NPthinking

Have modern Europeans forgotten the lessons from WWI and WWII?

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:37:00 +0000

In the 20th the "precious asset" was know-how (the "how to do"), In the 21st it is philosophy (the "why do", watch my vlog (on YouTube): "A key difference between the 20th and 21st centuries: From "How?" to "Why"", 1 min 46 seconds)

In the first 11 yrs of the century, all the conventional wisdoms, golden, common senses, and most theories of the 20th have expired.

The crises are a result of the business as usual, politics as usual, economic policy as usual bc the "usual" has become outdated-irrelevant.

Eg Merkozy's neo-conservative "new ideas" is not an answer to the challenges of the era. In spite of their spreading around the EU in 2011

Portugal, Spain, Ireland have caught the neocon virus in 2011. Italy & Greece are trying a strange recipe. UK had already fallen in 2010.

The "Middle Earth" is France and the key "battle" will be on May 6.

By being so blatant, Agorocracy is actually helping the political world & people wake up and stand up to it. They have not, yet.

The neocon approach of Merkozy et al to the crisis suffers from a kind of "Stockholm syndrome" vis-a-vis Financial Agorocracy.

The worship of the Financial Markets is not consistent with secularism.

The EU is not the problem. Germany is not the problem., The neo-conservatives in Germany, France, NL, all over the EZ and EU are the problem.

Europe needs to rediscover its core values, ie the Ancient Greek and Renaissance ones. And build its new ideas & policies on those roots.

For the US, the challenge is even more challenging.

The lessons from WWI and WWII were not that economic crises can be avoided, It was that they are no excuse for racism, xenophobia, nationalism, scapegoating. With that in mind, 2011 showed that Europeans have forgotten the lessons from the world wars of the 20th.

Values, culture and traditions are real if they can evolve, be inclusive and blend with others (see eg the so called Hellenistic Times, see my post "Globalisation, today and in 300 BC")

Values, culture and traditions that cannot do that and instead use dominance to try to become adopted by others, are pseudo ones, not real.

The EU as a system and can one policy fit all?

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:15:00 +0000

Has EU regional policy helped make Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Greece, South Italy more competitive inside the EU Single Market?

But then how can most be competitive in the Single Market with a Euro worth 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 USD? ECB policy undermined EU Regional Policy!

Time for EU policy makers to view the EU27 as a single "system" but with unique components.

EU policies can fit all, especially when coordinated and their combined effect considered or planned. After all, the College of Commissioners approved policy proposals of the Commission to the Council of the EU and the European Parliament as a body, ie the College can make sure that the range of policies are compatible and having a combined effect.

Looking for a new version of Capitalism in the Alps!

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:21:00 +0000

IMO capitalism is the system where money capital plays the central role, borne out of the capital intensive industry

Now that the majority of economic activity in most of the West is Services related, a new system is needed, one with money capital in a merely secondary role. Will it still deserve the term "capitalism"?
.

The faults of capitalism lie in faults in Western thinking

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:24:00 +0000

1) "Davos elites to seek reforms of 'outdated' capitalism" is the title of a report (via AFP) in France24.com. "Capitalism in its current form, has no place in the world around us" says the founder and host of the Davos World Economic Forum.

2) Also in the news: "Europe plans new, ‘objective’ credit ratings agency" reports firstpost.com

Here are my comments:

Capitalism, a product of a specific school of thought in The West (see Max Weber's work), has failed to blend with the world in all its forms so far.

In short Capitalism has been proved incompatible with many cultures not only in the world but in Europe as well (see eg "Dolce far riente").

Both Capitalism and Communism, being Western products, were based on faulty foundations of Western thinking such as a quest for certainty and objectivity hence a need to measure and predict that leads to faulty decision making.

In the credit ratings issue, again, "Europe" takes a wrong approach to solving a problem. Each investor should do his/her "own" credit rating, there's no objectivity in credit rating by its very nature.

To be continued ...

Where is Doha these days? Not the city, the round!

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:31:00 +0000

Has anyone heard anything recently of the WTO Doha Round? Has it been lost somewhere in the ocean (Pacific or Atlantic)?

Many many months ago, it was announced that the 10 year old round of WTO talks looked most unlikely to conclude and that a "Doha Lite" agreement was going to be sought. I have not heard any news since. Have you?

Free what? The myth of (WTO) "free trade"

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:27:00 +0000

WTO trade is free-er world trade compare to some decades ago. Not free. Tariffs are allowed especially by developing countries and the BRICs plus most countries of the WTO have hidden/tricky barriers to trade (imports). Especially the pro free trade rhetoric G20!

Lobbying or Public Affairs? Putting the Public back in Public Affairs.

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:39:00 +0000

Intro: This is a compilation of some thoughts I tweeted today on the role of public affairs in corporate strategy planning, of the merger of public affairs and communications, the effect of mass media and social media on public affairs and public policy making, the return of the "Agora" of Ancient Athens, etc.

Food for thought or more?

1) Does your company incorporate Public Affairs in its Strategic Planning function? IMO, it should.
Public Affairs is not about "lobbying". "Lobbying" is IMO the least important part, if a part at all, of a Public Affairs function in this era.

IMO/IME corporate Public Affairs has a new core value: Awareness of upcoming policy & evaluation of its effects on company's strategic planning

2) Public Affairs meets Communications: IMO it's better to influence public opinion on policy issues than directly the policy makers. That means that the Public Affairs and the Communications functions must work together within a company or other organisation.

3) Public Affairs for All: Every person and organisation has the right to communicate its views on public affairs-policy issues but it must be done in public not private

I know. It does represent a tad of a radical new approach to Public Affairs! But times are evolving and what doesn't evolve perishes like eg the dinosaurs.

The proliferation of media (traditional & online) as well as social media, brings back the Public in Public Affairs.

4) The sum of all those media constitute a new "Agora", Ancient Athens type, where opinions must be expressed and debated on civic/policy issues

Plus texts of all proposed policy/legislative initiatives are accessible via the www hence it's a whole different ballgame. Back to basics, actually!

That potentially makes "lobbying" obsolete and re-focuses on the "Agora" and the Public aspect of Public Affairs.

5) It can even be argued that corporations have an obligation to their shareholders (and maybe to their stakeholders too) to have & publicly express/debate opinions on public policy issues that affect them (corporate citizenship etc).

It's a Citizens' (Civil) Society, right?

6) Voters have the right to know what opinions "their" MP & MEP expressed, debated and voted for/against on each public policy issue. Some already demand so, rightly.

The citizens of the 27 of the EU eg have a right to know what opinions their government reps expressed, debated and voted in the EUCO (European Council), the Council of the EU, the 2 Corepers, the working groups, etc.

These are aspects of the new emerging reality in both public affairs and public policy making. Adapt or perish?

7) Another dimension to this: Financial analysis too must incorporate the effects of new public policy on the future performance of companies, sectors & economies

Thus:

What do lobbies, corridors and the like have to do with these emerging new systemics? Nothing, IMO.

Nick Panayotopoulos, January 20, 2012.
Bio: http://npanayotopoulos.blogspot.com

How balanced is globalisation in 2012?

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:12:00 +0000

World wide web, global social media, global finance, global warming, world trade.

Where is the world/global parliament?

What the SMEs need should be key factor in what the EU needs!

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:37:00 +0000

Among the main results of a study on the essential contribution of SMEs on job creation presented by the European Commission is that "85% of net new jobs1 in the EU between 2002 and 2010 were created by small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). This figure is considerably higher than the 67%-share of SMEs in total employment"

One can only imagine how many new jobs EU SMEs would create if not suffocated by national and EU polynomy (overlegislation) and red tape!

Not to mention the Eurozone!

SOPA, PIPA and more or less globalisation?

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:10:00 +0000

In the world of the near future, the idea you express, the song you sing, the story you tell, etc has to be your own or you pay to use it. Why? Read below!

Here is a selection of the thoughts I expressed on the subject during many Twitter debates and discussions brought about by SOPA and PIPA.

Intellectual Property and Copyright are the "global finance" of the not so distant future. The new capitalism. They are replacing land and money as "capital".

The internet and social media of global appeal, as well as the issues raised by SOPA and PIPA, are reinforcing the rationale for a "world government" with a world legislative body (parliament).

Other than the ole taxation w/o representation, globalisation (& things like SOPA) raise the issue of legislation w/o (world) representation. In a globalised world, laws of all kinds need to have global application but only if voted by a global parliament (global = UN or WTO). In a globalised world some countries (USA, Germany etc) cannot expect to decide the laws or rules & then others to accept them.

The issue of IP will keep emerging in the agendas of the West as the US & Europe economy produce little but Services and intellectual products.

Eg the US unilaterally passed DMCA a few years ago and now is trying to expand its application via ACTA after failure via WTO

Those countries who do not want to share their sovereignty via a world government and parliament, will be outside the global system of trade, media, www, etc much like "gated communities" because, simply, no country can have its "independence" cake and eat it too, be it UK, HUN or any! Opt-outs will be total not a la carte. Thus it is not loss of sovereignty but sharing of it. Those who don't wish to share can optout of the "globe" (or for now, EU)

All I'm saying is that there must be (systemic, rational, political etc) consistency: Either a) real global or b) real national. Hybrids fail

And how are national interests or POVs represented in such a world parliament and law making? Well, by analogy, in a national parliament one expects his local MPs to ally with other to represent the POVs of the area in the grand scheme! So, by the same method they are by/in national parliaments eg in Germany, in the US, UK, France, etc! As per religious/cultural/custom differences, the same. law enforcement inside systems for religious/cultural/custom differences, applies to many countries today. They solve it. The world can, too.

Otherwise, we may as well start thinking of going all the way back to city-states of past milleniums to preserve sovereignty in its purest (?) sense? Yet single state homogeneity is a myth! Even single city homogeneity is a myth, was and is.

So what we cannot have is "global systems" of any kind that are based on the legislation of one country (eg USA). The other option is to stop everything global or international (including www, world trade and global finance) and revert to gated countries

What is a world government and parliament politically viable?
Need I remind you that if the city-states of Ancient Greece had united into a federal state, History would be quite different?
So what is politically sustainable and what is not evolves. SOPA/PIPA is a rude awakening for much of the world!

After all, EU, UNASUR, ASEAN, etc are a step towards eventual global union. Or return to city-states!

My last word on this: USA must realise that it cannot legislate for the whole world (or www). It's the US of America not US of World. So, as I wrote to an American lawmaker, a balance between protecting intellectual property & internet freedom is a matter for a world parliament to decide, not the US or EU bc the 1st W in www stands for world not US.

See also my post: >Globalisation, today and in 300 BC

If .... then .... else! Ancient Greece, USA, Europe

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:53:00 +0000

If the city-states of Ancient Greece had united into one entity, the History of the world 450 BC - present would be different

If the states of America were not united & thus had not joined WWI and WWII, the history of the world 1914-present would have been different.

If the countries of Europe do not unite properly, the history of the world 2012- ..... will be different than if they do.

PS: Food for thought:

At different times, Athens, Sparta, Thebes & Macedonia failed to create a United States of Greece. They abused their power over the others. These days, the "Sparta" & "Athens" of Europe, Germany & France, are trying something, together! But are their leaders doing it properly or alienating the other member states (by analogy to the Ancient Greek city-states).

Is Greece the "Delphi" of modern Europe? Is France the "Athens"? Is Germany the "Sparta"? What is the UK? Spain? Finland?

2012: A reminder to European leaders and policy makers (countries and EU)

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:13:00 +0000

What European companies need is a single market, single currency & a single political entity in Europe, especially the SMEs (the real economy).

What is behind the Hollywood sign and the Merkozy plan?

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:17:00 +0000

20 months ago Angela Merkel visited Hollywood and the area behind the famous Hollywood sign.

Read the reportage by Der Spiegel (in English, 15/4/10), especially the exchange between her and Simon Baker, the Aussie star of the US TV series The Mentalist, and also consider the Merkozy plan 20 months later.

Do you see any correlation, positive or negative correlation, between what Merkel realised behind the Hollywoos sign that day and the Merkozy plan?

What did Alexander the Great and Diogenis of Sinope have in common?

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:35:00 +0000

Philosophise on this (re ways of life, life missions, quests, etc):

Why did Alexander the Great, when he met Diogenis of Sinope (see Wikipedia), say that if he wasn't Alexander he would wish to be Diogenis of Sinope?

In other words, what did Alexander the Great and Diogenis (or their missions in life or quests) have in common? Or what is not a common element but an alter element?

In any case, why did he say it?

The right places for uniformity and diversity: The EU case

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:20:00 +0000

For a system like eg the EU to function it needs uniform laws, diversity in rules, uniform language, pluralism in ideas. Not the reverse!

For now, the EU27 has non-uniformity in laws, uniformity in rules (eg Merkozy), linguistic Babel and non-pluralism in ideas! How can it function as a system?

Dynamics: Nothing to fear

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:12:00 +0000

A friend sent me a "Merry Crisis and a Happy New Fear!" season's greeting!

The more we believe that a crisis exists the bigger the crisis becomes. That's the nature of social systemics & economics and finance are social sciences!

We do indeed have nothing to fear but fear itself in these crisis dynamics and aura. They are counting on our fear, they are promoting it, they are amplifying it, to benefit their goals.

European Single Market needs federal income tax

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:27:00 +0000

EU policy makers please remember: Creating a single space for firms, workers, free lancers, job seekers, et al to live & work is No1 goal

An EU or Europlus federal income tax to replace national ones is one of the ways towards a real Internal Market for people & firms.

Can Europlus become Germany times 5 in the global economic arena?

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:21:00 +0000

On the post Dec 8 Europlius:

1) A much more spendthrift Europlus would mean less consumer spending too, ie a much stronger exports orientation for the Europlus

2) In other words, turning the Europlus into a lean and mean global exports "machine".

3) That could mean a much more aggressive trade policy for the Europlus with its trade partners (USA China, other BRICs etc).

4) Including less tolerance for hidden and other protectionist barriers by others esp in the G20.

5) So the US admin which already "accuses" Germany of exporting too much & consuming (& thus importing) too little, is probably having a fit!

The Achilles Heel of Western Civilisation?

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 01:09:00 +0000

The Ancient Chinese used the motto "may you live in interesting times" as a curse (not a wish).

Modern "Western civlisation" puts and pays a premium for certainty, especially the middle class.

It's its "Achilles Heel".

Capitalism is in trouble because ...

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 01:07:00 +0000

Capitalism is in trouble because it relies on 2 unnatural (thus inherently flawed) premises: a) Trust b) certainty or the quantification of risk

Euro reminders and solutions

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:25:00 +0000

Reminder: The Euro was created to promote intra-EU (intra EU Single Market) commerce & activity in general, not to become a tool for power games.

Reminder (2): The Euro was not created to make Euro members' exports and services like tourism less competitive & Japanese, US, Chinese etc imports more competitive.

Yet the obsessive pursuit by the ECB of the 2% inflation target led to high central interest rates that led a Euro that spent much of the decade at exchange rates that suffocated most if not all of the Eurozone economies.

So some members did benefit from lower rates in their sovereign bonds etc but the effect of the expensive Euro on Eurozone firms, exporters and services such as tourism was a heavy price to pay.

So are "internal devaluations" or even exit the solution?

IMO, No!

The solutions package should include:

a) Immediate: Banning of CDSs (Credit Default Swaps) on sovereigns and of any other speculative tools on sovereign debt (bonds etc). Requires political will by the EU 27 as well as the G20, or the kind of will that is also required for dealing with the issue of tax heavens in Europe and globally.

b) Immediate: An ECB inflation policy that takes into account the effects of the central ECB rate to the Euro exchange rate vis-a-vis the USD, the Yuan, the Yen and other currencies of the EU's main trade competitors.

Inflation curbing in the Eurozone and the EU can be achieved via more dynamic implementation of EU competition law and a much more effective approach towards a real EU Single Market (too many barriers still exist).

c) ASAP: A move to not just fiscal but full political union, that will include inter alia single laws in most if not all areas of policy, to facilitate the micros and SMEs as well as the average citizen.

I am not impressed by alleged 2 speed Euro "theories"

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:23:00 +0000

The alleged Merkel-Sarkozy plans for 2-speed Europe or Euro do not impress me.

Why?

They cannot change the EMU part of the existing EU Treaty (via a so called IGC - Inter-Governmental Conference) w/o giving in to Cameron's demands for "repatriation" of certain competencies from EU back to national (or just UK) level!

1) If they offer Cameron what he wants, then other EU members, eg one of the other 9 outside the Euro, but not anti-EU, may raise a veto, ie veto the whole IGC agenda.

2) If they plan a Treaty that works outside the EU Treaties (in a format similar to the original Schengen way/model), then the contents of such Core EU/Euro Treaty can it seems to me can only add, not amend, articles of the existing EU Treaty.

Hence there is a Catch22 of sorts.

So what on Earth are (allegedly) Merkel and Sarkozy talking about?

In an IGC, be it EU or Euro one (see above), all will have to agree, not only Merkozy & "German thinking" others!

Bottom line: Euro membership was/is irreversible, those who do not get that are the ones in denial of legal, technical and other factors!

In speech in Strasbourg, Sarkozy called such plans a mere "intellectual exercise". IMHO they are not a trick. They are just that. Nothing feasible about them.

Zeus, Ulysses, Pericles, Merkel and central bankers

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 21:58:00 +0000

Read below my comments on "Modern Greece’s real problem? Ancient Greece" by George Zarkadakis in The Washington Post.

I disagree with most of the points of the article/opinion by Mr. Zarkadakis.

IMO the paradox is that Zeus and other Greek gods and goddesses, legends such as Ulysses and Achilles, real life ancient Athenians and mostly politicians even of the Pericles era would probably be considered more "unruly" and "less EUropean and EUROpean material/stuff" than modern Greece/Greeks, in the eyes of "purists" (to say the least) such as A. Merkel, central bankers, conservative US and European media, etc etc etc and of course "some" modern Greeks.

Eurozone moving forward outside the EU Treaty framework? What's new about that possibility?

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 17:06:00 +0000

In the Wintour and Watt blog today, Saturday 5 November 2011, in The Guardian, titled: "Britain turns on 'disreputable' Germany as relations sour over eurozone crisis", I read:

"David Rennie, who writes the Bagehot column in the Economist, has one of the most important scoops of the eurozone crisis this week. Rennie, who has just returned from Berlin, reports that German officials are so angry with Downing Street that they are threatening to draw up a treaty just among the 17 members of the eurozone. This is what Rennie wrote: ..."

What scoop? It seems that since May 9 Spiegel International had "scooped" the scoop, as I posted in early September: "it seems, according at least to my reading of the 09/05/2011 "Divide and Rescue: Berlin Lays Groundwork for a Two-Speed Europe" report in Spiegel Online International that the Treaty that will move the Eurozone towards political union (uniform labour laws, budgetary "unification" (to what extent we shall see), etc etc) will not be an EU one, but, like Schengen (when it was set up), "hors EU"! That means that the UK, unless it joins this 1st speed union (ultra highly unlikely), will not have a say in it or get to vote on it! Any referendums will be by the participating states! Bazinga?!"

Here is full part of my Sept. 7, 2011 post "EU: Who kicked the can down the road? (mach 2)"

"Now, we come to maybe the most interesting bit:

While Cameron supports closer integration if the Eurozone becauses he thinks that the needed EU Treaty changes will give him a chance to negotiate in return for allowing the Eurozone to move ahead, repatriation of certain "competemces" back to the UK (from "Brussels"), it seems, according at least to my reading of the 09/05/2011 "Divide and Rescue: Berlin Lays Groundwork for a Two-Speed Europe" report in Spiegel Online International that the Treaty that will move the Eurozone towards political union (uniform labour laws, budgetary "unification" (to what extent we shall see), etc etc) will not be an EU one, but, like Schengen (when it was set up), "hors EU"! That means that the UK, unless it joins this 1st speed union (ultra highly unlikely), will not have a say in it or get to vote on it! Any referendums will be by the participating states! Bazinga?!

That also raises the issue of the role of the European Commission, the ECJ, the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, etc, as well as the European Council in the operation of the "EU Mach 2". It seems that the Eurogroup plus other, new, bodies, probably lean, will be set up to do the "job". The EU institutions will continue to operate the affairs of the EU27 but the "EU Mach 2" will have its own institutions. Can there be another way considering that:

a) Cameron wants to use an EU27 IGC to get his way, thus a change in the EU Treaties must be avoided by the rest.
b) Not all members of the EU27 will be participating in this "closer union"?

To be continued!

PS. That would also mean that the "hors EU" Treaty of the core union cannot change the EMU/Euro aspects of the EU Treaty, ie exit from the Eurozone/Euro will continue to be not an option. That IMO means that all 17 of the existing EZ members will participate in the core union, unless they figure out a way of having a Euro member not be part of the core union and still have the who thing work! Does not look likely!

PS2. Times are beyond interesting. But at least there is a reversal of direction, from backwards to forward. Unless of course Angela Merkel and/or the CDU change their minds, yet again!"

G7 + G20 = 0

noreply@blogger.com (nickp) — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 03:26:00 +0000

A main dynamic of the era is, alas, not economic cooperation but economic clash between countries, more so than between multinational corporations.

With that in mind, the G7/G8, the G20 and other bodies (including WTO) are of marginal at best real significance.

If one factors into the dynamics and systemics of the era the role of global finance, then that begins to show the chaotic nature of the times.