Other than that, it's over my head. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
It is normal to experience conflicts once in a while. It is a price to pay for diversity. However, if we want to reach a wider (hence more diverse) audience, we will have to learn to handle them without getting too much carried away. "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
Diversity is an asset to ET, not a liability.
Conflict is inevitable indeed, but we all have to learn, well, to get along (sorry for the cliché). Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
To be serious: if we were talking about the more fundamental questions of philosophy or religion all the time I would only be in a combative mode of discussing, because I'd disagree (fundamentally!) with nearly everyone most of the time.
This would not really be conducive for finding solutions to the real problems we face, those that which we can largely agree are problems.
Being sharp and able to back up what you write is important. But you can't approach collaborative efforts as a form of antagonistic debate... I think. And this site isn't merely intended to be a playground.
Fun has its place, but the community also has to work towards effecting some kind of societal progress.
Re your call for activism, I've always had the sense or fear that the ultimate downside of blogging and the internet in general is that it gives you the illusion of greater closeness with people across the world, which really only highlights the true distance. The cruelty of "watching" all kinds of things that are happening so far away, that even if one was viewing something in "real time," there would be no way to participate, if it was good, or help, if it was bad. The seeming closeness highlights the distance.
I love that ET has room for photo diaries and train diaries, as well raw, bewildered and sometimes rather sophisticated explorations of economic problems, alternative energy, etc.
Actually thank you for having this blog. I think this type of community blog is unique in the European sphere and it would really be a pity, when such roots of perhaps a new kind of public would be given up. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Well, I can't judge other spheres. But sites like dkos or redstate or even some personal blogs make the US a much richer blogosphere than the European one. Most European blogs tend to be ... national.
By the way, if this site would be located in Germany, Jerome could be sued, if any person insults any other person on ET. Unless there are serious legal changes, such unfiltered publishing with many little known people is close to impossible... Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
ET is a place where any good idea, well-presented, can be heard. That second part may be what is at issue with a certain "argument" more than any bigger idea.
I'm guessing it was the invisible hand of free-market forces and deregulation.
That's a serious < /snark > for you who don't know Colman... "Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
What I found wasn't a spirituality versus rationality debate, or any kind of broader intellectual debate, but rather a few old wounds being reopened - where disagreements had become personalised - and where various nefarious motives where being imputed to others.
I appreciate that the disagreements had roots going back to earlier discussions - some before my time here - but that is the way of conflicts which remain unresolved - they remain troubling below the surface and occasionally flame to the surface again.
I think this is where we reach the boundaries of what is possible on a blog. Flame wars are easy because of the virtual distance; closure almost impossible, because reconciliation processes are as much physical, emotional, sensuous, and personal - as they are logical, rational and amenable to keyboard communication.
Once people get hurt in a personal sense there is almost no way back - other than at a meet-up with a trained facilitator perhaps. The tragedy lies in thinking closure is possible in a virtual world - we live in a kind of suspended animation on-line - reconciliation is mostly only possible in the real world.
Yes this can distract from cohesiveness, enthusiasm and energy channelled in constructive directions. It is particularly damaging if a lot of editorial time and energy (and enthusiasm) is sapped in the process.
However the refusal to let these conflicts go is also saying something else: people care, they want closure, and are upset they can't seem to find a way to create it.
Whilst you may see this site primarily in terms of your agenda, others see it in terms of theirs. European Tribune - Comments - Beyond ET?
But it's also, somehat mysteriously, attracted other people, who enjoy the mostly respectful atmosphere here, and bring other perspectives - and take advantage of the relaxed, uncensored context to explore aother avenues and, sometimes, yank a few chains. We all need reality checks, so that's not a bad thing, except when people actually get hurt. And words do hurt.
I don't think it is helpful to paint others as the anomaly, as the ones who don't get what this site is about, as the ones who take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere here, as the ones who create the hurt.
The point is they feel they own part of this site too. They have invested emotionally in it as well, and perhaps they feel they receive a lesser recognition for their contribution. notes from no w here
I attach my two cents to this. Jérôme wrote:
the most relevant distinction is still between insiders and outsiders, incrementalists vs revolutionaries, or "realists" vs idealists" (all different labels for the same thing: those inside the system, or benefitting from ot, who want to improve it, and those outside it, or abused by it, who want to get rid of it). ...it includes a core group that could loosely be called technocrats, people who value facts and science and critical thinking, and enjoy their "object" blogging.
...it includes a core group that could loosely be called technocrats, people who value facts and science and critical thinking, and enjoy their "object" blogging.
I don't think these category pairs are completely over-lapping. I don't even know if I am inside the system. I am an idealist revolutionary (;-)). I am probably also a technocrat, and probably part of Jérôme's "core group". And at least my object blogging seems widely enjoyed by the non-technocrat, non-science-ist, non-core-group people; who BTW can be both idealist and realist resp. incrementalist or revolutionary.
So I don't see these dualist characterisations as helpful at all. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
What is defined in some detail in the NUG is the manner in which such disagreements should be conducted and this is where we often seem to get our knickers in a twist, particularly with regard to the role of front pagers. As individuals front pagers are, of course, as entitled to become as engaged in arguments as anyone else and it is rare to see them actually use the ((ET Moderation TechnologyTM)) tag. However some members appear to feel the distinction becomes blurred when other members (who are also front pagers) become embroiled in an argument and appear to act collegially in relation to to a particular dispute without ever using their [ET Moderation TechnologyTM] tag or front pager powers.
This could be nothing more than a few people of like mind taking a similar view, and some front pagers appear to feel very aggrieved at any suggestion in might be otherwise. I personally have no difficulty with the Editorial Board (say) announcing that only serious articles with factual and evidence based arguments will be allowed on the front page, or that in future frivolous diaries (e.g. my own Notorious Polish Delinquent Driver Caught by Irish Police) will be confined to contributions to the open threads. These are valid editorial decisions, even if I disagree with them. But what is important in such instances is that Editorial policies are clearly stated and consistently applied.
What I am reading in some of the disputed comments is a sense that some people, at least, do not feel that editorial standards are being clearly enunciated and consistently applied. That some people are called on hurtful or ad hominem remarks, and that others are not. Perhaps front pagers are being held to a higher stand. Perhaps they should be held to a higher standard if they are seen as representing the leadership of the site. But what seems clear is that some people here feel that standards are being unfairly and inconsistently applied, and when this feeling persists you need a mechanism or a process to resolve it.
Ideally therefore, when disputes arise, and particularly when those disputes involve members who are also front pagers, you need a third party disputes resolution process - other respected members who are accepted as honest brokers and who are skilled in the process of identifying underlying issues, narrowing their scope, and ultimately, sometimes slowly, leading a process towards their resolution. I can think of at least one front pager who appears to me to have that skill set (and one other member) and that is only from those members I have met personally.
Perhaps as a pilot process, we might therefore set up a disputes resolution panel, made up of volunteers, and the parties to a dispute could see if there is at least one person on that panel who they could all accept as an honest broker. This process would have a number of potential benefits:
Should we instead accept that, no, FrontPagers will not be perceived as ordinary users and therefore have to behave as if they had the [ET Moderation Technology™] tag up by default?
Do we need a [This is not an editorial comment] tag instead? Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
This always seems most pronounced when there is major disagreement, and it is a tribute to the community that we have managed to go through Two or three major 'Discussions' without the site fragmenting.
If you are an editor you have to accept that some of your decisions will be taken badly, and accept that as long as you are acting consistently and fairly you will have to step back and take a deep breath when someone is calling you all sorts.
I don't think that the non-editorial tag will help, because even when you specifically say its not editorial, people will assume it is, or at least assume it is made in discussion with other editors. Whenever I have ended up in a vaguely editorial role I've always made it clear that if people want to think that im acting as part of a conspiracy, the only reply they will get from me is laughter. Taking it personally only causes you stress that really dosent help you after all. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
There is a problem with managerial moderation getting confused with personal comments and positions.
That's partly the nature of the animal, but a more flexible approach might be less likely to be provocative, perhaps.
If the EU can make Vaclav Klaus president then anything is possible. ;)
It seems to me to be fundamentally unfair that voluntary front pagers can't have as much fun as anyone else here and be frivolous as the humour takes them. (Otherwise we might start have real difficulties persuading people to take on the onerous task in the first place).
However there does appear to be a view within the community that some front pagers occasionally let the side down, are quicker to to post negative or pejorative comments than many ordinary members, and that when editors do this, it reflects badly on the community as a whole. Whether it is valid to expect a higher standard of behaviour from frontpagers depends on how ET decides to define the role as a whole. It does seem to me, however, that at least some members expect a higher (or at least an equivalent) standard of behaviour from front pagers and feel they aren't always getting it.
However it seems to me that front pagers are quite a varied bunch, with many disparate talents, and that just because one is a brilliant intellectual doesn't automatically mean that they are particularly skilled at emotional empathy or encouraging someone with lesser linguistic skills. I'm not sure why Sven posted his diary, but perhaps he was intimating that social intercourse here (and much more so elsewhere) can sometimes take the form of an egotistical bear fight where the purpose is to destroy the weaker opponents arguments and that even Grizzlies have evolved mechanisms for mitigating the harm such fights/arguments can create.
Certainly I am aware of instances where members felt intimated when a number of perceived heavyweights started to take their perhaps tentative arguments apart and felt they had no alternatives other than fight or flight - put up some kind of argument, or admit humiliating defeat. It seems to me most damaging disputes occur when one party feels humiliated in some way. Perhaps they were objectively wrong in some sense, but to admit that publicly would be to risk humiliating scorn or sarcasm. Perhaps those fears were ill-founded. I have certainly sometimes made hasty or ill-considered comments and found myself having to row back when called on them. If your ego is tied in with your intellect, this can be a difficult process!
So to answer your question, a [This is not an editorial comment] tag might be useful if cumbersome. The question of whether front pagers should be held to some (difficult to define) higher standard is perhaps one that front pagers themselves might like to discuss if they haven't already done so. My suspicion is that it would be impossible to define such a standard clearly. Perhaps just a sense that a degree of prominence on the site also means that other members are more likely to feel intimidated and that understatement and emotional empathy might be useful tools at times.
Often front pagers have gotten into trouble when they were just trying to help some other member under pressure - and ended up in the firing line themselves. Sometimes you just can't win, at other times you may feel, on subsequent cool review, that your intervention might have been more skilful. Nearly always you get into trouble if you impute motives or make personalised observations to which someone takes offence. There is sometimes almost no rowing back from this. You may feel that some people are only waiting to be insulted so they can vent their righteous spleen.
That is why third party conflict resolution processes which depersonalise the process can be so valuable. However I have never seen them attempted over the internet, so I just don't know what the success rate would be. A lot depends on whether people actually want to resolve the problem. Without that basic goodwill, no process can succeed. But it seems to me that goodwill is one quality that is not lacking on ET. notes from no w here
There is precious little of that these days. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
If only FPers do moderation actively when a conflict happens, isn't it inevitable that they will be seen as a party to the conflict, and accused of bias?
Echoes one of the main argument against humanitarian intervention: it cannot be helped that the intervener takes a side, contrary to the principle of state sovereignty and the equality of state sovereignty which is a fundamental tenet of the international system.
So I suppose, it takes a skilled diplomat to moderate well, and that one of the goals of the diplomatic community is to maintain the health and diversity of the system.
Interesting parallel, I just thought I'd share it. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
perhaps one way forward would be if one's a front pager and moving into a moderator mode, that other FPers don't cluster and intercede (negatively) in concert. it's not perfect, because it imposes more self-restraint on FPers than the rest of us, but it would be more conducive ot egalitarianism i think.
if the cluster is positive, it has extra clout from being liked by FPers, so the opposite is also true.
one FPer in disagreement can never be perceived as bullying or groupthink, whereas when the cluster happens, it rapidly seems like overkill.
after all, if the post being reacted to really is drifting way out of line, and a FPer is as sure of his/her ground as befits the role, it shouldn't take more than one. two should be the equivalent of the guys in white coats 'coming to take me away', three should be banning level.
that way it's sparing, but truly effective, and would sidestep any risk of seeming like elite pressure, aka scrambling lieutenants.
it also seems counterproductive to keep linking to threads that are symbolic of supposed tragic import. if they really are that traumatic, let's learn from them and move on, rather than inviting folks to revisit them and reopen old wounds. why should new readers be led by the hand to the skeletons in the closet, if indeed they are? there's something a bit contradictory there perhaps?
i actually don't see it as a problem, because ET will always be a microcosm of the rest of reality, and we don't have perfect eternal harmony there, so why expect it here? whereas what harmony we create here can be also exported into meatworld...
what's wonderful is the high signal to noise ratio, and i hated slipping into becoming the latter.
so sorry folks...
still it's a very small storm in a huge teacup of ever-renewing, delicious brew, and making such a fuss about it seems a tad overdone. yes words can hurt, and some are hastier than others to let fly. mea culpa.
ET is great because of its variety, and even more for its balance, between heart attack permanent serious and goofy transitory pleasure.
perhaps some feel ET would be a more effective political tool if it were pruned back of its playful, personal side, and just focussed on entirely serious subjects, and perhaps they're right, and my intuition that the opposite is true, (ie that variety and unpredictability attract more readers/members, which will /could morph into something that achieved serious ends, by many means, some of which may appear lightweight and with less obvious socially transformative heft)....is Wrong.
in which case, i'd happily accept that as an invitation to move on, an 'uninvite', if that would help you get closer to the real agenda here, to positively change european society, and you think that disagreements that become flamewars distract and sap that. i'd understand and might do the same in your shoes. streamline da buggah! go furrrrther!
i don't like polemic, but i've been here since the beginning and i'm very fond of the place. going to british 'public' school in england has left me doubtless hypersensitive to bullying, and if i'm going to come hang out and learn and play here, then to remain silent when i see it (or think i see it) makes me feel complicit. it has after all been the worst thing about being european these last 100 years, feeling that evil of horrific proportions has dwelled here slyly, unconsciously woven into the camouflage of banal. still hypersensitivity to anything is unproductive...
sven doesn't need help defending himself, in retrospective, i should have kept my mouth shut, it was pretty minor, what tweaked me, and my spontaneous interjection just made things worse. duh...
but so many others have emailed me or told me in person over the years that they too felt the things i called out, it probably helped push my buttons to become spokesperson for them too, who'd given up and left, or had planed down their contributions to a minimum to avoid feeling trammeled and diminished by certain folks here.
stupid, i should let them be to fight for their own right not to allow others to do that, it's not my job to change ET, or even to criticise it. it certainly seems petty do do so, when it has been such a wonderful fountain of wisdom, fun and good energy for me these last years.
as all of you know whom i've 4'd to death!
thanks again, J, for birthing this multicoloured beast, and having the courage to keep reaching for goals for us that are always inspiring and relevant. thanks to all for the brilliant effort building this body of information and ongoing experiment in real-time communication. it has the vitality and potential for a wonderful future.
email me and i'll self ban, if i'm too incorrigibly counter-revolutionary. nary a bubble where he sank...
back to the sulphurous mud whence he emerged...
:)
~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
</drunken Colman>
Even in crack mode.
(There is a radical difference between mediation and arbitration. A mediator just explores areas of difference and common ground and tries to guide the disputants to a common position - but ultimate has no say in how the process unwinds - that is up to the disputants. The mediator doesn't "own" the dispute and can ultimately do no more than make suggestions. An arbitrator (by prior agreement) hears both sides, and then issues an authoritative ruling - which is then not subject to further negotiation. I am not suggesting arbitration is appropriate here - and a mediator shouldn't become a "player" in the dispute in question and should keep their personal views on the matter to themselves.) notes from no w here
(I am familiar with the difference between mediators and arbitrators - I'm a half-trained mediator and Sam is a fully trained one. Note to self: finish course at some stage this year!)
I was thus apprehensive about Jerome's apparent attempt to define some as perhaps being beyond the pale of what ET is truly about, and which could become a precursor to them being asked to consider curbing their contributions or taking their talents elsewhere.
You mistake my intent. I'm not worried about differences - I'm worried about differences becoming irreconciliable - or some of us making them so. I noted my positions/preferences/attitudes notto say they are better, but just to note what they are, and acknowledge (some of) the different views of others, and to some extent, express wonderment that they are here - and also the fear that this could lead to conflict. This is not an encouragement to push other opinions away, just a request that these differences be accepted and not a cause for damage to one another. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I agree with your statement (that many here have echoed) about differences being good, positive and a learning opportunity, and share your concerns of what can happen when those difference turn sour for some reason - some of which I have tried to analyse above.
Conflict is endemic in all organisations - the more dynamic the organisation, often the more virile the conflict. However there are methods and processes for channelling that conflict in more creative and less damaging ways, and that is the discussion I am attempting to foster.
This isn't intended as a critique of frontpagers - I would never criticise people doing a job I am not prepared to do my self. What I did do - for context - was relay some of the criticisms I have read and heard, and which appear to lie behind some of the animus displayed earlier.
I don't have a view on whether they are justified or not, because I wasn't party to many of the discussions and don't know a lot of the context. I would merely note that the animus appears to be there, is real, and thus, in an ideal world, is a reality we should try to deal with in a positive and constructive way (off-line) between the parties concerned.
Some have expressed the view that their enjoyment of and participation on the site has been effected by these unresolved tensions. That alone should be a signal that we should try to act. But ultimately its your call. notes from no w here
we should try to deal with in a positive and constructive way (off-line)
tried....stalled, then rebuffed... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
It shouldn't be cause for wonderment if you acknowledge that our divides on different issues aren't along the same fronts. Everyone joined afer fiding some overlap with some of the existing users; and just two steps are enough for a new member to join with completely different views from yours. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I don't think these category pairs are completely over-lapping. I don't even know if I am inside the system. I am an idealist revolutionary (;-)). I am probably also a technocrat, and probably part of Jérôme's "core group". And at least my object blogging seems widely enjoyed by the non-technocrat, non-science-ist, non-core-group people; who BTW can be both idealist and realist resp. incrementalist or revolutionary. So I don't see these dualist characterisations as helpful at all.
So I don't see these dualist characterisations as helpful at all.
There are two kinds of people: those that accept dualist characterisations, and those that don't! ;)
Snark aside, my point was not to split people, but to note some of the issues that do divide us (not necessarily with the same people in the two groups each time, far from it) - and the need to avoid wasting our energy on amking these differences bigger than they are. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The respectful tone is something I prize here, though I've thrown a flame or two myself (so let me apologize now to whomever that was).
I followed our diarist here from dkos, and have since pretty much stopped reading much there. I cross-post at dkos because that's where my real audience is, though I have no interest in indulging in the dance of groupthink that goes on there. Entirely too predictable. That's my opinion, and I ask no-one else to share it, though I recognize there are some great bloggers there, and at the new subsidiary, Congress Matters.
The trans-Atlantic aspect of ET is the major pull for me here, and the fact that it forces me out of that American-centric mindset, though I write specifically with US policy and issues in mind, and aim it at an American audience (because few on the left here in the US currently advocate in matters of US foreign policy with any credibility).
This trans-Atlanticism means that I'm forced here to examine my assumptions and I feel that, for me, it is needed. For the sake of my own clarity. If I don't post often, it is because, one, I lack the economic or technical expertise to conribute, and, two, is that I'm still studying, on my own, international relations. So I'm still in assmimilation-mode. I'll know when I begin to emerge from that when I read something about, say, Afghanistan, and make an immediate connection to something I knew about Colombia (they've both incredibly corrupt narco-states, btw, and therefore it's going to be enormously difficult to build the institutions of civil society in Afghanistan).
Frankly, I learn alot here, just from hearing other voices and by thinking about it all. I'd never get this at dkos, where everything is viewed through the lens of the American viewpoint (there is only one - the argument is over means, not goals). So, unless the kossacks invade ET en masse, I don't see myself leaving ET anytime soon. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
I must say that the repeated courtesy to schedule your flame wars during the part of the week that I'm working ... despite that fact that the part of the week that I'm working shifts every ten weeks ... all I can say is bravo. That is a courtesy so pronounced, it is almost Canadian. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Sven has self described as a provocateur and a prankster or some-such, but I see some value to what he has done. I have also seen an increase in tolerance in the reactions to controversial subjects in the brief time I have been involved in ET, and reading the Boxing Day diary and thread, which predated my involvement, I see the distance that has been covered. Had we not have had these kerfuffules something worse would likely await later.
As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
It requires constantly (and consistantly) defining the intention (which periodic threads like this do) and tolerating the errors (quite rare in this case) during the (dare I say 'our') learning phase, and the long-term learning phase of duplicating ones-self.
Growth helps, growth makes it harder. These things will pass.
But this won't pass. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
Many good points above- Frank's right about the lack of closure on-line, and that the festering of issues unresolved is a driver in the recurring acrimony.
Papicek, ARGeezer, I too value ET and have learned a lot here. I strongly hope we can continue to grow and enjoy the process.
Jerome, I too would see a more activist role for ET- we have the wits to do--do we have the drive? I think our battle to sink Tony Blair's perverse aspirations to bring his brand of hypocrisy to the heart of the EU was a good start,--but we had no second act. Also, your perceptions and ideas began the ball rolling, and we need them. It is, however, a good thing to broaden the base, if we can do so in a civil way.
In my opinion, social policy is based in the emotional, empathic elements that are at the core of defining "Quality of life". Economics needs to serve the creation of social policy. As a recovering technocrat, I have come to believe we need that empathic side badly, but it's irritating to the true technocrat, and all those who see the world in a mechanistic way, just as that machine-world seems hollow to me. We need a mix of both views.
Forgive my oversimplification- there are more dimensions than just these two, but I see these as central.
If I am able, I will continue to participate, come what may. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
As a recovering technocrat, I have come to believe we need that empathic side badly, but it's irritating to the true technocrat, and all those who see the world in a mechanistic way, just as that machine-world seems hollow to me. We need a mix of both views.
Indeed we do. But I know I can't provide what I don't have, and thus need others to bring their differences. Which means that we need to cohabit together because these differences can tear us apart at times. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I know I can't provide what I don't have
But when we start to get angry and to want to make disparaging comments and ad hominem attacks, we need to stop and ask ourselves why, if our own system is so well founded, does this so annoy us. After all, amusement would seem to be the better response. My own view is that being and seeming foolish at times is part of the human condition. But then my own limitations have given me ample opportunity for such reflections and that is just me. And/or, perhaps Godel's theorem is indeed widely generalizable. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Being annoyed or offended by something is actually a gift. It is an indication that there may be a chink in our understanding of the world.
Indeed.
One of my pet ideas, oft repeated here, is the idea of the "Crap Detector" as an essential component of problem solving, and an essential product of real education. Who said "education should make minds, not tools"?
That crap detector is never more valuable than when it alarms at our own bullshit. That anger- that urge to attack the person and not the proposition is the alarm. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
IOW, we cope with the low bandwidth of this medium by building mental models of the people that we encounter the most frequently. That mental model informs our readings when a more and less generous reading of comments may be made. And a mental model that dictates making the less generous reading will be self-reinforcing, since at least sometimes the more generous reading is correct.
The marker for this that is often found fairly early in a flame war is, "No, I didn't mean it that way", "I know you meant it that way because, before, you said this".
Of course, building mental models on the most generous reading will also yield a biased model, but its a happier mistake to be making. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
This environment is founded on two main pillars: the comment rating mechanism and the usual technical side of the posts. Folk interested on populist, subjective issues are automatically cast aside, they may have a dash or two in disturbing the waters but eventually will see themselves prevented from doing so and move on; the sane environment is preserved. I'm not aware of a similar blogging environment, among the many I frequent or frequented and is in strike contrast to that at TheOilDrum for instance.
But this creates a problem: ET become an elitist space. Sad but true, most folk on the streets couldn't care less about the issues discussed here: the latest football results or the latest socialite gossip are much more attractive to them. We end up preaching the sermon to the converts (unless of course you write about Climate).
To move easily out of the box, ET would require something easily recognizable to promote, a product, an idea, that at this stage doesn't exist. ET is a forum, a friendly discussion space, that with its plurality and eclecticism isn't something you can promote by itself. But it is my belief that at least on the idea-space something could be brought about - it all depends on how ambitious it aims to be.
Bringing my architect side to it, I think it is perhaps best to first define what objective a future-ET should aim for, and then maybe the how could become more clear. I see at least four main targets for a future-ET:
Some of these overlap, but simply distinguishing clearly between the first two objectives can already be an important step towards the future. Vencit omnia veritas.
I will say that the site itself, as a forum, can remain "elitist" and still achieve the stated goal of branching out.
The way this occurs is to preserve ET as it is, trying to increase readership but maintain the same decorum whilst encouraging the individual members in their efforts outside of ET and encouraging them to bring that back to the site.
Never confuse an online forum with a real place. The impact of ET will be in what the individuals who are a part of it contribute rather than some kind of collective and branded action of the site. That would inherently require homogenization of ideas and cause more of the friction that is being described. Who speaks for ET? and other questions will consume all of the time formerly devoted to intelligent, free discussion.
I would advise focusing on recruitment more and more, the number of users who understand the current motion of this site can and will increase with effort and that will produce its own fruit. Essentially I say believe that what you have done thus far has been effective and maybe you should continue doing things in the same manner. Fresh blood is needed and welcome, but not for its own sake, rather for what it contributes. How those contributions are measured has already been defined by ET and that which does not fit in has been deemed lacking in its contribution. May they lurk for all eternity!
The big unknown is how to get that public recognition. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I use this site more as a reader than a writer and am always blown away by the quality of commentary and analysis. That does not mean I agree with any of the people who write here - but it is distinctive - as is the ambition of having a working trans-european blog in the 'style' of DKOS.
If you want to get better known and become visible - ask your contributors to each invite 5 of the best bloggers in their territories, and ten of their online contacts - who they imagine would appreciate being invited - to contribute.
Bitter virtual scraps are part and parcel of any attempt at an ideal agora. I come from an indymedia background - a place which pioneered citizens media and know far too much about them for my own good.
What they taught me is that an agora to survive - needs to be controlled by the community - in as dispersed way as possible - if it is to become an agora - rather than become someone elses public house where you can have a smoke and drink if you pay and have to hold your tongue.
You do a fantastic job - you are a very acute writer - you write across the atlantic in an almost unprecedented way. You should trust the community you built and stop taking all the stress of normal problems on yourself. If there werew 20 people in control you could do 1/20th of the worrying.
As we used to say in Indymedia Ireland - "All Power To The Commenteers!"
You do a fantastic job - you are a very acute writer - you write across the atlantic in an almost unprecedented way.
acute is right. ambassadorial in the highest possible sense. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
There is a fair amount of economic expertise already here. Get together, decide on a particular agenda, research the hell out of it, and post, post, post. Become the place to come to for political/economic news and commentary for EU and trans-Atlantic issues.
"Let us be frank. Provoking military-political instability and upper regional conflicts is also a convenient way of deflecting people's attention from mounting social and economic problems. Regrettably, further attempts of this kind cannot be ruled out." Foreign policy Implications of the Global Economic Crisis, quoted by Niall Ferguson in testimony given to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 11 Feb, 2009, Last accessed 18 Feb 2009.
Foreign policy Implications of the Global Economic Crisis, quoted by Niall Ferguson in testimony given to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 11 Feb, 2009, Last accessed 18 Feb 2009.
You don't have to tell me how much work that can be, but some can be delegated, and the core effort can be streamlined. If you decide to go down this road, don't try to go it alone, you don't need to.
I don't know if dkos actually pays some people to blog, but obviously at least some of the front pagers there are those whom you named "insiders." "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
reach the common folk; reach the politicos; become a politic "party"; perpetuate ET through time;
All valid reasons for the effort and expense of creating and maintaining ET or any blog. The first two reasons are among the reasons why I put in as much time (pretty much all my spare time) as I do.
Which begs the question: what did the founder(s) of ET hope would happen. What did they hope to accomplish? Blogging takes on a variety of forms, which place themselves everywhere on the spectrum of serious to chatty.
As an example, dkos is a brilliant success. I know the kind of resources involved and their expense. Never mind the servers and the bandwidth involved (at my last serious job, we had a T1 line - serious, pro-grade bandwidth - which was running us just under $1000 US per month), dkos has retained an attorney, has a development staff, and at least one (who must be a full time employee) technical administrator. And lots of volunteers who put in lots of time, such as the rescue rangers and the tag librarians. So dkos has substantial backing from someone - my rough guess is that dkos burns through at least ten to fifteen thousand dollars a month. At least. I doubt their ad revenues cover half of that.
Anyone thinking of where he wants ET to go, if anywhere - maybe it has arrived - has lots to think about. Creating a major blog will eat up all the "owner's" time, cost lots of money, and involve many people (dozens? hundreds?) doing quality work together.
Or we could all just be chatty. It's not for me to say. I'm one of Jerome's "outsiders" who contributes infrequently and I don't foot the bills. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
And the annual Netroots Nation convention. A slick, professional effort. Who is behind that? There's no question about it. There's tons of effort in making dkos what it is.
Howard Dean? A consortium of progressive interest groups? George Soros even? It's actually an interesting question. I wonder if kos deals with this in his book. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
2008 was a good election year for us electorally, of course, but it was also a good year for this site. We easily broke $1 million in revenues, which have allowed us to do a bunch of cool new things: Professionalize. For a long time, Jeremy the tech dude was my only paid staff. As of now, Daily Kos has a paid staff of eight. SusanG is Executive Editor, BarbinMD is Associate Editor, Kagro is editor of Congress Matters, I have a business manager (Will), Brownsox will be a key part of a new project we'll be launching soon, Hunter is hard at work with DK4, and me and Jeremy round things off. The executive team (me, Susan, and Will) also share a new part-time assistant. On top of it all, Kos Media employees now get full benefits. That may seem trite or trivial for you guys, but for me, it's a huge accomplishments. Benefits are expensive.
Professionalize. For a long time, Jeremy the tech dude was my only paid staff. As of now, Daily Kos has a paid staff of eight. SusanG is Executive Editor, BarbinMD is Associate Editor, Kagro is editor of Congress Matters, I have a business manager (Will), Brownsox will be a key part of a new project we'll be launching soon, Hunter is hard at work with DK4, and me and Jeremy round things off. The executive team (me, Susan, and Will) also share a new part-time assistant. On top of it all, Kos Media employees now get full benefits. That may seem trite or trivial for you guys, but for me, it's a huge accomplishments. Benefits are expensive.
The figure I gave above didn't include such a big staff, maybe two or three including kos himself, but did contain payments on hardware (consider the archiving requirements!), bandwidth (I have no idea how much a T3 connection costs, lets say $2000 monthly and I'll bet my last dollar that's a really low figure), MySQL licensing (we paid $142,000 yearly for two big Oracle installations and of course they're not using the MySQL community edition), attorney's fees (dkos has been to court once already - kos won), and basic but unavoidable incidentals (like a graphic/web designer's bill).
So the figure I gave was for the old dkos, assuming it was watching it's burn rate closely and went lightly on the organizational frills, not the present dkos with the larger staff and I excluded Congress Matters entirely.
Let us as well consider just one item where ET would differ greatly from dkos: legal fees. Assuming ET is deliberately EU-wide, across countries whose slander and libel laws differ, ET might require some legal expertise that dkos did not. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
There was also an amazing court sentence last year in Modica that ruled blogs are the equivalent of newpapers and are therefore accountable as is a newspaper.It was a very adroit sentence since it did in no way affront what was actually produced on the blog- dossiers and documents alleging corruption and mafia ties- but seized and blacked out the site on purely normative grounds. The site- like all blogs- had not been duly registered as a news source. The case, I hope, should go to Europe.
Off the top of my head, there are a couple cases I've read about:
Verdammte scheisse! It's all too much for a layman! As I said before, operating a blog and contributing to one is worth thinking hard about. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
I don't hide that I'm an insider, and that I'm more on the incrementalist side - but it seems that my discourse is subversive enough to be attractive to the revolutionaries, given how far the debate has shifted to the right, and it has the bonus, for them, of coming from someone with impeccable credentials - a banker, capable of expressing himself properly, not burdened by any quirks (ie married, white and male) and obviously at ease in the system. So I can navigate between both worlds.
Firstly, thanks for such an eloquent and thoughtful Diary. It's interesting that you see two possible approaches: incrementalist and revolutionary.
Unlike you, I believe that the existing "deficit-based" system is irretrievably broken. Not even Governments can fix it - only the people can.
But I am (now!) Realist enough to know that Revolutionary doesn't work either - we have to get there from here.
You say you can navigate both worlds - and I think you can, too - but I believe you need a new map, Jerome! This means a change of assumptions - a realisation that maybe the Sun does not go around the Earth. Such a shift in perception, or Epiphany, cannot be forced.
We can only get where we need to go by stepping outside our current reality, while keeping one foot thoroughly grounded in the existing one. ie it's not aquestion of either/or but rather both/and.
I observe new legal and financial structures emerging in what I can only describe as an evolutionary way. These work - optimally, if I am correct in my thinking - as a complement to existing - failed - structures, and will gradually (or maybe virally) make them redundant.
Again, unlike you - I think - I see existing institutions - whether global (World Bank, IMF etc) or European (EU Parliament, Commission, ECB) as part of the problem, not part of the solution. The networked, collaborative Europe I see does not include such institutions.
But to even begin to question the EU on this site is to invite the world to fall around one's ears, as both solveig and I have found. Nevertheless, I believe that the way out of our current mire must necessarily be through an evolution to something completely different - no incrementalist approach can work against entrenched interests, and revolution is futile.
The vehemence with which the EU is defended here puts me in mind of Pirsig's quote
Robert M. Pirsig - Wikiquote
You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.
Some good responses on this thread already. IMHO if everyone agreed all the time, this site would be dead, and I think that we manage our disagreements better than any other forum I have seen: indeed this forum is better than any other forum I have ever seen, and long may it be so. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Aren't you reading a bit too much into the quote? "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
The quote makes the point - very well, IMHO - that people are never dedicated to something they have complete confidence in. Fanaticism is merely a matter of degree of dedication. Your name was never mentioned, and never would have been, either.
You made the attribution, not me.
I have always tried never to engage in ad hominems although my patience is often sorely tested. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
No one, least of all me, has ever said you are a fanatic
ChrisCook:
you should apologise for using such an unnecessarily nasty and combative tone. It borders on a pro Euro religious fanaticism diametrically opposed to the anti Euro fanaticism discussed in this thread.
It borders on a pro Euro religious fanaticism diametrically opposed to the anti Euro fanaticism discussed in this thread.
and I think that you are being over-sensitive, possibly because this comes from me.
Migeru:
ou really think this is about Jerome not liking your theories about debt, money and banking?
No. Do you?
But it would be interesting to see the collection of compliments I've had from him. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Again, unlike you - I think - I see existing institutions - whether global (World Bank, IMF etc) or European (EU Parliament, Commission, ECB) as part of the problem, not part of the solution. The networked, collaborative Europe I see does not include such institutions. But to even begin to question the EU on this site is to invite the world to fall around one's ears, as both solveig and I have found. Nevertheless, I believe that the way out of our current mire must necessarily be through an evolution to something completely different - no incrementalist approach can work against entrenched interests, and revolution is futile. The vehemence with which the EU is defended here puts me in mind of Pirsig's quote
Given that this is a post about my vision of Europe, and that I have repeatedly questioned Chris and solveig's anti-EU line (which they of course know, given that they participated to these discussions), I think it is not unfair to think that this was also addressed to me - especially given that pretty much all the other frontpagers give me grief regularly about my EU stance and can hardly be included in the fanatical EU brigade. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Why do you persist in claiming that there will be a reduction in bank guarantees? Mig dug up several links with actual facts that point to the exact contrary, but you'd rather believe the lies that comfort your prejudices (ooooh, EU, bad evil bureaucracy crushing the brave Norwegians) than acknowledge that your minister is full of shit and plain wrong.
This is the first ad hominem comment I can find on that thread - to which Chris responded in defence of Solveig and suggested Jerome pick on someone his own size.
I have no doubt that substantive difference on the EU exist between Chris, Solveig and Jerome - but accusing people of preferring to believe in lies to comfort their prejudices hardly seems in line with the values of respectful debate we seek to promote on this blog - particularly when it seems, on the evidence of that exchange, that Solveig never claimed that the EU was seeking to enforce harmonised standards on Norway - merely that the relevant Norwegian Minister had expressed such concerns and that, in her view, "Norwegians would not take a reduction in bank guarantees lightly".
You appear to have done a good job of adding facts and clarity to that debate, something you and often ET are very good at. There was no need for any ad hominem comments to have been introduced, and I'm surprised you cite this thread as an example of Chris' misbehaviour when he was clearly responding to an insult to his partner. How are we going to encourage much wider participation on ET when ordinary members risk being attacked by frontpagers for things they didn't say?
The issue here isn't who is pro or anti EU, fanatical or otherwise. The issue here is whether ad homimem attacks are permissible, and particularly whether you as a frontpager support another frontapager in making such an attack against an ordinary member (Solveig) - even if that member had been wrong on some point of fact (which does not appear to me to have been the case in this instance). I hardly think ET wants to send out the message that its editorial board supports ad hominem attacks against ordinary members? notes from no w here
I'm surprised you cite this thread as an example of Chris' misbehaviour when he was clearly responding to an insult to his partner.
I went to the trouble of reading a long thread at your initiation because you suggested it presented evidence of Chris' perfidy. I wrote a substantial and argued response in which I suggested that Jerome had initiated any ad hominem comments which appeared on that thread. I invited you to confirm that you, as a frontpager, do not support frontpagers initiating ad hominem attacks against ET members.
And your response...
You suggest that Chris might have had an ulterior motive for posting a quotation he posted on this thread. Perhaps he does, perhaps you can ask him. Having an ulterior motive is not a hanging offence. Were similar accusations not also made against Sven? Are you scanning the pages of ET for any comment by anyone which might possibly, if interpreted in another context, be construed as containing a veiled critical reference to a front pager?
However my concern is that the thread you cite as an example of Chris' bad behaviour instead indicates to me (a disinterested party - before you ascribe ulterior motives to me) that an ad hominem attack was initiated by a frontpager against a member.
You don't seem to see that as a problem or worthy of comment.
Can you not see that this would appear to justify the accusation, made by other members, of frontpagers "ganging up on ordinary members", of frontpagers having one standard for ordinary members and a lower one for themselves?
We appear to have front pagers acting as Judge, jury, prosecuting council, witness and complainant in this instance. The society we so like to criticise on these pages has long learned to separate those roles and appears to have a much better developed sense of natural justice.
It seems that ET is good at lecturing others but cannot provide the most elementary standards of justice and fair play to its own members.
I am disgusted that you seem to think that this is just another opportunity for point scoring against Chris. Have you no concept of Solveig's rights to her good name and ordinary common decency, courtesy and good manners in this matter? I have never known her to behave without courtesy to others on this blog, and the least she deserves is an apology.
But I suppose that would require someone to admit that it is possible that they might be wrong on a rare occasion. notes from no w here
I find your response absolutely extraordinary for the priorities it reveals.
I am sick, but sick, of innuendo and insinuation and plausible deniability. I have been guilty of making hurtful insinuations in the past too. This HAS TO STOP, people! Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
We appear to have front pagers acting as Judge, jury, prosecuting council, witness and complainant in this instance. The society we so like to criticise on these pages has long learned to separate those roles and appears to have a much better developed sense of natural justice. It seems that ET is good at lecturing others but cannot provide the most elementary standards of justice and fair play to its own members.
I invited you to confirm that you, as a frontpager, do not support frontpagers initiating ad hominem attacks against ET members.
Once again, this is totally unproductive. "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
I'm not aware of discussions at ET, but in general, there is sometimes a fanatic defense of the EU. Pirsig's assumption as to why are however flawed. The doubt is not a personal doubt by those that defend the EU, but the threat by sovereignists, obstructionists, etc. to destroy the EU, or to stop the progress, into which now generations have invested so much. The firm believe, that the EU is a good thing, by its denfenders isn't enough to keep the EU going on, when the enemies ally with the uninformed to impede it. In that sense, I think Chris makes a valid observation without the correct interpretation of it. Instead of taking his comment personally (nowhere was your name mentioned), there are possibilities to answer issue-centered. If he isn't allowed to state his observations or his interpretation, then there is no possibility of correcting or convincing him of another opinion. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Chris comment can be read as related to issues (on which I'm probably mostly on your side), while you have made it an entirely personal thing.
It's all about context... Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
When does something cease to qualify as "context?" Is there a statute of limitation on these things? If you go back a quarter or half a year in the comment log of any reasonably active contributor, you can find an uncharitable bit of "context" to fit to any prejudice.
I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened here - my eyes tend to glaze over when Jerome and Chris dive into the jargon together to hash out some arcane point that I haven't quite gotten to on my self- (and ET-)taught "bootstrap economics 101" course.
But it is something to keep in mind. "Once on the 'net, always on the 'net" is not quite the same thing as "once on the 'net, always relevant on the 'net."
But to even begin to question the EU on this site is to invite the world to fall around one's ears, as both solveig and I have found.
That is a rhetorical gimmick that can certainly be challenged. If somebody had asked Chris to dig out an example or two, pretty please, the shoe would have been on the other foot.
But to read an off-hand rhetorical gimmick [2] in the context of a two-months old post does not strike me as an excessively charitable reading, shall we say. And a little more charitable readings might go a long way towards avoiding flame wars like the ones we've seen over the last week.
- Jake
[1] For the record, and to avoid misunderstandings, I don't recall any discussion of Lisbon in which Frank participated during the Irish campaign devolving into flame wars. Vigorous and interesting discussions, certainly, but never flame wars. Which is what makes it hyperbole, of course.
[2] It is, of course, possible that I am entirely wrong in my reading of the comment in question - that what I interpreted as an off-hand rhetorical flourish was in fact a major salient. If so, my conjectures and analysis of course becomes inappropriate. If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
if you want to criticise Lisbon while Frank is in campaign mode, you'd better bring your asbestos suit [1].
Aha! See! Victimisation! (I will conveniently omit reference to your kind caveat which follows below). The context is what I say it is. notes from no w here
Chris posts a comment to a diary by Jerome. There is a context that they may share that you may not be privy to. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
We've provided inconvenient facts a bit too often, maybe. Thu the need for insults? (Just wondering out loud, this is obviously not directed at anyone, of course). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
"People" here means everyone: Me, you, Chris, Mig, Solveig, the lurkers, the bum who lives under the local rail bridge. Everyone.
I note that the accusation has not been withdrawn, or pointed towards someone else. I consider it's still there. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Lets just agree on the word you used to describe your behaviour, no matter how diplomatic your "apology" may have been.
Aggressive.
It's not the word that's unacceptable, it's the behaviour.
As for the Pirsig quote, the fact it contained the word "fanatically" clearly meant something to you, but certainly not to me.
That's unfortunate. For my own part, I had put the Open Thread nonsense behind me two months ago, and little realised it still festered.
As for "ideologue", I confess I don't know the word well enough to use it. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
And now, again, throwing my apology back at me ("you called yourself aggressive"). That's inappropriate, to say the least. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Whatever. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
You are also seeking to muddy the waters by claiming that Chris called you a Euro fanatic. He has already admitted to doing so in anger after you insulted his partner. Perhaps he marginally overstepped the mark of fair comment. However I'm not so sure that being regarded as a Euro-fanatic is an insult. I know No Campaigners in Ireland would regard me as one. As it happens my views on the EU appear to be much closer to yours that to Chris'. I have taken issue with his views on the EU on this thread, and can't say I understand how, concretely, he would move the EU from where it is now to where he wants it to be. And I am also not sure that I find his vision for Europe obviously better. But all of that is by the by.
The issue is one of you as founder, owner and frontpager seeking to apply one law for others and a much lesser standard for yourself. There is nothing anyone can do to stop you doing this. But this would cease to be a true community blog if you do so. You have painted an admirable vision of your commitment to the EU in this Diary. Unfortunately you also seem to have an authoritarian streak which cries "whatever" when others make a different case and insists on having it all your own way. My fear is that such authoritarianism will destroy ET as a community blog (and the EU as a democratically evolving demos) and will leave everyone with a very sad and sour taste indeed. It's time to pull pack. To have a bit more respect for those you disagree with. Your moral authority is based not on your winning every argument, but on your allowing respectful argument to flourish. You are the freely acknowledged leader of this community now. Don't throw that hard earned respect away.
I'm going to leave this conversation now because I have said my piece and don't want to exacerbate tensions even more. Perhaps a cooling off period will do us all some good. ET is the best blog I've found anywhere. I don't want to lose it either. Losing an argument is nothing compared to losing a friendship or a community. notes from no w here
Solveig:
You seem to have a gift for misrepresenting what I say. Jerome a Paris:when you bring up stuff which is obviously false, or that basic research, as demonstrated by Mig, can easily prove to be wrong, especially when you hide behind "but she's someone I like" as a defense. If you read the thread, Mig has not proved anything that was not already in the article I unfortunately did not translate - it states that the final decision has not yet been made - and that is the conclusion Mig came to, as well, if I read him correctly. I also linked to another article on the topic from 4 December, where it states that the minister was in Brussels to make sure Norway can keep its guarantees - in other words, she went to participate in the EU decision-making process. Why would she bother about travelling to Brussels if there was no possibility Norway could be obliged to reduce its guarantees?
Jerome a Paris:
when you bring up stuff which is obviously false, or that basic research, as demonstrated by Mig, can easily prove to be wrong, especially when you hide behind "but she's someone I like" as a defense.
If you read the thread, Mig has not proved anything that was not already in the article I unfortunately did not translate - it states that the final decision has not yet been made - and that is the conclusion Mig came to, as well, if I read him correctly.
I also linked to another article on the topic from 4 December, where it states that the minister was in Brussels to make sure Norway can keep its guarantees - in other words, she went to participate in the EU decision-making process. Why would she bother about travelling to Brussels if there was no possibility Norway could be obliged to reduce its guarantees?
The precise word used in relation to your approach to solveig in that thread is a red herring. It was not right. That was what made me angry then, and the fact that you still can't see it, I find deeply disappointing. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
And when the facts crumbled (which I see you still deny) you went for the bully theme : "pick on someone your size" - who else is on that list of yours of people too stupid to argue for themselves, so I know who not to burden with facts? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
you went for the bully theme : "pick on someone your size"
I reacted when my partner was attacked: I am sure you would do the same. I had no particular interest in the thread 'til then.
who else is on that list of yours of people too stupid to argue for themselves, so I know who not to burden with facts?
? "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
No decision has been made yet on the matter of EU/EEA bank guarantees. I can assure you it would have been in the Norwegian papers. Mig did NOT demonstrate or prove that I was wrong. He only found that the decision had not been made.
Here
...and the Norwegians, may I add - and that's without being members. Interference from the EU keeps wrecking good systems Norwegians have had for years, and the EU is therefore viewed by many as an 'empire' whose rules we are forced to follow. The present battle is about the guarantees on bank deposits. Norway is now asked (forced?)to reduce their present level (2 mill. NoK, which has been in place since the bank crises in the 90's) to the level recently set by the EU countries. No wonder the 'no' side in Norway does not even have to do anything to see their numbers grow :-)
Interference from the EU keeps wrecking good systems Norwegians have had for years, and the EU is therefore viewed by many as an 'empire' whose rules we are forced to follow.
The present battle is about the guarantees on bank deposits. Norway is now asked (forced?)to reduce their present level (2 mill. NoK, which has been in place since the bank crises in the 90's) to the level recently set by the EU countries.
No wonder the 'no' side in Norway does not even have to do anything to see their numbers grow :-)
Reading this, I - would assume, that a decision has already been made, that the EU wants Norway to reduce its guarantee [And that is exactly what Mig digged up was false]
- get very angry, as Norway gets huge economic advantages from free trade [the 'default' of course is closed boarders] with the EU while the EU gets relatively little from that, they are still complaining, when the wants (or even doesn't want) some regulation to have the common market working [Of course not your fault if you don't understand this, but may contribute to an aggressive response, if the exploiters claim to be victims] Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Are you trying to say it wasn't real to you, then? Does it not matter to you that you then accepted it? Or did you "accept" it? In any case, it obviously helped you think of yourselves as the victims in that conversation, oppressed by the nasty overlords of this realm.
Maybe it's good that this is blowing up. Maybe all the victims of the violent practices of ET can unite, take over and clean shop. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Really, Jerome, that is the language of the playground.
Of course we accepted it, solveig with tearful relief, because she was genuinely upset at the conflict, and we didn't think anything more of it. I don't think any neutral observer would say you were not aggressive on that occasion, whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
A big rule in life is: one always finds a bigger asshole than oneself... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
As for the Pirsig quote, the fact it contained the word "fanatically" clearly meant something to you, but certainly not to me. That's unfortunate. For my own part, I had put the Open Thread nonsense behind me two months ago, and little realised it still festered.
Now the point is that Jerome is also a well-meaning individual and the things that are said to him do hurt him (and this being "his" blog even things that are said between third parties leave him hurt and confused) and he does remember these things, which makes it non unexpected that he would take offence at the way you framed the Pirsig quote. After all, Jerome is the most vehement defender of the EU on this site, he even gets flak from me and DoDo for it. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
a complaint about the sayway
But you are obviously not aware of the various discussions with Chris and solveig on this, which basically amount to an ode to Norwegian rules, and a description of the EU as an evil bureaucracy trying to impose absurd rules to people that obviously know better. So they are sovereignists: again, a fully legitimate position, but not one that grants thm protection from facts when presented to them, as has been the case in the past (Mig and I have been called fanatics even as we dug up the proofs that they were writing falsehoods about the EU). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I shall say no more.
I pray for a good dose of wisdom to be sprinkled around this site.
It's as bad as Jérôme and his occasional outbursts of French nationalism.
The fact that solveig has chosen to live in Scotland for the majority of her life is inconsistent with your caricature. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Mig and I have been called fanatics even as we dug up the proofs that they were writing falsehoods about the EU
If you care to re-read it yourself, neither you nor migeru proved anything of the kind. The question about bank guarantees was undecided. Still is, for all I know. And the thread ended with you apologising for your aggression,and solveig in tears.
Solveig is a Norwegian who has lived in Scotland for many years. I think you caricature her position.
The EU a bureaucracy? Yes, of course, who could deny it? Evil? I don't recall that being said or even implied. As she points out, much of what the Norwegians already do you advocate yourself for the EU and more widely.
As for me, I certainly am no sovereigntist. The idea is laughable. I believe nation states are - shall we say - sub-optimal, and any agglomeration of nation states is sub-sub-optimal.
A post downthread sets out my position reasonably well on that. Since migeru recommended it, I guess it's not all bad. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
And the thread ended with you apologising for your aggression, and solveig in tears.
Yes, I apologized because I care about the community, and don't like to see people feeling hurt, even if I may think that hurt is unjustified, and because I thought that it was a way to come back towards civility - and it worked. If you use that as an argument that she was right, and for points scoring gainst me, you profoundly mock my intent, and make me regret doing it.
Sad. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
A post downthread sets out my position reasonably well on that. Since migeru recommended it, I guess it's not all bad.
The dominant oppositional paradigm to the EU appears to me to be a range of variants on a nationalist theme. A minority alternative dissenting view wants the EU to be More federalist or even a super-state.
Those that complain of a democratic deficit generally propose some variant on a more direct democratic structure, but never suggest why smaller states with smaller populations who would be disadvantaged by such a move would want to agree to it.
Your comment ChrisCook:
Again, unlike you - I think - I see existing institutions ... (EU Parliament, Commission, ECB) as part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Sounds to me uncomfortably reminiscent of Reagan's "Government is part of the problem not part of the solution" and until I see better alternatives actually working on the ground (and not just in theory) I prefer to stick with what we have subject to ongoing review and reform where appropriate...
I know this sounds a mite conservative, but sometimes change can be for the worse as well as better. notes from no w here
It seems like there is a tension between wanting to have the advantages of a single community (single currency, common electrical outlets, single football league) whilst retaining many of the national features (restrictions on movement of labor, "financial rescue packages" that protect local industry, national control of interest rates). I can't figure out whether this is part of a transition to a federal Europe or a sign that the E.U. project is stalled--or at least moving sort of slowly...
Thus sure - people would much prefer greater control at national level - as this is closer top where they have some influence/representation. But the reality is you won't retain much control over globalisation at that level - particularly in a small state like Ireland. notes from no w here
Bruce McF kindly corrected me in relation to the precise meaning of "Institution" in polite society :-) so I think that my problem with the EU is not so much with it as an Institution, but rather with what is has evolved into organisationally.
As an analogy to the current state of the EU I am reminded of a network of radical housing co-operatives
Radical Routes
which as it has grown has become one of the least radical organisations there is, simply because their need for consensus means that agreement on anything is incredibly difficult to achieve. Herding cats doesn't come close....
I think that in the Internet age "government" whether local, national or regional (eg EU) has no future as a stand alone "organisation" with a separate legal personality from "we the people". A corollary to this is that I think that representative democracy is past its sell-by date, too.
States and Governments of the future will, I think, be networked, participative and will evolve from the ground up. People will self organise - within consensual framework agreements - to gradually take on those functions currently carried out by "the State". They will do so, firstly because they can, and secondly because partnership structures work in terms of equitable sharing of risk and reward.
The urgent need for this evolution is in the financial sector, which is no longer fit for purpose, and which is IMHO beyond saving, even by governments.
I wrote 8 years ago
Market 3.0
about how global (market) governance and regulation may be achieved, and that remains as relevant today as it was then, IMHO. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Either you have unanimity, or you don't. There's no way around it. Either people can have veto right and effectively block things, or they don't, in which it's not consensual. But if it's consensual, it's highly likely to be paralysed. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The advantage of representative government in the age of light-speed communication is not - if it ever was - about bridging communication time lags. The main advantage is that it permits me, the citizen (plural: we, the people) to delegate the issues that I neither know nor care enough about to research myself, to people whose judgement I trust on the issues that I do know and care about.
I don't know whether building a wind farm on Farmer Joe's field will hurt the local population of crittercrawlers. And while I do care, at least in the abstract, about the fate of the crittercrawlers, I have neither the time, the skill or the inclination to research the subject exhaustively.
So I delegate judgement to the people I trust to make the right decisions on the subject of habitat protection for crittercrawlers, because I know that they have in the past made the right calls on subjects I do know and care about. Like going to war (or not, as the case may be), pro-cyclical vs. counter-cyclical economic policies or how to manage universities.
In other words, it's division of labour, the advantage of which does not disappear simply because light-speed communication is possible (without which, in fact, light-speed communication would not be possible...).
The EU was built on competence. It's still run mostly that way, even if money is increasingly trying to pervert the process. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The IMF was also a reasonably competent affair for a couple of decades (certainly better than what came before, not that that says a whole heck of a lot...).
Then Milton Friedman happened.
Competent technocrats are necessary to prevent insane politicians from making insane decisions in perfectly democratic ways - the iconic example is the judge who strikes down a wildly popular law as being unconstitutional.
And elected officials (directly elected officials, pretty please) are important, in order to prevent the technocrats from going crazy. The necessity of greater public accountability in the IMF being an iconic case in point here.
Whether the Union strikes more or less the right balance is a question that I really don't want to get too deep into here and now. Partly because the Union is a big place, and you can probably find examples of both excessive technocracy and excessive populism. And partly because the current subthread does not strike me as conducive to that particular discussion.
You cannot get competence from bureaucracies unless you acknowledge that competence is possible - and indeed desirable. That's what I do. I want government to be competent. I start by making sure that the concept can exist - because it has.
30 years of Reagan, Thatcher, cronies, descendants and bastards all spewing the same lies (actually - increasingly outrageous lies, the bigger the better) have consequences. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
It cuts both ways. Sometimes the politicians have restrained neolib technocrats, and at other times entrenched technocrats have restrained neolib politicians.
In the end, the discussion of technocracy vs. elected officials is something of a sidetrack: Any sensible policy will have to be backed by both groups in order to be implemented in a concerted fashion, because both the politicians and the technocrats have the capacity to kill a policy dead if they want to.
And governments are led astray by supposedly impartial technocrats who have assimilated crazy ideas from colleagues abroad that have yet to make it into the political discourse at home.
1. view this instructional video:
Compared to the average flamefestival on DK (or anywhere else for that matter) in any I/P thread, this place is a monastery, even at its worst.
I will just say this: on every discussion site/group, there will be bloodflames at some point. Usually it's no big deal. Cost of doing business. A 'centrist' is someone who's neither on the left, nor on the left.
this place is a monastery, even at its worst.
aaah, some perspective...
the night of the long rubber knives! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
seriously, it is because we love it that we care so much. (sometimes not so skilfully) ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Not the c..... word, please.
Don't you know what happens when people do that.... "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
One area seems to be under-reported, basic human civility. In many of the dust-ups, one can see (well, i see) some posters literally screeching, "I'm right! My way or the highway!." You can almost taste the acrid smoke of overheated ego.
I have little respect for people whose self-image depends on being recognized for their intellectual prowess. While they may indeed have certain brilliance in their field, such prowess is often accompanied by lurking holes in personal development, which then get played out as sandbox behavior.
nobody here, especially in these very dark times, should act or think as if they possess some intellectual key which allows them to pass judgement on motive. After unbridled ego and hubris have driven an already corrupt financial system into the ground, with nothing to replace it on the horizon, our entire civilization, not merely ET, should be looking in the mirror at who we really are.
only the truly strong can respect an opinion they absolutely believe to be false when another wears it, and act with the inner strength of an evolved persona.
in the end it doesn't matter the structure of a system, or a blog. What matters is the level of humanity brought to the interactive table.
if the guide lacks trust in the people, then the trust of the people will be lacking the wise guide guards his words the wise guide sits serenely When the greatest session is over The people will say -
"It all happened naturally" or "It was so simple, we did it all ourselves"
--- from Tim Leary's translation of Lao Tzu, speaking about how to guide a psychedelic session, which may be at least as hard as moderating a successful, high level blog.
Verdammt Scheisse, just look at the collective talent residing here! "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
If possible it would be nice to avoid expletives, however, if the can not be avoided they should be used properly.
Crazy Horse:
Verdammt Scheisse
It's either "Verdammt, Scheisse" or if used together "Verdammte Scheisse". :-D
Nice post, CH. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
people whose self-image depends on being recognized for their intellectual prowess.
;-) Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change, the courage to change the things i can, and the wisdom to know the difference...
the comments on this diary (and the diary itself) have been some of the most profound and well-articulated i've read here since the beginning of the blog.
they remind me of lymph flowing towards a wound, responding to shock and damage with copious flow of healing power, (also reminiscent of the architecture of the internet itself, where when a glitch occurs, bits route around it and keep information flowing.)
very impressive, very educational... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Know it well... Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
beautiful, isn't it? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
You can almost taste the acrid smoke of overheated ego. I have little respect for people whose self-image depends on being recognized for their intellectual prowess. While they may indeed have certain brilliance in their field, such prowess is often accompanied by lurking holes in personal development, which then get played out as sandbox behavior. nobody here, especially in these very dark times, should act or think as if they possess some intellectual key which allows them to pass judgement on motive. After unbridled ego and hubris have driven an already corrupt financial system into the ground, with nothing to replace it on the horizon, our entire civilization, not merely ET, should be looking in the mirror at who we really are. only the truly strong can respect an opinion they absolutely believe to be false when another wears it, and act with the inner strength of an evolved persona.
You can almost taste the acrid smoke of overheated ego.
this should be part of the new user's guide...
wise words indeed, and the kind of writing that keeps me hooked. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
There are also matters where we fundamentally disagree and no amount of persuasion, no matter how factually supported and well argued will possibly convince the other person. But if we want debate and diversity of opinion then we want that, and we also are implicitly accepting that we'll occasionally get upset. That's especially true since there's a good deal of shared values here, and having someone who seems to have a similar outlook and who's opinions you respect have a sharply different view on something important is jarring; it almost feels like a betrayal. But there's nothing to be done about it, and I don't think anybody here wants to eliminate debate.
So again, let's stop this, calm down, and forget about it.
