Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The flaws of the EU's asymmetric approach to imbalances | 132 comments (132 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Self-censorship (none / 0)
Frank Schnittger:
you can challenge their thought universe by imposing/proposing your own,

That is what Mig is doing, Frank.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 11:14:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (4.00 / 2)
While I laud all the effort, I cannot avoid thinking that as soon as any success would be obtained, the effort would be trashed.

While some people might be honest intellectually, cynicism leads me to believe that as soon as this approach started to work, it would be cut down.

The genetic imprint of the current system is to support the financial classes. Deviation is only acceptable as long as it is inconsequential.

On the other hand, I can only wish good luck (and expect that I am wrong).

Bottom up approaches seem more appropriate, in my view.

But good luck. In the middle of the developing social, economic and political chaos the butterfly effect might actually make all this effort pay off. Indeed, now is the time.

by cagatacos on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 11:27:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (none / 1)
cagatacos:
Bottom up approaches seem more appropriate, in my view.

Because a blogger writing a post on an economics site is supposed to be top-down?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 11:56:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (none / 0)
His approach to change is institutional and top-down. He is trying to influence Wolfgang Munchau readers.

A bottom-up approach involves influencing the opinion and PRACTICE of a bus driver.

Contrast this with, say, the approach of the transition town movement.

I hope I have made it clear that I think it is a great piece of work. But lets not be blinded to target audience and approach.

This piece (and ET, by the way) is targeted at a certain intellectual elite. Other than trying to fake something of a more popular vein, I strongly suggest to all people that are comfortable with doing this work, that they should just embrace it. Just do not fool yourselves.

by cagatacos on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 12:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (none / 1)
I don't have a quarrel with the transition town movement. I think they are necessary. I just don't personally have the temperament for (small-'c') community life.

Economics is politics by other means
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 12:54:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (none / 0)
This whole discussion stinks of "either-or" mentality somewhat pervasive in western thought. Most of it is essentially a non-discussion about things we agree. Say

  1. There are different approaches to the current problems

  2. Some people have different inclinations

I am just stating that:

  1. This is great work, but refers to a certain kind of approach. A certain kind of speech, a certain kind of audience.

  2. It deserves being encouraged.

  3. I personally do not believe that it will bear fruit.

  4. Points 2 and 3 ARE NOT inconsistent. A single minded approach is much less resilient that a "large-span" approach.

  5. People should do what they are most comfortable with. If it is writing LTEs to the FT, so be it!

I guess my final point is: if I am correct (big if), then there are other avenues you might try without failing into despair. ;)
by cagatacos on Thu Jul 21st, 2011 at 07:25:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (none / 1)
  1. I don't think this discussion "stinks";

  2. I don't think you were misunderstood.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jul 21st, 2011 at 11:09:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (4.00 / 5)
What we're doing here at ET is no doubt at some remove from attempting to influence the working class. But what does deeply influence the working class, other than the mass media we criticize and would hope to (eventually) have some influence on? Or the consumer society we also criticize?

I willingly hit the street in support of strikes, union action, social movements. I've just returned from an hour working for the locavore food association I help to run. But I'm aware of the limits of that type of action too. Addressing the intellectuals and communicators in society seems to me to be another type of action that can bring results, and I don't think it's any less worthy.

Neither do I think it's "elitist" or top-down, coming from a Web-based discussion community.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 01:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (4.00 / 2)
Perhaps, but it was Mig who renamed this thread Self-Censorship implying that he didn't really say what he wanted to say. Sometimes you have to prepare the ground and establish a reputation within existing paradigms, as you seem to suggest.  however if it is revolutionary to point our that surplus generating countries can only continue to generate surpluses if other countries generate larger and larger deficits and that at some point this system has to become unstable - then the present economic consensus has reached a height of stupidity difficult to fathom - if I may completely mix my metaphors.

Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pointed out that scientific or knowledge progress is rarely a smooth progression, is often characterised by abrupt discontinuities, and is generally led by outsiders to the existing thought establishment. Einstein notoriously ghardly pssed his school exam never mind worked his way of the academic hierarchy. I suggest the time is right for a completely new approach to economics, one based on entirely different assumptions, and one leading to better real world outcomes.  The contradictions of Austrian economics are just too glaring for that paradigm to survive.  We need a new real world approach to economics - one starting with assumptions about human rights rather than human "rationality" or greed, and one rooted in the ecosystem of the world we actually inhabit.

I suggest there are some on ET with the intellectual capabilities to help lead such a revolution.  Am I being too optimistic?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 11:34:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (4.00 / 3)
if it is revolutionary to point our that surplus generating countries can only continue to generate surpluses if other countries generate larger and larger deficits and that at some point this system has to become unstable - then the present economic consensus has reached a height of stupidity difficult to fathom - if I may completely mix my metaphors
A. You're right: If B then C

B. It is indeed outside the mainstream to point that out

Therefore C. the present economic consensus has reached unfathomable heights of stupidity

Economics is politics by other means

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 11:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (4.00 / 4)
We must keep in mind that the purpose of "the present economic consensus" is to preserve and further the present wealth distribution, not to provide a nuanced understanding that would allow clear evaluation of trade-offs and alternative approaches or allow deep and fruitful insights into the meaning and consequences of that distribution, let alone undermine it. The present economic consensus is the consensus of those who have the vast majority of wealth and those who work for them. The holders of wealth probably are concerned that even this lame "present system" reveals too much and as to any concerns that its weaknesses lead to bad results and make everyday economic functioning hard to deal with, well, that is why they pay their retainers as well as they do.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 04:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
preserve and further the present wealth distrib. . (none / 0)
 RE:  "preserve and further the present wealth distribution"

  this is, for them,  99% of the ballgame.  

We should keep it in mind, but too often we forget to.  The "system", rather than being "broken", from the point of view of those who reap the greatest benefits, is doing what it's supposed to do.

   Asset-bubbles may be unavoidable no matter what form or counter-measures a capitalist system may devise and put in place.

  Migeru's piece points out things which are both essential in importance and also too rarely discussed in the mass public news media; so he deserves much credit for that.

   At the same time, asset-bubbles are great for those who have the resources to take advantage of them and then drop out at the most opportune moment.  Rather than give that up without a fight, I suspect that these same would put up fierce resistance to so reasonable and public-spirited a plan since it would undermine one of their most lucrative opportunities.

   Still, the understanding, which should be beyond doubt or question in its validity, that, within the E.U., surpluses for Germany, for example, imply corresponding deficits somewhere else--that insight is absolutely of key importance and for the supposedly "top people" (PiP) to miss it or refuse it is nothing short of scandalous.

 

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Thu Jul 21st, 2011 at 08:15:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: preserve the present wealth distrib. . (none / 1)
asset-bubbles are great for those who have the resources to take advantage of them and then drop out at the most opportune moment.

Asset bubbles are just a usually longer term variation of the old stock market "pump and dump". They are fueled by rentier profits and massively unequal income distribution. In the USA, since the 70s, serial bubbles have largely replaced, in fact, the old investment driven business cycle, even if this awkward fact is not acknowledged by "mainstream economics".

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jul 21st, 2011 at 08:51:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (none / 1)
Einstein notoriously ghardly pssed his school exam never mind worked his way of the academic hierarchy.

Meh, Einstein was among his time's leading experts in electromagnetic theory. He just didn't secure an academic career but he retained his academic contacts and could publish.

Economics is politics by other means

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 11:40:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (none / 1)
He could publish at a very young age and before he had established a reputation because his theories explained observable phenomena in a way existing dominant theories could not. Much of his work was initially ridiculed outside a relatively small more receptive and enlightened circle

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 11:56:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (4.00 / 2)
His problems were not related to being able to publish, but to being able to get a teaching position. Apparently he got his PhD in 1905, just before writing his ground-breaking papers and shortly after publishing his first paper. Before gettin ghis PhD he had spent time quallyfying himself as a teacher and got a job at the patent office to support himself. That doesn't sound like an outsider trajectory to me, nor was his work unconventional. The Papers by Planck on the photoelectric effect and by Lorentz on the Lorentz transformations were well known, mainstream results that Einstein built on.

Later, when he was formulating General Relativity he was competing with none other than David Hilbert to formulate a geometric theory of gravity. Again, not an unconventional pursuit.

Economics is politics by other means

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 12:12:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (none / 1)
And I have no doubt that your points of departure would include Keynes and any number of well established thinkers (I hesitate to use the term economist as it is the construction of the "economy" that I am challenging).

Einstein wrote his first paper on magnetic fields aged 16 and had his first paper on Capillary forces published at age 22 around the same time as he got the patent job (through a friend) four years before he go his doctorate.

However let's not get sidetracked by Einstein.  What are you and Jake gonna do? :-)

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 12:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (none / 0)
 Denis Brian's biography of Einstein ( http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-9780471193623-4 ) goes into detail about Einstein's troubles in getting a teaching post--or any other sort of career advancement, post-university.  Essentially, they boiled down to something that is classic about the interactions of many people who are inflicted with what's called "genius" in their intelligence.  Einstein had little patience for those in places of influence who--had he ingratiated himself to them and their egos, which he decidedly did not do--could have and usually in such circumstances would have helped his career along to its next phases.

  But he didn't demonstrate that patience.  He displayed the same blunt and unwelcome frankness common to geniuses' personalities toward these influential people and, stung, they simply shut his advancement off; only much later and with the help of others who were for exrtraneous reasons much more patient and sympathetic, did E. find the support needed to break the effective boycott in academia.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Thu Jul 21st, 2011 at 10:20:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (4.00 / 3)
He could publish at a very young age and before he had established a reputation because his theories explained observable phenomena in a way existing dominant theories could not.

And because physicists, whatever their other flaws, are working to improve their understanding of the observable universe.

Serious economists are not. They are playing power games, and that means that you need to do a whole lot more ass-kissing before your can start disseminating genuinely novel ideas.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 12:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (4.00 / 2)
Frank Schnittger:
the present economic consensus has reached a height of stupidity

That's it. And that height of stupidity is presented as there-is-no-alternative TINA. Mig's article says there-are-real-alternatives TARA. In present circumstances, that is fairly revolutionary.

Frank Schnittger:

We need a new real world approach to economics - one starting with assumptions about human rights rather than human "rationality" or greed, and one rooted in the ecosystem of the world we actually inhabit.

Certainly we do. I'd have thought these had been preoccupations of most discourse on ET since it began. But communicating through different channels in a way that's appropriate to them isn't a form of denial of that, it's taking an opportunity to challenge conventional wisdom and move ideas forward. Or must we write a Manifesto and only communicate that?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 11:54:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (4.00 / 3)
afew:
Or must we write a Manifesto and only communicate that?

er, yes actually!

both/and... one prong with graphs for the economic wonks (heavily ref'd with nuggets of veblen, george, et al and one for the innumerate proles, preferably with cartoons to help explain.

the ignorance prevails because the Lie is unthinkably Big. while this essay lassoos the intellectual contingent, the manifesto must break down the wall between the perps and the rest of us doofuses, so we-of-little-brains may become privy to the arcane voodoo secrets that end up in poverty and war for the huddled masses outside the selected circles.

well done migeru! great synthesis.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 05:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Self-censorship (none / 1)
Frank Schnittger:
surplus generating countries can only continue to generate surpluses if other countries generate larger and larger deficits and that at some point this system has to become unstable -

i think it's hard head rational to some bundesbankers to ditch the euro now, and go it alone.

they've tapped out the peripherals' markets, the PIIGS can't afford the silverware, let alone the meal, besides it's probably indigestible.

the china market is booming, and if the BRIC gaggle keep growing apace, the common currency is a drag to the financiers, those sleek, affectless robots could give a FF about the fate of the euro social engineering project, or the euro currency even. think of all the money to be scammed off changing back 5 countries' currencies! people made out like bandits in the confusion between stools, and guarans they'd do it again in reverse, hey even repeat the sentiment-charged scam again in 20-30 years.

the more shocks, the more doctrine... all europeans except the germans are to be discarded while the ubermenschen take their prideful place as the hardest, most rigorously blinkered of profit machines, assuring a permanent risk-free ride for banksters and austerity for those too ignorant to become Fine Young Cannibals too. austerity is a orwellian newspeak for penury, they can't give us the message without semantic sugar on it.

buckminster fuller had it right, the idea that governments are the dog, and pirates the tail have it exactly backwards, true since civilisation began, possibly.

the edges are where the action is, and prates know the shoals and can play the edges in ways no-one else can.


'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Jul 20th, 2011 at 04:33:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The flaws of the EU's asymmetric approach to imbalances | 132 comments (132 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: