GM. Un manque à gagner pour l'industrie tricolore!
Après 14 ans à l’Elysée et juste avant de mourir Mittérand écrivait:
« la France ne le sait pas, mais nous sommes en guerre avec l’Amérique. Oui une guerre permanente, une guerre vitale, une guerre économique, une guerre sans mort, apparement.
Oui, ils sont très durs les Américains, ils sont voraces, ils veulent le pouvoir sans partage sur le monde.
C’est une guerre inconnue, une guerre permanente, sans mort apparemment et pourtant une guerre à mort ». 27/1/97 le dernier Mitterand de Georges Marc Benamou.


~

We commented here on the bizarre American mishandling of the reparations and interallied-debt question after WWI.  (Usually this issue is depicted with France as the intransigent, and Wilson as the voice of reason.  Wilson was the voice of reason on this issue, but the rest of the country was not.)  This was more than a fleeting kerfuffle;  a distinguished chronicler who worked much of his life in France and Germany during the crucial years, summarizes the matter thus:

For more than a decade, the wrangling over war debts blew ill-feeling to and fro across the Atlantic.  By the time Hitler came to power in Germany at the beginning of 1933, the great alliance of the three Western democracies, which had humbled the Nazi dictator’s predecessors in 1918, was in ashes.  It was not to be revived, so far as the Americans were concerned, until Hitler had conquered France, put Britain in mortal peril, and declared war on the United States.
-- Wm Shirer, The Collapse of the Third Republic (1969), p. 152

Have a care, gentlemen;  have a care …

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

The Case of Greece (updated)


Greece has been in the headlines du jour -- in Europe, at any rate -- over what, on the surface, is a complex economic matter, a re-run of what we have seen before, involving  the IMF and a potential rééchelonnement of sovereign debt tranches …..
(ZZZzzzzzzzzzz …. Oh, have I lost you?)
What deeper waters this narrative might tap into, I have little idea, since I do not follow Greece;  taceo igitur;  the point here being merely to notice the oddly canted perceptual stance of Americans in regard to Greece, victims of distance and history.

What occasioned this reflection are the final chapters of Robert D. Kaplan’s outstanding travelogue/history, Balkan Ghosts (1993).
In this slender book, he quite consciously follows in the steps of Rebecca West (“Dame Rebecca”, as he gallantly denotes her), whose massive memoir of a trip to Yugoslavia on the eve of World War II, Black Lamb & Grey Falcon (published 1941) is among the truly great works of the twentieth century.   Knowing that he could not hope to outdo her magisterial historical survey, he treads more lightly but more widely, his final footsteps reaching as far as Greece, where he resided, with his wife, for seven years, during the reign (for “reign” it was) of a very strange figure indeed, Andreas Papandreou. 

The first thing you notice is the very presence of Greece in a book about the Balkans.  Granted -- once you come to think of it -- that country is indisputably geographically a part of the Balkan Peninsula;  Kaplan’s point is that it belongs with the other, Slavic or semi-Slavic countries of the region, spiritually and sociologically as well.
Very few Americans think of Greece in those terms, nor indeed in any terms at all except what we half-remember from school, limited to the Athenian Golden Age, several centuries B.C.  It is as though you were to try to conceive Germany in terms of what had been going on in the primeval forests of that time -- or America, as were it a continuation of its own prehistory of open plains, speckled here and there with miscellaneous blemmyes and buffalo, and otherwise largely empty.

It’s strange how little I knew of the tale that Kaplan tells.  It’s not as though I hadn’t yet come of age during the 1980s;  I did read newspapers.   But perhaps the reason for this ignorance had partly to do with the Western press, which had assimilated just one new Greek stereotype since the Age of Socrates:  the Medi-hippie world of “Never on Sunday” and “Zorba the Greek”.   Indeed, the English Wikipedia entry is astonishingly airbrushed:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Papandreou

I had to blink, to ascertain that this wasn’t an account of his more conventional father George.  (Someone seems to be curating his memory.)

Andreas knew well how to exploit the “Never on Sunday” sort of nonsense.  He appointed its star, Melina Mercouri (who played, one might say, a ταίρα  both onscreen and on the political stage) to his cabinet -- and re-appointed her again and again, while other underlings came and went.  It was a true Société du spectacle: 

In Papandreou’s name, Culture Minister Mercouri organized “human peace chains” around the Acropolis, even as Greek state companies were selling arms to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, and to the two warring African states of Rwanda and Burundi.
-- Robert D. Kaplan, Balkan Ghosts (1993), p. 269

Likewise an eye-opener were Papandreou’s ties to a raft of morally quite unanchored chevaliers of terror:  PASOK and the November 17th Movement;  Abu-Nidal; Qaddafi’s hit-men, and on.  These, like such later ultraviolent inscrutable groups as Boko Haram and the central African Lord’s Resistance Army, cannot be understood terms of determinate ideology or even calculated, cynical self-interest;  it is not as though they have well-defined ends (whether good or bad) and merely overdo the means.   It seems to be more a matter of the morbido, and of metastatic narcissism.

None of this is part of the general American understanding of Greece.  “Cradle of Democracy” it must be for ever and aye.  For, our brains have only so much bandwidth.  Even in cases where party or interest do not preclude comprehension, we are apt, by acedia, to sink back into the Lay-Z-Boy of our early training and first impressions.  Cognitively, we settle for very little.



[Footnote]  Rather random but -- by way of counterbalancing the overall “down” of Balkan Ghosts as regards Eastern Europe:  there is a truly wonderful chamber ensemble called “Munich Artistrio”, though they seem to be Slovene.

Brahms (truly magisterial):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-L3UgoYvdA
(In particular the third movement, Adagio.)

Schubert (transcribed):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqv_-ll_LpE

[Update (alas) 9 III 15]  Greece threatens to flush its cisterns upon the rest of Europe:


Our notes upon this topic ici.



[Update 16 June 2015]   The above was originally posted back in January.   Blink;  five months go by;  and the headlines around the world  are still the same:  Bras de fer entre la Grèce et le FMI.    And now we have two new hippogriff words to toy with, of the sort that Europeans love to coin:  Brexit and Grexit -- British exit (from the EU) and Greek exit (from the Eurozone).  Greece, insolvent,  is trying to blackmail is creditors with a curious threat:  Lend us even more money or we won’t pay you back what we owe you.  Or in other words:  Throw good money after bad, or we’ll hold our breath till we’re blue in the face.  And the ultimate menace:  the dreaded GREXIT.

Re-reading the original essay, a riposte suggests itself:  Fine.  Tant mieux.  Rejoin your Balkan buddies.  Have a nice life.

 
[Update, 20 June 2015]  A pragmatic contrary view, from Lawrence Summers:

Make no mistake about the consequences of a breakdown. With an end to European support and consequent bank closures and credit problems, austerity will get far worse in Greece than it is today, and Greece will likely become a failed state, to the great detriment of all its people and their leadership. Once Greece fails as a state, Europe will collect far less debt repayment than it would with an orderly restructuring. And a massive northern out-migration of Greeks will strain national budgets throughout Europe, not to mention the challenges that will come as Russia achieves a presence in Greece. The IMF is looking at by far the largest nonpayment by a borrower in its history. True, there are good reasons to think enough foam has been placed on the runway to prevent financial contagion. Yet, this was asserted with respect to Long-Term Capital Management, subprime mortgages and the fall of Lehman Brothers.



Riposte:

Summers is an economist, and  on that turf  deserves all respect.  But:

(1) The introduction to his essay (not here quoted), compares the potential post-default events to the advent of World War I, the default being a kind of Sarajevo.    But -- wait, sanity check -- though much of post-WWII history, many nations of Europe were not using the Euro.  In fact, for most of that time, the Euro hadn’t even been invented.  Were Europeans walking around clad only in barrels?  Indeed, at press-time -- and this might surprise you, if all you are going on is Summers’ piece --  certain European countries  much more important than Greece  are still not members of the Eurozone:  Notably, Switzerland and the U.K. 
Nor are those countries  clamoring to join.  Indeed, Great Britain is on the brink of heading the opposite way, with a Brexit.

(2)  Has the accession of Eastern countries to the Eurozone or the E.U.  been a benefit to western Europe?  According to the Eurocrats, abundantly.  According to the citizens who have had to actually suffer through it, not so much.

(3)  Moral hazard.  (Bailing out Greece yet again  dangles poisonous carrots before Ireland, Spain, …)

(4)   Whether Summers sincerely has the best interests of America and Wesgtern Europe at heart, we do not know;  but he is certainly in tight with the big bankers.  And Summers’ argument really reduces to “too big to fail”.  We have seen, repeatedly, where that takes us. -- Sorry, banker-guys, time for a haircut.



That was the view from the Western side.  But what would be in store for Greece -- the equivalent of the first World War, as Summers would have it?  -- The closest recent historical was Argentina’s default on debt, in December 2001, described as “the biggest debt default in history”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/1366218/Argentina-makes-biggest-debt-default-in-history.html
This, in mid-depression.  It was followed by … a return to roaring growth.  Argentina did just fine out of it.  But a minority of private lenders -- the kind of people Summers hangs out with --  still want their pound of flesh, and have launched various lawsuits.
La Grèce au bord de la faillite, l'exemple argentin
http://www.medi1.com/infos/ch_eco/