The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
If anything, the 50=60%% centre/establishment vote is in danger of imploding under the pressure of economic collapse.
So I think the Goldfarb thesis is ivory tower navel gazing at its worst. He needs to get out more.
The right has gotten a lot smarter, and realises it cannot attack its own base - often retired people - by threatening social expenditures. However the trend is still towards globalisation, market liberalisation, privatisation, and gross global non-renewable resource profligacy.
So some of the social democrat "installed base" of social reforms are very difficult to attack directly and ideologically. But even those social democrat "solutions" to inequality and injustice are inadequate in a world of peak oil, food insecurity, and climate change. So if anything we are seeing an increasing bifurcation because centrist social democrats have lost their way. Euroscepticism, and nationalism are on the rise and have moved from being fringe to mainstream in many instances.
I haven't bothered reading his story, but it seems Goldfarb doesn't see the storms ahead. notes from no w here
Cheers, harnoes Make it as simple as possible but not simpler (Albert Einstein)
That is not the only alternative - one could also attempt to have judicious state intervention in the economy. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
attempt to have judicious state intervention in the economy
Opposed to the just shovel money into our campaign donor's money pit approach we currently have, at least in the U.S.?
There seems to have been a lot of "state intervention in the economy" in the past 12-18 months. I think this intervention largely has not been for the overall good, just for the good of the world's wealthiest people and corporations at the expense of everyone else.
The question is not "whether planning?" - it is "planning to what end?"
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
This includes non-intervention. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
On this blog Jerome a Paris and others have written eloquently on the effect that the regulatory environment has on the development of energy and transport infrastructures, and in particular how a deregulated market in which sovereign debt is not allowed to be used for funding infrastructure development is incompatible with the stated policy goals in the area of energy and transport. Specifically, short-term profit pressures and private funding incentivate fuel-burning power plants over renewable energy installations.
So, conscious state non-intervention in the economy is a deletereous policy choice. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
But the alternative of having a state-planned economy isn't an attractive solution either.
Modern "market" economies are already extensively planned by the private governments of large corporations. The state does not introduce planning into an unplanned economy - it redirects the planning towards ends that serve a different (and hopefully more democratically accountable) constituency than the existing corporate governments.
Today, they position themselves clearly to the left, even if part of their appeal is Cohn-Bendit's personality, and his liberal-libertarian leanings. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Why do so many Germans spend their holidays - and Brits their old age - in France? Is it just the weather, or is it all the state-planned infrastructure, social safety nets, distributed activity, etc..?
There is a reason France has been so persistently demonised in the business press, and pushed to "reform": its largely State-coordinated system DOES provide an attractive alternative. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
There is a reason France has been so persistently demonised in the business press, and pushed to "reform": its largely State-coordinated system DOES provide an attractive alternative.
Yes. Following this line of thought, I've been trying to put together a clear picture of this state coordinated system, and more importantly the genesis of that system for a long time- a picture that could be rationally and persuasively flogged to my American friends and, more widely, in a book that's partially written now. Unfortunately it's taken a back seat to another, more immediate project, but I'll get back to it. The question I've asked (and never gotten a thorough answer to) is this: How did the idea that health care is a human right become a dominant element in the social narrative here? Melanchthon has helped, but I need a broader sample of opinion.
As well, there's ample evidence that well-run state-directed economies or businesses can perform very well, thank you, and indeed have some advantages. Yet the mantra of the evils of state planning permeate much of our discussion here. Too weird. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
its largely State-coordinated system DOES provide an attractive alternative.
It does, but it begs the questions of what is the State, and where does State coordination end and State ownership begin?
In other words, the legal and financial framework I bang on about and the necessity for an enterprise model to replace monolithic opaque (state secret) hierarchical States and monolithic opaque (commercial in confidence) hierarchical Corporations.
IMHO we need flat, flexible, transparent, collaborative networked mechanisms fit for the 21st century knowledge economy. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
The right has gotten a lot smarter, and realises it cannot attack its own base - often retired people - by threatening social expenditures.
It's odd how this has never been true in the US. The radical kooky right has won precisely because it attacked its own base - and the base supported the attacks with a hearty cheer, while sawing its own branch off the tree while sitting on it.
I'm not sure how many people, even in Europe, are able to understand the reality of the link between higher taxation, higher prosperity for the majority, social investment, social support, and public spending.
Instead everything has been boiled down to 'taxes, bad - no taxes, good', with a side order of 'More Jobs™" when public support for an issue is looking a little ragged.
It's poodle politics - mammals trained to salivate on cue when a bell rings.
It's interesting as applied psychology, but depressing as practical policy.
That provides much easier frame for attacking the social safety net, and so to a certain extent the American "Conservative Movement" has never needed to learn those lessons. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
It's interesting as applied psychology
admirable detachment...
practical policy? most impractical for future generations, more bad social engineering for squalid short termism 101.
depressing yes. it appears that the leverage the 1% have over the rest of us is purely in our own minds, yet we grant it obediently, content if we can survive with some semblance of soul intact, grateful for crumbs of joy if we're lucky. our leaders are weak, the people are stronger, we just haven't quite grocked it yet, how afraid they should be if we unite in displeasure.
france is the only country in europe where protest is not (perceived as) 'alternative' or 'fringe', (easily dissmissable) and it's serious protest at that, the effective kind.
governments back down in front of that kind of resolution. yet the french do it without target leaders, communally enough to avoid the trap of having conspicuous spokesmen (or idealogies) on whom the strikers build too strong a dependence, and without whom there is insufficient will to stand strong against exploitation.
today 150,000 protestors showed up in rome to try and affect the media climate here, even d'alema said good things about too much media power and pressure on a free press in the hands of one man being seen as essentially undemocratic by the majority of citizens.
one wonders if it will have any effect.
people seem more interested in rome and venice vying for the olympics in 2020... 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by rifek - Apr 7 1 comment
by gmoke - Apr 3
by rifek - Apr 1
by rifek - Mar 30 1 comment
by gmoke - Mar 29
by gmoke - Mar 22 1 comment
by Oui - Apr 12
by Oui - Apr 716 comments
by rifek - Apr 71 comment
by Oui - Apr 6
by Oui - Mar 313 comments
by Oui - Mar 3110 comments
by rifek - Mar 301 comment
by gmoke - Mar 221 comment
by Oui - Feb 2810 comments