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."
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
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.
