17-06-2004
Nothing to see here folks. No worries about oil prices at all. Move along.....
Source: The Big Picture
After Tuesdays post on the importance of oil prices I could not resist to use this quote, reviewing a site that is on my linklist for a quite a while in the same effort.
A couple of months ago I added The Golden age to my list of links. One reason to add his blog was his (to me new) perspective of big money. To some extend Barry Ritholtz of The Big Picture is comparable (from this perspective). Ritholtz is Chief Market Strategist for Maxim Group, a global money management firm. He writes about himself "If I'd enjoyed writing dry, unimaginative prose . . . well, than I'd still be practicing law. So if you're looking for dry, run-of-the-mill market observations, you've come to the wrong place -- Expect the unexpected.
and
This modest blog is an experiment; You can look forward to few graphics and zero multimediaApparently he changed his mind on the later since he wrote his about me. But I like that: his blog has quite a number of graphics now. Some very instructive.
I like his tone too: "Gasoline, adjusted for inflation, remains relatively cheap. A gallon still costs less than the same amount of Coca-Cola.And look at the lead-quote of this post: superb.
Not everything he writes I find interesting and part of the interesting stuff is rather difficult to me. Well, I can learn from his site then.
In his category finance I found a piece interesting enough to write another post about myself.
He goes through efforts to make his site fair and balanced so all in all: the link should be in my should I read more often list.
As a last remark I misuse a post from his site to elaborate on the last paragraph of my Tuesday-post.
In a post on the subject of money supply (one of those subjects still very difficult to me) Ritholz presents a picture that reminds me of a recent post at Bonoboland by Edward Hugh. Edward had some qualifications on a similar graph.
I made a another graph with the same data to explain the problems of these kind of graphs:
Finally Ritholz should change the way posts in one category show up!
and
This modest blog is an experiment; You can look forward to few graphics and zero multimedia
16-06-2004
On the sad turnout of the elections for the European Parliament I read several reactions focusing on the lack of European leadership. According to well-informed Maarten Schinkel of my Dutch newspaper NRC-Handelsblad the IMF recently warned that in the end non-America is going to pay for the war on Iraq thanks to the special role of the dollar in the world economy.
Niall Ferguson's, professor of history at the Stern School of Business, New York University wrote about this Dollar Dilemma in the Australian Financial Review: " This rapid role reversal - from world's banker to world's biggest debtor - has had two advantages for Americans. First, it has allowed US business to invest substantially (notably in information technology) without requiring Americans to reduce their consumption. Between 10 and 20 per cent of all investment in the US economy in the past decade has been financed out of the savings of foreigners, allowing Americans to spend and spend. The personal savings rate is less than half of what it was in the 1980s.
The second pay-off, however, has taken the form of tax cuts rather than private sector investment. The dramatic shift in the finances of the federal government from surplus to deficit since 2000 - a deterioration unprecedented in peacetime, according to the IMF - has been substantially funded from abroad. Had that not been the case, the combination of tax cuts, increased spending and reduced revenue that has characterised George Bush's fiscal policy would have led to much more severe increases in long-term US interest rates. Veterans of the Nixon and Reagan years can only shake their heads enviously at the way the present Republican administration has escaped punishment for its profligacy. To run deficits on this scale while enjoying long-term bond yields of under 5 per cent looks like the biggest free lunch in modern economic history. The cost of servicing the federal debt has actually fallen under Bush, even as the total debt itself has risen." (my empasis)The buyers of the dollars are Asian central banks in the first place. The banks don't want a weaker dollar while this would hurt their exports to the huge Amercan market. But "... reliance on exports to the US may not be a long-term option for Asia. In a recent lecture in Washington, Larry Summers, the former US treasury secretary, argued that the US has no alternative but to increase its savings rates if it is to extricate itself from "the most serious problem of low national saving, resulting in dependence on foreign capital, and fiscal unsustainability, that we have faced in the last 50 years". His conclusion is that the world can no longer count on the US to be the consumer of first resort, which means in turn that "the growth plans of others that rely on export- led growth will need to be adjusted in the years ahead"."
....
The Asian dollar dilemma is the euro's opportunity, both economically and politically. First, if the US does cease to be the only functioning engine of global demand, it is imperative that the euro zone step up to the plate, and soon. For too long the European Central Bank has made price stability the "magnetic north" of its policy compass. It has not spent enough time thinking about growth in Europe and the world. For too long ECB interest rates have been about a percentage point above the Fed's, despite the fact that deflation is a bigger threat to the core German economy than it ever has been to the US.
...
World money does not mean world power: the EU is still very far from being able to match the US when it comes to hard military power. But losing the position of No1 currency would without question weaken the economic foundations of that hard powerWe need European politician who at least are aware of their reponsibility towards this isssues. I don't want a US-European confrontation but the present US-administration needs to be counter-balanced....
The second pay-off, however, has taken the form of tax cuts rather than private sector investment. The dramatic shift in the finances of the federal government from surplus to deficit since 2000 - a deterioration unprecedented in peacetime, according to the IMF - has been substantially funded from abroad. Had that not been the case, the combination of tax cuts, increased spending and reduced revenue that has characterised George Bush's fiscal policy would have led to much more severe increases in long-term US interest rates. Veterans of the Nixon and Reagan years can only shake their heads enviously at the way the present Republican administration has escaped punishment for its profligacy. To run deficits on this scale while enjoying long-term bond yields of under 5 per cent looks like the biggest free lunch in modern economic history. The cost of servicing the federal debt has actually fallen under Bush, even as the total debt itself has risen." (my empasis)
....
The Asian dollar dilemma is the euro's opportunity, both economically and politically. First, if the US does cease to be the only functioning engine of global demand, it is imperative that the euro zone step up to the plate, and soon. For too long the European Central Bank has made price stability the "magnetic north" of its policy compass. It has not spent enough time thinking about growth in Europe and the world. For too long ECB interest rates have been about a percentage point above the Fed's, despite the fact that deflation is a bigger threat to the core German economy than it ever has been to the US.
...
World money does not mean world power: the EU is still very far from being able to match the US when it comes to hard military power. But losing the position of No1 currency would without question weaken the economic foundations of that hard power
15-06-2004
Growing usage of oil is mainly caused by growing of transport. Chinese (and Indian) oil consumption grows fast but is still less than 25% of the US-consumption. OPEC share of world oil production is less than 36%; Saudi-Arabia less than 11%. US-energy-consumption about twice West-European consumption per capita. Gasoline prices in the USA half the ones in Europe.
Sources: World Resources Institute, International Energy Agency (key statistics), NRC-Handelsblad basing itself on IEA-sources too.
This post has two reasons.
First I want to extend my figures-category. It's not enough to link to some reliable sources: I want to put some figures on my site to continously remind (myself) of a number of crucial figures. Background statistics that can put discussions in another perspective.
Second I want to write on nuclear power one of these days.
Third 'oil' is a crucial issue in a range of very important political debates: from Chinese growth and outsourcing to Iraq and Bin Laden's shifting focus towards Saudi-Arabia, from Kyoto to Kerry's chance to win the US elections in spite of his suggestion on taxing gas etc. Not to mention the exaggarated and therefore dangerous reactions on the situation in SA: attacks there immediately shifting expectations concerning oil-production, oil-prices, general economical prospects....
The graph is from the IAE key issues.
I chose this graph because it confirms an assumption I made but did not check when I suggested, in one of the first pieces (in Dutch) I posted on my site, as an example of which containment-policies in my opinion would be well-thought generic measures: "Concreet wil ik wel pleiten voor het afremmen van transport om "lokale" productie de meest algemene (dus "meest marktconforme" !!) vorm van bescherming te geven". (putting brakes on transport as a measure most generic, and so least disturbing, to market forces could give some protection to 'local' production)
I like the graph especially because it has a mathematically decent vertical axis: starting at zero and with even steps.
Via the technorati profile of Kautilyan (see post below) I found the site of Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey, both economist and Avon Lady to be. She writes about
Dr. Dave Tufte, an Economics professor at Southern Utah University, who has created a new group blog that he's requiring his students to post to.
The professor reports: " This blog has been discovered and promoted even before the students have had a chance to write anything.
Michael Kantor at The Calico Cat was the first to notice, and he told Karsten Junge at CurryBlog. Both have posted about this idea already (see Blogging In the Classroom" and "Blogroll Update").
OK students ... the pressure is on ... the eyes of the whole blog world are watching!"
P.S. For students who are trying to figure out how this all happened so fast; smart webmasters get reports of who linked to their site around the internet. When I linked your class blog to The Calico Cat, the author/webmaster there got a report telling him that I had linked our blog to his ... and then he checked us out, and wrote about what he found."Hence the title of the post that I stole from the professor.
He is right. And it is exciting
Michael Kantor at The Calico Cat was the first to notice, and he told Karsten Junge at CurryBlog. Both have posted about this idea already (see Blogging In the Classroom" and "Blogroll Update").
OK students ... the pressure is on ... the eyes of the whole blog world are watching!"
P.S. For students who are trying to figure out how this all happened so fast; smart webmasters get reports of who linked to their site around the internet. When I linked your class blog to The Calico Cat, the author/webmaster there got a report telling him that I had linked our blog to his ... and then he checked us out, and wrote about what he found."
14-06-2004
When Reagan was president of the USA he was the personification of everything that was wrong about the USA and rapacious capitalism in my eyes.
Last years, -partly due to "international reading" for the benefit of my blogging-, I have learnt to lean less on common sense among "our kind of people". So on Reagan I am less sure then I was. A lot of people in the media and in politics have experienced comparable second thoughts but a lot went on distancing themselves ashamed of all their previous points of views, simply embracing opponent views in the same "our-kind-of-people" way. So concerning the remembrance of Reagan I see a lot of hysteria and uncritical attitude on all aspects of his policies.
As a counterweight I quote Kautilyan on the subject: "Here are a few random thoughts and memories related to Reagan. I'll probably update this some more (like I said I've been trying to avoid the Reagan hysteria):
* Mandela was a terrorist and Bin Laden was a freedom fighter
* Everyone without health care was just "in between" jobs.
* Has it occurred to anyone that the deaths of Brezhnev, Chernenko and Andropov in a span of a few years and the Chernobyl crisis might have had anything to do with the internal collapse of the Soviet Union?
* If the point of Star Wars was just a tactic to spend the USSR into the grave...how come we keep spending billions on it 20 years later?
* Progress on social issues was made mainly in the 1990s not the 1980s”As you can recognize from the URL Lerxt was one of the initiators of the site ‘Economists for Dean’. Good that he reminds us of some of the horrible sides of the Reagan-administration (not to mention Reagan’s support for Angolan terrorist Jonas Savimbi. But it is a little bit amazing to see him focus on non-economical issues (A subject by itself). So I turned to the very informed labor activist Nathan Newman. He wrote a post Irresponsible debt with an interesting graph and this: "Reagan and Bush Senior more than doubled the national debt, permanently hobbling future generations with debt payments.
And what did they accomplish with that debt that is so much better than Presidents who conducted their economic policy without stealing money from their grandchildren?
Any "boom" under Reagan (and the economy wasn't that great overall) was theft from future generations, nothing more. Al Capone had a pretty good economy for himself too, but we didn't give him a state funeral.
It is truly pathetic that conservatives, who once believed in pay-as-you-go accounting, can worship an economic policy that was nothing more than credit card spending sprees.”I emphasized the last line because in my opinion there is much to little attention for the strange, no bizarre difference on this issues between both sides of the Atlantic. Newmans criticism of Reagan (and Bush) is the criticism of the European Christian Democrats and laissez-faire politician towards the Social Democrats, Green and socialist parties!Newman also has a link to an essay "from the Mises Institute, a fundamentalist pro-capitalism organization"The Myths of Reaganomics": "This memo to Mises Institute members was written in late 1987, and published in "The Free Market Reader," LH Rockwell, Jr., ed., 1988, pp. 3342–362 and is posted on Mises.org in an edited edition. ... I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it. ...
In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.
...We get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%.
The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit...One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime.
[T]he famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.”Another very important remark on reaganomics comes from the famous and very well informed economist Paul Krugman. All of the article is worth reading but to put the admiration in the right perspective of ideology-led economics I think paragraph is crucial: "And the economic expansion under President Reagan did not validate his economic doctrine. His supply-side advisers didn't promise a one-time growth spurt as the economy emerged from recession; they promised, but failed to deliver, a sustained acceleration in economic growth."Krugman is fiercely attacked by republicans suggesting he is just partisan and left wing. He is not. Brad deLong wrote on that subject before.
See also Kautilyan on the too kind way Krugman describes Greenspan position (on supporting the tax-cuts): "Here's a more complete version than Krugman provides of Greenspan telling Paul O'Neill that he thinks the tax cuts (that he'd supported in Congressional testimony) would be a mistake unless they included "triggers," i.e. a stipulation that they would not be permanent if surpluses evaporated:
May 22 [2001]... Greenspan arrived at the Treasury for breakfast with O'Neill. Their secret trigger pact had come up one vote short.... "We did what we could on conditionality," O'Neill said with momentary resignation.... "The first big battle is over, really. I think we fought well, we made our points vigorously." Greenspan said that wasn't enough. "Without the triggers, that tax cut is irresponsible fiscal policy," he said in his deepest funereal tone. [The Price of Loyalty, p.162]
I was surprised that Krugman didn't mention that, in an unprecedented act of collusion between the executive and the chairman of the normally rigorously independent Federal Reserve, Greenspan met with Cheney and O'Neill to plot political strategy. They met for breakfast at Cheney's house on January 14, 2001, a week before the inauguration, and nine days before Greenspan's thumbs-up-on-tax-cuts testimony to Congress. In a normal era, when we weren't overrun with other outrages, this would have been a scandal in itself and made Greenspan's reappointment politically impossible.
* Mandela was a terrorist and Bin Laden was a freedom fighter
* Everyone without health care was just "in between" jobs.
* Has it occurred to anyone that the deaths of Brezhnev, Chernenko and Andropov in a span of a few years and the Chernobyl crisis might have had anything to do with the internal collapse of the Soviet Union?
* If the point of Star Wars was just a tactic to spend the USSR into the grave...how come we keep spending billions on it 20 years later?
* Progress on social issues was made mainly in the 1990s not the 1980s”
And what did they accomplish with that debt that is so much better than Presidents who conducted their economic policy without stealing money from their grandchildren?
Any "boom" under Reagan (and the economy wasn't that great overall) was theft from future generations, nothing more. Al Capone had a pretty good economy for himself too, but we didn't give him a state funeral.
It is truly pathetic that conservatives, who once believed in pay-as-you-go accounting, can worship an economic policy that was nothing more than credit card spending sprees.”
In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.
...We get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%.
The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit...One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime.
[T]he famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.”
May 22 [2001]... Greenspan arrived at the Treasury for breakfast with O'Neill. Their secret trigger pact had come up one vote short.... "We did what we could on conditionality," O'Neill said with momentary resignation.... "The first big battle is over, really. I think we fought well, we made our points vigorously." Greenspan said that wasn't enough. "Without the triggers, that tax cut is irresponsible fiscal policy," he said in his deepest funereal tone. [The Price of Loyalty, p.162]
I was surprised that Krugman didn't mention that, in an unprecedented act of collusion between the executive and the chairman of the normally rigorously independent Federal Reserve, Greenspan met with Cheney and O'Neill to plot political strategy. They met for breakfast at Cheney's house on January 14, 2001, a week before the inauguration, and nine days before Greenspan's thumbs-up-on-tax-cuts testimony to Congress. In a normal era, when we weren't overrun with other outrages, this would have been a scandal in itself and made Greenspan's reappointment politically impossible.
12-06-2004
There is definitely only one important similarity between the success of Paul van Buitenen of Europe Transparent at the elections for the European Parliament and the success of (murdered) Pim Fortuyn of the LPF for the Dutch national elections in 2002: unfair reactions from the traditional parties.
Biggest loser VVD claimed that van Buitenens success could be attributed partly by protest-voters and anti-European sentiment. Before the elections Van Buitenen made it absolutely clear however that he was not anti-european, actually adding that voters should vote LPF if they wanted to protest against Europe (the populist LPF-slogan read something like Did anyone ask you something?).
So that counts for one big difference with Fortuyns party already (the LPF got only 2.5% of the votes compared with over 15% two years ago).
Another huge difference between Fortuyn-2002 and van Buitenen-2004 was the role of the media. In 2002 the media could not get enough of Fortuyn: night after night this guy was shown on television in a variety of programmes. Although he was not represented in parliament and had no party behind him of any significance he was invited in almost every debate.
So it was exactly like van Buitenen commented himself: "I dont look very good and I could not afford a real campaign so it must have been the message"I see van Bs success as the best thing that happened in Dutch politics in many many years.
Its nice to see that people outside the Netherlands are glad with his election too. Expatica is very very positive: "He is no idealistic and well-meaning "European virgin" who thinks he can bring common sense back to Brussels. Van Buitenen was very much a euro-insider.
He was a respected civil servant, the EC's assistant auditor, until he did the unthinkable by exposing fraud and incompetence within the European Commission the central organisation that runs EU daily affairs.
One would imagine that monitoring the EU's "government" was the main job of MEPs particularly given the fact MEPs have far fewer actual powers than members of the European national Parliaments.
What were the MEPs doing while commissioners were running the good ship EU Europe onto the rocks?
And was Van Buitenen thanked for being a whistleblower and saving the day? Of course not! The politicians heading the EU hounded him and angrily denounced his audacity for speaking out.
....
Van Buitenen said he will be a-political and his movement will not be a traditional party of the left or the right, but one that belongs to the people.
His message was music to the ears of many Dutch voters who elected him their champion.
But he has his work cut out for him a mammoth task lies ahead and he obviously can't do it alone.
The only hope is that other Dutch MEPs and representatives from other countries will put national political considerations aside long enough to row in behind Van Buitenen's campaign.
There are already many lone voices in the European Parliament crying out for change and it is time they formed a coalition to drive through changes that will make the EU more accountable to the people.
If and when that happens, the onus will be on the public more than ever to come out and vote en masse for figures like Van Buitenen.
Clearly, Van Buitenen is no Messiah and he might not ultimately be the one to revitalise the EU but at the very least he is a positive example for others to follow."(my emphasis, fg). Some commenters over at A Fistful Of Euros are very positive too.
Update: Euractiv in their own words "now the leading online media on European Union policies.
"did not understand it very well. Their headline reads: "Dutch EP elections: higher voter turnout, anti-EU protest voting" The very low results for LPF and groups at the extreme right show the opposite.
He was a respected civil servant, the EC's assistant auditor, until he did the unthinkable by exposing fraud and incompetence within the European Commission the central organisation that runs EU daily affairs.
One would imagine that monitoring the EU's "government" was the main job of MEPs particularly given the fact MEPs have far fewer actual powers than members of the European national Parliaments.
What were the MEPs doing while commissioners were running the good ship EU Europe onto the rocks?
And was Van Buitenen thanked for being a whistleblower and saving the day? Of course not! The politicians heading the EU hounded him and angrily denounced his audacity for speaking out.
....
Van Buitenen said he will be a-political and his movement will not be a traditional party of the left or the right, but one that belongs to the people.
His message was music to the ears of many Dutch voters who elected him their champion.
But he has his work cut out for him a mammoth task lies ahead and he obviously can't do it alone.
The only hope is that other Dutch MEPs and representatives from other countries will put national political considerations aside long enough to row in behind Van Buitenen's campaign.
There are already many lone voices in the European Parliament crying out for change and it is time they formed a coalition to drive through changes that will make the EU more accountable to the people.
If and when that happens, the onus will be on the public more than ever to come out and vote en masse for figures like Van Buitenen.
Clearly, Van Buitenen is no Messiah and he might not ultimately be the one to revitalise the EU but at the very least he is a positive example for others to follow."
"
11-06-2004
Nice to get a compliment on my blog from anyone. It's more pleasant when the compliment comes from someone like Arend Jan Boekestijn. He was the most pronounced supporter in the Netherlands of the preemptive war on Iraq and I strongly attacked his arguments on this site (dutch).
It's even better while in the same week I got an implicit compliment from the absolute opposite side of the political spectrum: in reaction on my questions (dutch) to candidates for the European Parliament to comment my proposition (English) to limit the site of corporations, MEP Erik Meijer of the Socialist Party promised to at least pose questions to the European Commission.
04-06-2004
I have the feeling that the very strange developments (mildly spoken) around the person of Ahmed Chalabi had relatively little coverage in Europe.
For Brad deLong those were enough to have another post titled Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These Liars? (he had more of them). He quotes a reader from Eschaton: "George W. Bush last Feburary, on Meet The Press (emphasis added):
Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?
President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.
George W. Bush yesterday , Rose Garden press conference:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that's fallen out of favor within your administration. I'm wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly --
THE PRESIDENT: Chalabi?
Q Yes, with Chalabi.
THE PRESIDENT: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him."So deLong attacks Bush very hard. He is criticized for that by a reader "dropshot". In the discussion that followed the question from the title arose.
You should read the whole thing.
Here is my contribution.
I sympathize with the questions Dropshot suggests. Somehow I see a relation with the reading by Scott Martens of A fistful of Euros of Kevin Drums 'Democracy in Iraq'. According to Martens "..the more general question is the more interesting one. How do you respond to a world where actually fixing problems is beyond the resources available?"
But a little bit more on topic.
I am struggling with this dilemma too, in my own way. When I put up my blog I was set on devoting myself mainly to political-economical questions but I find myself wondering and commenting on Iraq (in the broadest sense).
I agree with Harris too where he asks: "Is there something more important (substantive) than figuring out whether the President of the United States lies routinely and casually about matters of national importance?" but then again: this has to do with strategy as well.
I would not be surprised if at some time proof was going to turn out of G.W.Bush indeed being the most stupid and/or untruthful president the USA has ever had but in itself that is if little importance. The fact that Bush refused to testify for the 9/11 commission without Cheney to me suggests that in fact we deal with a Cheney administration. Still: we have to judge that administration on its acts and the consequences thereof.
To get rid of the wrongs of the Bush administration, -on both geo-political and global-economical terrain-, I wonder if it is strategically wise to focus on Bush stupidity and or unfairness. No, I don't. I think it's wiser to concentrate on the alternatives.
To prepare for the time after the regime change (...).
To discuss a suggestion like Paul Berman's Will the opposition lead?: "The Democrats ought to thank and congratulate the countries that have sent troops, and ought to remind the economically powerful Switzerlands of this world that they, too, have responsibilities. The Democrats ought to assure everyone that support for a successful outcome in Iraq does not have to mean support for George W. Bush. And how should the Democrats make these several arguments? They should speak about something more than the United Nations and stability in Iraq. They should talk about fascism. About death cults. About the experiences of the 20th century. About the need for democratic solidarity. (my comments)
Or discuss the proposition by Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay An alliance of democracies (as an alternative to a strategy expecting to much from the UN)
and of course
discuss the need and possibility of rethinking the challenges we face worldwide concerning economical policies.
To emphasize I just quote Stephen Roach (like Camille Roy did before in this columns): "One of the pillars of trade theory is that wealthy industrial economies like Americas can be broken down into two basic segments of activity tradables and nontradables. International competition has long been confined to the tradable goods, or manufacturing sector. By contrast, the nontradables sector was largely shielded from tough competitive pressures, thereby providing shelter to the 80% of Americas private sector workforce that toil in services. Consequently, as competitive pressures drove down prices in tradable goods, the bulk of the economy and its workforce benefited from the resulting expansion of purchasing power. Advanced, knowledge-based economies thrive on this distinction between tradables and nontradables manufacturing and services. That critical distinction has now been blurred.
Together with the inestimable importance of the Chinese (and Indian) growth, the huge difference between the discussions on deficits in the USA versus the discussions on the Growth and Stability Pact in Europe, the threat of Japanese style deflation (is it gone?), the economical impact of the oil-prices in relation to the conflicts in the middle-east, John Connolly's famous maxim that "the dollar is "our currency, but your problem".there is enough to fill a new Bretton-woods.
A new Bretton Woods not dominated by one country, with an important role for the IBSA-countries and above everything: with a fair balance between politics and economical science.
Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?
President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.
George W. Bush yesterday , Rose Garden press conference:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that's fallen out of favor within your administration. I'm wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly --
THE PRESIDENT: Chalabi?
Q Yes, with Chalabi.
THE PRESIDENT: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him."
03-06-2004
Accidently all three pieces of good news were on one page of yesterdays NRC-Handelsblad. In Iran theocratic judiciary has revoked the death sentence of dissident academic Hashem Aghajari. In India there was a secular triumph after all.
Swaminomics/swaminathan s anklesaria aiyar of the India Times wrote: "I ask you too to view events in a deeper perspective. You will then see that India has turned out to be a remarkable country. It has a Muslim president, who has been asked to choose between a Christian and a Sikh for prime minister. Which other democracy can boast of such secular inclusiveness? Despite Sushma Swaraj and Uma Bharati, this cannot be called a victory for Hindu chauvinism. You might almost say it is a victory of sorts for secularism. You might almost say that India is shining after all".and concluded: "So, although we in India have much to be ashamed of, we have some redeeming features too. Muslims, Christians and Sikhs can get to the very top on merit. This will not be of solace to those killed in the next riot. But for now, let us raise a toast to Manmohan Singh, and to those who chose him as prime minister.The bad news of course came from Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan. Apparently Bin Laden is unfolding the next step in his strategy: focusing on the country where he wants to be the dictator. And in Pakistan "Rival Sunni and Shiite Muslims exchanged gunfire yesterday, killing at least one passerby, in sectarian clashes triggered by a suicide bombing at a mosque the day before in southern Pakistan". (source).
I try to see positive aspects of the bad news as well. The tragedies in Pakistan caused by Sunni-Shiite violence has to have effect on the moderate muslims everywhere. It is more difficult to see a possible positive side-effect of the terrorist attacks in Saudi-Arabia. The gang of Saudi princely parasites surely realize that now OBL is getting serious. His ultimate aim is not killing heretics or win a war with the west but to get absolute power in his homeland. The Saudis however made greatest efforts to prepare the people of the peninsula for a Taliban-like regime.
But some of the good news came from Saudi-Arabia as well Rania Al-Bazs husband has been sentenced to six months in jail and 300 lashes for beating his wife almost to death.
02-06-2004
Zoals in de brief zelf te lezen is stuurde ik mijn voorstel eerst aan Eurocommissaris Mario Monti van Mededinging. Zoals te verwachten viel kreeg deze eenvoudige burger zonder enige machtsbasis een correct maar nietszeggend briefje terug. Wel van een hooggeplaatste functionaris maar toch.
Nu diverse kandidaten voor het Europees Parlement te kennen geven in gesprek te willen en te willen blijven (tussen verkiezingen) is het in ieder geval de beste tijd om hun mening te vragen. Ik ben benieuwd. Tot nu toe heb ik overigens helemaal niet zo slechte ervaringen met briefjes aan politici.
"Geachte heer/mevrouw,
Begin vorig jaar heb ik een brief 1) gestuurd aan Eurocommissaris Mario Monti naar aanleiding van diens speech voor de American Bar Association over het beleid met betrekking tot fusies, A history of convergence. 2)
Ik schreef hem onder andere omdat enige maanden ervoor het Hof van Eerste Aanleg in een zeer belangrijke beroepszaak Montis beslissing over de fusie tussen Tetra-Laval en Sidel vernietigd had 3): de fusie mocht wel doorgaan.
Omdat in mijn ogen de overwegingen op basis waarvan het hof besloot Montis beslissing te verwerpen in vrijwel alle gevallen zullen opgaan gaf ik hem in overweging een geheel andere benadering te kiezen.
De in mijn ogen belangrijkste overweging was namelijk dat weliswaar door de fusie tussen bedrijven in aanpalende bedrijfstakken de door Monti aangevoerde hefboomwerking kon ontstaan maar niet bewezen was dat de nieuw ontstane onderneming er voordeel aan zou hebben om deze te benutten. Het hof richtte zich dus, eigenlijk in navolging van Monti zelf, op de bedoeling van de bedrijven: een heilloze weg.
Mijn voorstel ontleent haar kracht aan de simpelheid, het generieke karakter en de eenvoudige toepasbaarheid. Zeer kort samengevat luidt het : stel, na een ruime overgangsperiode, een maximum aan de grootte van ondernemingen die in de EU zaken willen (blijven) doen.
Een nadere toelichting staat in 4)
De (betere) Engelstalige toelichting en enige discussie is te vinden via 5)
Gtz Drauz, Directeur van de Merger Task Force van de Europese Commissie schreef me terug I have some doubts as to the wisdom of placing arbitrary limitations of this kind on commercial activity here in Europe maar ging daarbij dus volledig voorbij aan het feit dat mijn voorstel juist bij uitstek geen willekeur kent.
Om twee redenen wend ik me juist nu tot U met een tweetal vragen.
Een aanleiding is de berichtgeving over de samenwerking tussen de Duitse en Franse regering met betrekking tot industriepolitiek. (NRC-Handelsblad 1 juni 04 6)
De tweede aanleiding wordt natuurlijk gevormd door de komende verkiezingen.voor het Europees Parlement.
De vragen.
Vraag 1: Bent U van mening dat U zich straks, als lid van het Europees Parlement, ook over dit onderwerp zult moeten beraden ?
Vraag 2: Zo ja, wat vindt u van dit voorstel.
Zo nee, wilt u dit toelichten?
Vriendelijke groeten,
Frans Groenendijk
1) Brief aan Monti
2) Speech Monti
3) Uitspraak Hof van eerste aanleg
4) nl toelichting op voorstel
5) Engelse toelichting en discussie
6) Europees industriebeleid Franse stijl irriteert Berlijn"
Begin vorig jaar heb ik een brief 1) gestuurd aan Eurocommissaris Mario Monti naar aanleiding van diens speech voor de American Bar Association over het beleid met betrekking tot fusies, A history of convergence. 2)
Ik schreef hem onder andere omdat enige maanden ervoor het Hof van Eerste Aanleg in een zeer belangrijke beroepszaak Montis beslissing over de fusie tussen Tetra-Laval en Sidel vernietigd had 3): de fusie mocht wel doorgaan.
Omdat in mijn ogen de overwegingen op basis waarvan het hof besloot Montis beslissing te verwerpen in vrijwel alle gevallen zullen opgaan gaf ik hem in overweging een geheel andere benadering te kiezen.
De in mijn ogen belangrijkste overweging was namelijk dat weliswaar door de fusie tussen bedrijven in aanpalende bedrijfstakken de door Monti aangevoerde hefboomwerking kon ontstaan maar niet bewezen was dat de nieuw ontstane onderneming er voordeel aan zou hebben om deze te benutten. Het hof richtte zich dus, eigenlijk in navolging van Monti zelf, op de bedoeling van de bedrijven: een heilloze weg.
Mijn voorstel ontleent haar kracht aan de simpelheid, het generieke karakter en de eenvoudige toepasbaarheid. Zeer kort samengevat luidt het : stel, na een ruime overgangsperiode, een maximum aan de grootte van ondernemingen die in de EU zaken willen (blijven) doen.
Een nadere toelichting staat in 4)
De (betere) Engelstalige toelichting en enige discussie is te vinden via 5)
Gtz Drauz, Directeur van de Merger Task Force van de Europese Commissie schreef me terug I have some doubts as to the wisdom of placing arbitrary limitations of this kind on commercial activity here in Europe maar ging daarbij dus volledig voorbij aan het feit dat mijn voorstel juist bij uitstek geen willekeur kent.
Om twee redenen wend ik me juist nu tot U met een tweetal vragen.
Een aanleiding is de berichtgeving over de samenwerking tussen de Duitse en Franse regering met betrekking tot industriepolitiek. (NRC-Handelsblad 1 juni 04 6)
De tweede aanleiding wordt natuurlijk gevormd door de komende verkiezingen.voor het Europees Parlement.
De vragen.
Vraag 1: Bent U van mening dat U zich straks, als lid van het Europees Parlement, ook over dit onderwerp zult moeten beraden ?
Vraag 2: Zo ja, wat vindt u van dit voorstel.
Zo nee, wilt u dit toelichten?
Vriendelijke groeten,
Frans Groenendijk
1) Brief aan Monti
2) Speech Monti
3) Uitspraak Hof van eerste aanleg
4) nl toelichting op voorstel
5) Engelse toelichting en discussie
6) Europees industriebeleid Franse stijl irriteert Berlijn"
30-05-2004
Ook met het oog op de Europese verkiezingen van 10 juni aanstaande zijn er op internet weer diverse middelen te vinden die behulpzaam zouden kunnen zijn om te bepalen op wie nu te stemmen.
U heeft bij wijze van spreken een stemwijzer-wijzer nodig om te bepalen welke stemwijzer of kieswijzer het beste bij u past....
Bij deze.
De bekendste is de min of meer officile stemwijzer. Bij de tweede kamerverkiezingen trok de stemwijzer vorig jaar miljoenen bezoekers zodat wel begrijpelijk is dat de (nieuwe) partijen die nu nog niet in het Europees Parlement vertegenwoordigd zijn er van balen dat de makers hen buitengesloten hebben.
Behalve de stemwijzer vond ik ook de stemindicator van politiek-digitaal.nl, de stemtest van de Vereniging Democratisch Europa, de (daarvan afgeleide) stemtest van de FNV en het spelletje de slag om Europa van de gelijknamige webstek.
Ik heb ze bekeken en uitgeprobeerd. Met gemengde gevoelens. De uitslag was steeds een andere. De eerste die ik invulde (de stemindicator) kwam met een CDA advies, een tweede keer invullen, met een vraag anders beantwoord, leverde Europa Transparant op. De stemwijzer adviseerde GroenLinks. De stemtest D66 (maar met heel weinig verschil met PvdA). De slag om Europa adviseerde PvdA waarbij de partij van mijn keuze (Europa Transparant) alleen de LPF achter zich liet!
Op de stellingen van de adviesprogrammas valt veel af te dingen. Wanneer ik het GroenLinks-advies van de stemwijzer nauwkeuriger bekijk begin ik me af te vragen of ik bij nader inzien de stelling misschien anders heb opgevat dan de makers hem bedoelde! Net als GL heb ik met de stelling dat de regelgeving vanuit de EU te ver is doorgeschoten niet ingestemd maar ik heb daarbij in het achterhoofd dat dat op een aantal terreinen wel degelijk gebeurd is maar beslist niet over de hele linie: dit idee wordt vaak overtrokken (vergelijk het ideologische verhaal van de VVD over minder-regels) maar ik twijfel of GL dit ook zo interpreteert.
Alle stemadviesprogrammas hebben hun specifieke (eigen)aardigheden. Wat allen gemeen hebben is echter dat ze zich vrijwel volledig baseren op de ideologie of vrome wensen en beloften van de partijen zelf en voorbij gaan aan de mate waarin de partijen in staat zijn (gebleken) via het Europees Parlement de genoemde wenselijkheden te realiseren.
Dit probleem wordt voor een belangrijk deel wel getackeld door een andere webstek opmerkelijk genoeg van het zelfde Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek (IPP) dat ook de stemwijzer maakte.
Het is de EP-MONITOR
De EP-monitor geeft inzicht in wat de zittende Europarlementarirs daadwerkelijk hebben uitgevoerd.
Vele malen belangrijker en ook vele malen interessanter dan die vage beloften en vrome wensen. Het is wel zo dat de EP-monitor alleen het uiteindelijke stemgedrag weergeeft en dus niet hoeveel die mensen zich hebben ingespannen voor het verwezenlijken van hun beloften/wensen. Een ander nadeel van de EP-monitor is dat U al over heel wat informatie moet beschikken en ook nog veel informatie moet opnemen om op basis hiervan uw stemkeuze te bepalen.
Voor de aardigheid heb ik een paar van die stemmingen voor u wat nader bekeken. Tamelijk willekeurig.
Het eerste voorstel dat ik bekeek betrof een voorstel om iets te doen aan de Italiaanse EP-leden die doelbewust het lidmaatschap van het EP misbruiken om immuniteit te verkrijgen bij strafprocessen. De bekendste er van is ook recordhouder in minste bijwonen van de EP-vergaderingen. Deze Berlusconi-man schijnt nauwe banden te onderhouden met de maffia. Van de Nederlandse EP-leden stemde alleen alle CDA-leden tegen dit voorstel: het CDA zit in een fractie met de Berlusconi-club. Alle andere (dus ook VVD, Christenunie en SGP) Nederlanders steunden voor dit Groenlinks voorstel. Het partijbelang, lees: de verwantschap met Berlusconi, gaat bij het CDA altijd voor.
Dit geeft dus wel aan dat een stem op het CDA wel degelijk ook een stem op Berlusconi is, maar bij andere stemmingen heeft u meer informatie nodig om er wat aan te hebben voor het bepalen van uw keuze.
Er zijn heel fascinerende uitslagen bij die stemmingen.
Wat te denken van een voorstel van de liberalen en de Groenen samen met betrekking tot een standpunt over de aanneming van een "verordening betreffende de traceerbaarheid en etikettering van genetisch gemodificeerde organismen en de traceerbaarheid van met genetisch gemodificeerde organismen geproduceerde levensmiddelen en diervoeders"Dit voorstel werd aangenomen door het Europees Parlement maar bij de stemming waren twee VVD-leden afwezig en onthielden de andere 4 zich van stemming!
Op de webstek van Maaten van de VVD is de achtergrond terug te vinden: "Het heeft er alle schijn van dat de discussie over etikettering wordt gebruikt om het huidige moratorium op de introductie van genetisch gemodificeerde producten in de EU te bestendigen, alsof men daarmee alle ondenkbare risicos voor mens en milieu zou kunnen vermijden. Het is zeer de vraag of zon fundamentalistische houding ten aanzien van ggos niet leidt tot grotere risicos in de toekomst.Geen woord over het feit dat de Europese fractiegenoten hier anders over denken. Mijn inschatting is dat de VVD-parlementariers meer dan hun Europese fractiegenoten ideologisch bezig zijn.
Iets dergelijks ga ik ook denken naar aanleiding van een voorstel dat ingediend werd door de fractie waar de SP deel van uit maakt maar dat met ruime meerderheid werd aangenomen ondanks dat de SP tegen stemde en GL zich onthield van stemmen!
De rest van de Nederlandse EP-ers stemde voor. Het ging hier nota bene om een debat over werkgelegenheid en vergrijzing. Via de link is wel de inhoud van de overwegingen te vinden maar niet van de verschillende standpunten van de partijen.
Uiteindelijk geeft dus ook de EP-monitor nog te weinig informatie...
Ik heb twee redenen om op Paul van Buitenen van Europa Transparant te gaan stemmen.
Op de eerste plaats zijn formidabele prestaties als klokkenluider (vanuit zijn positie als Europees ambtenaar). Vrijwel in zijn eentje heeft hij ervoor gezorgd dat de gehele Europese Commissie naar huis gestuurd werd. Vergelijk dat eens met het gepruttel van de kandidaten van andere partijen over de geringe macht van het EP.
Op de tweede plaats zijn pragmatisme. Daar schreef ik al eerder over.
Die twee redenen staan volkomen haaks op de manier waarop de stemwijzers werken: afgaan op de mooie voornemens van partijen of zelfs op pure ideologie.
Uiteindelijk gaat het bij verkiezingen voor een groot deel om vertrouwen.
Afgaan op de eigen intutie is daarbij in mijn ogen verstandiger dan pseudo-objectief een kieswijzer te volgen.
Intussen blijf ik van mening dat we af moeten van het idee dat directe verkiezingen het bewijs vormen van optimale democratie. Er is altijd sprake van indirecte invloed. Waarom geen indirecte verkiezingen? (zie ook Mijn essay over indirecte verkiezingen en onafhankelijke(r) politici
Internet-Guru Zeldman is an optimistic guy.
He had this nasty experience "Someone posted a comment on Joshua Kaufmans unraveled blog, signed it zeldman, and included my URL. As far as anyone reading unraveled could tell, I was the author of that comment.
It is an easy and obvious prank to pull. Go to a blog, write a silly or offensive comment, and sign it Jakob Nielsen or Instapundit or Kottke. Voila: instant controversy."But in the end he concludes very optimistically: "Whats remarkable is that, despite the ease of achieving such pranks, few people indulge. The web depends on trust, and most people are worthy of it."Although I agree with him that most people are worthy of trust. But then again: this goes for burgling and violent crimes as well and we need effective laws against these threats too.
It's not a very bold prophecy that in the blogosphere we are going to face some real controversies thanks to the faked-identity-problem.
Not all bloggers are so fair and balanced as Mark Kleiman who checked the rumour that Rumsfeld had banned picture phones in Iraqi prisons. (it was not true: it indeed turned out to be the very sharp hoaxer Kleiman expected).
It is an easy and obvious prank to pull. Go to a blog, write a silly or offensive comment, and sign it Jakob Nielsen or Instapundit or Kottke. Voila: instant controversy."
27-05-2004
Van de week zag ik een uitzending van de Partij voor de dieren in het kader van de Europese verkiezingen. Ik schakelde in toen een tekenfilmpje van Urbanus van Anus gespeeld werd met op de achtegrond zijn lied: 'Madammen met een bontjas'. Ik moest het hele lied wel afluisteren want ik wilde wel weten of ze ook het laatste couplet zouden laten horen. Als Urbanus bontjas dragende madammen gevangen heeft en in onderdelen verkocht gaat zijn winkeltje draaien en zijn financies nog veel meer. En inderdaad ook het stukje waarin Urbanus jassen van stekelvarkensleer gaat kopen voor hem en zijn madam, zodat ze altijd plaats hebben op de bus en op de tram, werd door de PvdD uitgezonden. Dus toch een beetje zelfrelativering nog wel.
Verder vind ik het idee van een partij voor de dieren, zeker in de Euopese context, volslagen belachelijk. Natuurlijk, miljoenen dieren worden slecht behandeld, velen hebben een leven dat nog beroerder is dan dat van het gemiddelde dier in de natuur. (hoewel de dood in de natuur bijna altijd gruwelijker is dan in de veeteelt: het is altijd sterven van de kou, van de honger of door levend opgevreten te worden) maar is dat voldoende basis voor de vorming van nog een partij?
Ik vind het in het algemeen een slecht idee om aan verkiezingen deel te nemen op basis van een enkel issue, maar ik heb er respect voor wanneer andere mensen dat wel doen als het om een zeer belangrijke kwestie gaat. Het is ieders recht om de kwestie van het dierenleed als belangrijkste onderwerp te beschouwen. Het belachelijke zit hem in mijn ogen in het feit dat -zeker in vergelijking met de situatie in geheel Europa- diverse bestaande partijen toch heel goede papieren hebben waar het gaat om opkomen voor de belangen van de dieren.
En als je dan niet op GroenLinks wilt stemmen omdat die partij een iets minder ver gaand voorstel heeft gedaan over diertransporten dan jij zou willen of omdat je (zoals ik) van mening ben dat de lijsttrekster van een serieuze politieke partij niet op haar weblog kan schrijven dat 'Bush-bashing best wel leuk is' dan kun je toch gewoon SP stemmen.
Ik schat dat bij Europa Transparant en bij D66 ook behoorlijk veel instemming gekregen kan worden voor voorstellen om dierenleed zo veel mogelijk te vermijden.
26-05-2004
Via ArgMax (headlines in my right column) I found this picture of OMB watch.
OMB Watch was founded in 1983 to lift the veil of secrecy shrouding the powerful White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Amazing isn't it?
Well of course the picture uses different scales on the left and the right so the relation is a little bit different from what it seems to be at first sight but the (inverse) simultanity of the movement is stunning.
ArgMax comments: "An economic recovery is not real unless there is widespread participation in the economy, and the economic benefits accrue to a broad base of Americans. The current recovery appears to be failing that test. "Somehow I see a relation with the reaction of the stock exchange market on the election outcome in India. People deciding on the great flows of capital around the world hesitate because of some possible influence of communists on the Congress administration in India. So much in contrast with the ease for the Chinese economy to attract foreign investments.
(see also: Sing Singh).
Mark Kleiman writes on religion and politics reacting on the meeting of Kofi Annan with 'church leaders'. I am agree with him to a great extend but not completely. In his update Mark writes about the similarity between politicians and religious leaders: "Of course, a religious leader can build a political following, and accumulate a record as a political actor that makes his or her views of general interest. By the time Martin Luther King spoke out against the War in Vietnam, he was both the leader of a national movement and someone whose leadership on civil rights had generated for him considerable moral authority even among those who were neither his followers nor his co-religionists. That meant that his views, even on topics on which he wasn't an expert, were of general interest."but has not yet come to my conclusion that we simply should stop acting as if a significant difference exists between religious leaders and other political leaders apart from a special way of using of the word god.
So in my book the fact that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America succeeded in having a discussion with Annan on this issue simply proves the (relative) succes of their political efforts.
PS: Kleiman hammers on the special knowledge of religious leaders. They could argue that religion plays an important role in Iraq and because of that they have some expertise here. I don't know if they use that argument,
however.
PPS: the meeting had very little media-coverage if google-news is a good measurement of that.
25-05-2004
"From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.
Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East. "(They've screwed up).
Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly summarizes Zinni's criticism in top ten Iraq mistakes:
The first mistake [was] the belief that containment as a policy doesn't work....
The second mistake I think history will record is that the strategy was flawed....
The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support....
We failed in number four, to internationalize the effort....
I think the fifth mistake was that we underestimated the task....
The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting the exiles....
The seventh problem has been the lack of planning....
The eighth problem was the insufficiency of military forces on the ground....
The ninth problem has been the ad hoc organization we threw in there....
The tenth mistake [has been] a series of bad decisions on the ground....
"60 Minutes asked Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz to respond to Zinni's remarks. The request for an interview was declined." (previeous source again).
Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East. "
The first mistake [was] the belief that containment as a policy doesn't work....
The second mistake I think history will record is that the strategy was flawed....
The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support....
We failed in number four, to internationalize the effort....
I think the fifth mistake was that we underestimated the task....
The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting the exiles....
The seventh problem has been the lack of planning....
The eighth problem was the insufficiency of military forces on the ground....
The ninth problem has been the ad hoc organization we threw in there....
The tenth mistake [has been] a series of bad decisions on the ground....
The average guy on the street .. wouldn't know a supply curve if it broke into his house, slapped him in the face, and made off with his back issues of The American Spectator.
I couldn't help laughing aloud. I imagined the burgling and violent curve...
The quote is from Bradley Reed, who wrote this in a comment on Brad deLongs review of a letter by the Republican campaign manager: "Yes, they are mad...His letter leaves it open for voters to ask: "If the President can grow the economy and create jobs, why did he wait until 2004 to do so? Why is employment still so much lower than it was in January 2001? Is it because job losses then meant falling wages and bigger profits--and big profits are the important thing for Bush in non-election years?"
Dangerous ground. "In my opinion the real dilemma behind this funny remark is the question if the voters in general are informed enough to make the right judgements. I think not. This produces a real dilemma if you think this problem can only be solved by giving the right to vote just to those that can cope with that responsibility. Who should decide, what should be the criterion? The solution however is simple: indirect elections.
Dangerous ground. "
22-05-2004
Een groep mensen bij mij in de wijk is geschokt door de plannen van B&W; om een groen deel van de wijk op te offeren aan de bouw van extra woningen.
Hoewel ik in een heel groene wijk van de stad woon geef ik ze gelijk dat het boomgaardje dat B&W; in gedachten heeft een mooi visitekaartje is van de wijk. Ze lijken op het eerste gezicht ook wel sterk te staan omdat ze een aantal mensen die nu in het college zitten 4 jaar geleden er toe verleid hebben uit te spreken dat het groen in deze wijk niet verder mag worden aangetast.
Op twee punten ben ik het echter niet met ze eens. Zodoende heb ik ze onderstaand briefje geschreven:
Naar aanleiding van jullie oproep om te protesteren bij de gemeenteraad tegen woningbouw in de groenstrook Stelviobaan heb ik de raadsleden het volgende briefje geschreven:
Ik ontving een foldertje over gemeenteplannen met betrekking tot woningbouw in een groenstrook in Lunetten. Hoewel het foldertje niet ondertekend is ga ik er maar van uit dat het verhaal klopt: op de webstek van de gemeente las ik over het bestemmingsplan namelijk ook Verder staan nog een tweetal locaties aan de Stelviobaan ter discussie. bron.
Ik ben het maar gedeeltelijk eens met het protest.
Om het zuidelijk gedeelte van de groenstrook tussen Stelviobaan en inundatiekanaal (het boomgaardje) voor woningbouw te gebruiken zou in mijn ogen zonde zijn van dit leuk uitziende stukje wijkingang en bovendien onaantrekkelijke woningen opleveren: de Lunettenbaan ligt te dicht bij. Woningbouw in het gedeelte ten noorden van de skatebaan lijkt me geen gek idee; in ieder geval veel beter dan woningbouw op allerlei andere groene plaatsen in de wijk. Het voordeel is immers dat de fietsroute naar het centrum wat bewoonder wordt. Goed voor de veiligheid. Op zn minst voor het gevoel van veiligheid.
Zoals jullie zien ben ik het maar gedeeltelijk eens met jullie protest.
Dat Jan van Zanen van de VVD, Rene Verhulst van het CDA, Walther Lentink van Leefbaar Utrecht en Hans Spekman van de PvdA destijds in 2000 de stelling onderschreven dat Het groen in Lunetten niet verder mag worden aangetast vind ik wel tegen ze pleiten maar waarschijnlijk op een andere manier dan jullie. Volgens mij moeten politici geen dingen beloven die ze niet na kunnen komen, zeker niet van die nogal algemene.
Jullie schrijven Bebouwen van een dergelijk waardevol stuk groen uitsluitend vanwege het dekken van gaten in de begroting: dat kan toch niet? Ik vraag me dan af: zijn er in jullie ogen andere redenen waarom dat wel zou kunnen? Geldgebrek is toch juist de enige reden waarom de gemeente zoiets zou besluiten?
Zijn er trouwens Utrechtse wijken die groener zijn dan Lunetten?
21-05-2004
In my post below I addressed a 'moronic'. I argued before not to do that but instead address the sensible people from the other camp.
So I was forced to now react on Anti-anti-war who I judged much more sensible then the double bird-killer of the post below while without doubt in the Bush-camp: "Contrary to what many "intellectuals", liberals, students, and others seem to think these days, the war in Iraq is not only justified, but will also prove to be well worth its while. For that to happen, however, the Bush administration needs to stay the course in Iraq and not bow to political and diplomatic pressure. A substantial long-term American military presence will be required."
and:
Once Iraq starts to stabilize (and again, it may take some time for that to happen, but happen it will), the benefits will be apparent to all. Freed of its cruel and oppressive dictator, and protected by a semi-permanent U.S. military presence, Iraq will eventually become a Western-style representative democracy that will transform the Middle East. Capitalism, trade with the United States and the West (and Israel), increased revenues from oil, and the prosperity that comes with it, will increase the standard of living for virtually all Iraqis. There will be talk of a "Mesopotamian renaissance" (you heard it here first). Iraq will attract international capital and investment, eventually tourism. Its universities will mold the brightest minds in the Middle East. Iraq will become the envy of the rest of the Arab Middle East, and will eventually come to influence and encourage democratic/secular movements in other Arab countries.
And the anti-war movement? Most who bought into it will deny ever having done so......Very few, if any, will admit to having marched in candlelight vigils in protest of a war that saved civilization in the Middle East.
Wanna bet?I added the following comments: I am afraid Ed is just too much into wishful thinking.
On the comparison of Iraq-2003 with Germany-1945 I want to add some other important differences.
The neighboring countries. I am living in one of those: the Netherlands (and yes I am ashamed about what happened in Srebrenica). Hitler-Germany attacked almost all of its neighbors. While the real fighting was done by Russians, Polish, Canadians, Americans and English and while the resistance in some of the occupied countries was less strong then most people from the generation before mine suggested, the number of Dutchmen (or Tsjech, Belgian, Danish, Polish yes even French or Austrian) who were not glad to hear about D-Day was very very small. For every single German who accepted the defeat of Germany and thought about relations with the neighboring countries in the future this was an extra reason not to oppose the occupying forces.
Compare this with Iraq. Only Kuwait can be compared with Germanys neighbors. While Saddam was responsible for hundreds of thousands war-victims (at least) in Iran some sources now claim that Iran gives support to oppositional groups in Iraq (or terrorists even). The Turkish government had reasons not to support the invasion. Bin Laden meanwhile succeeded in one of his aims in relation with his home-country: the US-troops have been withdrawn from Saudi-Arabia. (not all perhaps, but still).
Another important difference is a little bit ironic: the precisions of the war as such. I opposed the attack (at that moment) but defended Bushs claim that the collateral damage was not very big. I accept the claim that the casualties to some degree can be compared with the terror Saddam was going to inflict on the Iraqi people in following years. Even after the killing of 40 people in a wedding party (I link to an Iranian source here to stress my previous point) the attack and occupation of Iraq is so bloodless in comparison with the bombing of Germany in 44-45. (remember Dresden?, remember Hiroshima btw).
Two short remarks to conclude.
First: the line Germany and Japan rejoined the world community... My problem is in REjoining.
At what time was Iraq a member of the world community the way Germany was before WW I ?
Second. looking back at all reactions the first one by Richard was the best maybe: please do read The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria. Not because of the issue of natural resources working against democracy but because of its central theme (democracy can be illiberal).
and:
Once Iraq starts to stabilize (and again, it may take some time for that to happen, but happen it will), the benefits will be apparent to all. Freed of its cruel and oppressive dictator, and protected by a semi-permanent U.S. military presence, Iraq will eventually become a Western-style representative democracy that will transform the Middle East. Capitalism, trade with the United States and the West (and Israel), increased revenues from oil, and the prosperity that comes with it, will increase the standard of living for virtually all Iraqis. There will be talk of a "Mesopotamian renaissance" (you heard it here first). Iraq will attract international capital and investment, eventually tourism. Its universities will mold the brightest minds in the Middle East. Iraq will become the envy of the rest of the Arab Middle East, and will eventually come to influence and encourage democratic/secular movements in other Arab countries.
And the anti-war movement? Most who bought into it will deny ever having done so......Very few, if any, will admit to having marched in candlelight vigils in protest of a war that saved civilization in the Middle East.
Wanna bet?
20-05-2004
Frank of Memetank mentions this bizarre accusation under the title "The hate, the hate": " Could it be, as Rush Limbaugh mentioned in passing on a recent broadcast, that the perpetrators of the alleged crime are homosexuals? If that's the case, maybe the motivation for their activities was far different than from what has been discussed in the media's wall to wall coverage of this incident. If these individuals are homosexuals, maybe they were getting stimulated by looking at naked Iraqis in sexually provocative positions."Brilliant. Using the disgust over the sexual connotation of part of the torture pictures to divert attention from the torture as such. On top of it using this scandalous behavior, for which Bush himself tried to apologise, to blame a group in society.
Not surprising when you also argue like this: "The question begs to be asked. Who gave the now infamous pictures to CBS and for what reason? Was that person paid? What was their motive for providing the images to 60 Minutes? Could it have been to cause political damage to the Bush Administration?" (source
Well, of course this is a moronic from the other camp in my own words, so I should not address him. I want to use this however to write about the subject of partisanship.
Partisanship seems to be so import a feature of politics nowadays that it is possible to attack the partisanship of your opponents in an extremely partisan way: it is wrong to come up with information that could damage the position of the Bush Administration if you don't like the Bush Administration...
18-05-2004
Moncay at Living in Europe links to the "blog" of the PES (Party of European Socialists) claiming it to be a "move to counter voter apathy".
That's optimism.
The PES is not really a party: it's the union of the Social democratic parties (they even have a poll on their site asking "Should the PES extend membership to individuals?".
Still these parties together have millions of members. On just a couple of the blog-items one person reacts. Beside there is some kind of open thread where some dozens of people give their opinion on all kinds of subjects. With no structure at all.
Amazing.
The subjects are interesting. On the result of the Indian elections they (the items have no authors!) comment (among other things): "India shows strong economic progress hopefully now also to the benefit of the poor people in the rural districts and also something of what we understand by sustainability.
Europe must take advantage of this situation revitalising not only trade negotations but also more actively seeking to improve working conditions and ensuring ILO minimum working standards for the Indian workforce.
In the globalisation era, we need Europe to be a frontrunner for a better agenda for all workers. This is also a signal in the context of the present trend of outsourcing. We are not against international work-sharing as a result of free trade. This has given us much growth and wealth but the time has come to work for the creation of fairer conditions so that one day we will compete on the best working conditions and not on the worst."Nothing wrong with that except that this is the blog of a big group of professional politicians. Can't they come up with something more substantial?
Europe must take advantage of this situation revitalising not only trade negotations but also more actively seeking to improve working conditions and ensuring ILO minimum working standards for the Indian workforce.
In the globalisation era, we need Europe to be a frontrunner for a better agenda for all workers. This is also a signal in the context of the present trend of outsourcing. We are not against international work-sharing as a result of free trade. This has given us much growth and wealth but the time has come to work for the creation of fairer conditions so that one day we will compete on the best working conditions and not on the worst."