StephenKMackSD's Blog

The Financial Times has allowed one of it’s former Public Enemies a space to offer some new ideas about a pressing issue. One is hardly surprised at the response of the readership of the FT! A concerted campaign of vilification has paid off, in the comments section of Mr. Varoufakis’ essay.

The Corporatist State is the future of the ‘West’: in America the passage of the TPA has ushered in the idea that  ‘secret legislation’ is acceptable, without much dissent, by an completely corrupt/complaint political class, that repeats the Party Line on ‘Free Trade’ which is in essence Managed Trade. Large multi-National Corporations are now in charge of both our politics and economic life: and the Merkel/Schäuble alliance is the future of our collective idea and practice of politics. Which involves a surrender of sovereignty i.e. self-determination as constitutive of what republicanism once meant. What I find puzzling is Mr. Varoufakis’ faith in the idea of Europe as practiced by that Merkel/Schäuble duo.

Political Cynic

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/27db9c44-3483-11e5-bdbb-35e55cbae175.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3hHpXI0hb

Amidst the doom saying chatter Mr. Gioia adds this well worn cliche of the current political orthodoxy:

‘And it’s been a tough time for satirical magazines. The terrorist attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo has had a chilling effect on the medium. But it hardly takes guns and ammo to shut down once prominent satirical periodicals.’

Charlie Hebdo was not, in fact, a ‘satirical magazine’ but an instrument of political oppression against an unassimilated immigrant population, from former French colonies, using Mohammed as the stand in for that population. The argued Enlightenment standards of the tradition of French satire was about Voltaire of the Philosophical Dictionary or his scathing satire on Joan of Arc  La Pucelle d’Orléans or the Persian Letters by Montesquieu, that took it’s point of departure from inside a tradition, not outside of that tradition, but simply from a newly evolving Deist/Theist perspective. The pied noirs like Camus, Derrida and Althusser were of European parentage and not subject to the kind of  relentless demonization of Muslim immigrants as perpetual other.

Political Cynic

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/25/the-death-of-satire.html?source=socialflow&via=twitter_page&account=thedailybeast&medium=twitter

For some further insights into some of the questions raised in Mr. Munchau’s essay, and other pertinent questions about the how of the EU, and it’s methods and self-serving ‘legal interpretations’  see Mr.Nathan Tankus’ essay:

Mario Draghi: The ECB Has No Mandate To Ensure Checks Clear Or Credit Cards Work

http://goo.gl/9gUFnn

The Tankus essay adds dimension to Mr. Munchau’s insightful and utterly necessary rejoinder to EU apologists i.e. the ‘Serial Defaulter’ Germany, and their putative ‘Hero’ Schäuble The Terrible.

StephenKMackSD

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e903ad46-3201-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html#axzz3h0YOxz9F

Putting all this together, Europe now has a system where liquidity and insolvency problems can occur and can be deliberately generated (at least in part) by the central bank. Then the Troika can force that country into an “IMF program” if it wants to continue having a functioning banking system. Alternatively, the central bank can choose to simply “suspend convertibility” to the unit of account and force the write down of deposits until the banks are solvent again. During this drawn out period payments grind to a halt and mass business disruptions and failures can and will be generated. In other words Europe has created a system where you either comply with the dictates of unelected bureaucrats or you accept a more disorderly version of the United States banking system before the Civil War. The bottom line is that if you feel inclined to visit Europe remember that the payments system can fail you at any time. Plan accordingly.

http://goo.gl/stbf0x

Mr.Moisés Naím is a Think Tank Technocrat who manages to offer not one valuable insight into Trump or Tsipras! Nor even the attempt to hint at or even sketch, no matter how briefly, the historical/political context that produced these two political actors. Instead just a bland recitation of the current political orthodoxy: Trump as political opportunist/television vaudevillian, a kind of political Don Rickels, and Tsipras as politically irresponsible communist rabble rouser. With this recitation of, by now, well worn cliches Mr. Naím should qualify for a place in the New York Times editorial page, with the likes of David Brooks and Thomas Friedman: something to be read with your morning cup of coffee, and just as quickly forgotten in the rush of events of the work day. Except when the boss mentions that he’d read one or the other of these writers and says, in passing, that he valued the insights offered. And like a good employee, she/he silently nods in tacit agreement,while wondering at the lack of critical thinking skills of her/his immediate superior.
Political Observer

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/donald-trump-greece-tsipras-immigration-austerity/399299/#about-the-authors

The worse they sound, the better they do. That is the power of anti-politics. Mr Trump is merely a symptom. His Republican rivals should beware. Trump Towers will fall. Other skyscrapers loom.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/33c34aa8-3086-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html#axzz3geS87b3A

You have to give Sen. Cotton his due! As student of Harvey Mansfield and protege of William Kristol he is a well credentialed Neo-Con, but with the political savvy to frame his criticism of Kerry in biblical terms.Therefore capturing a large segment of Republican voters, who are Evangelicals or their allies, with this rhetorical gambit.

Sec. Rice’s assurances leave one a bit cold, as she and her allies Nuland,Power and Pyatt are notorious prevaricators,or should it be dissimulators?

Does Kerry represent a change from the Rice/Power/Nuland/Pyatt menage? Who have produced the political nihilism of Ukraine, and it’s offspring The New Cold War!  Sec. Kerry’s jingoistic speech at the 2012 Convention, in praise of Obama’s policies, was utterly distasteful, but perhaps, it was just the price to be paid for admission to a position on the world stage, that represents Sec. Kerry’s ambition? Or has Sec. Kerry become just like the men he once criticized, so many years ago: McNamara, the Bundy brothers and the rest of the once ascendent WASP elite, like the Alsop brothers, whose crime was believing that policy technocrats and their journalistic publicists could change the world, for the better, by waging a war against anti-colonialists and making it a war against the Communist Menace.

Political Observer

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/tom-cotton-john-kerry-pontius-pilate-iran-deal-120520.html#ixzz3gjK6DbRL

From the deep recesses of the intellectual technocracy comes ‘the Globalist’ aided by Mr.  André Reichel as writer/prognosticator,  on the ‘last man standing’ for Europe or at least the Europe represented by Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble. The Germany called the Serial Defaulter of Europe, at least in the judgement of  Mr. Martin Wolf of The Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fcb2fb16-1e5c-11e5-ab0f-6bb9974f25d0.html#axzz3geS87b3A

Or read Ms. Tett’s revelatory essay on an address by Benjamin Friedman, the esteemed economic historian, that takes up the issue of those defaults:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/927efd1e-9c32-11e4-b9f8-00144feabdc0.html

But never fear our guide to the intricacies of the EU comes up with this astounding exercise in dis-information. Or call it by it’s real name apologetics:

Some of Schäuble’s critics call him “neoliberal” – something that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Just before the above quote is this laughable obsequious pandering to the  Schäuble ego:

 The German finance minister knows his Winston Churchill (and his dictum about never letting a good crisis go to waste.)

Or this barely disguised patronizing insult:

This approach to economic management revolves more around political economy than pure economics, which is why North American economists do not get it – like Paul Krugman eloquently and obsessively in the New York Times.

The very terms of the ‘re-negotiated’ agreement with Greece render this statement denying Mr. Schäuble‘s Neo-Liberalism ludicrous. Even the IMF has said further Austerity measures are counterproductive. We can see that the selling off of publicly held assets, and the cuts in pensions etc.- all of these actions consistent with the textbook model of ‘Reform’ in the Neo-Liberal economic theology: the destruction of the institutions of the Welfare State are the primary goal of neoliberal rationalism, as define by Wendy Brown’s Undoing the Demos. Germany terms are Neo-Liberal to the core!

Then we come to Mr.Reichel central explanatory concern, that of Politics vs. Economics or the French v. German practices:

This particular German form of economic management is also profoundly at odds with France’s very state-centered ideas of how a national economy should be structured.

The core idea of France is to believe in the primacy of politics over all matters in society. Although not as strong as it used to be, French dirigisme (state control of economic and social matters) is still alive and kicking.The French state still owns sizable amounts of shares in major French companies such as GDF Suez (the utility company), Thales (the defense contractor), Air France-KLM, Renault (the carmaker), Areva (the nuclear power group) and France Telecom.

This contrasts sharply from the German notion of the primacy of politics – which restricts it to setting carefully calibrated rules to markets, politics and society.

Call this what it is self-congratulatory technocratic chatter. The central argument is that Germany is a genuine Market Economy and France is, in effect, still an economy laboring under quasi-socialist principals.

Reading through all the cliche mongering in this essay, here is what might be considered Mr. Reichel‘s central argument, disregarding the plentiful technocratic rhetorical garnish:

All of this is why probably the most significant clash over Greece is not between creditors and debtors, as is so often assumed. The real clash is between the competing views of France and Germany over the future of Europe and the Eurozone.

The political/moral fate of the Greek people remains outside the ken of this thinker, demonstrating the vacuous ethical/moral core of the technocrat in the role of political actor.

Almost Marx

Schäuble: Europe’s Last Man Standing

Nebenkanzler is the perfect shadow leader of the fissuring EU, the perfect stern pater familias : a stock character in almost all of European literature. Yet what renders the German political/moral position null is the reports in these pages by Mr. Wolf ,and Ms. Tett’s compelling report on Benjamin Friedman’s speech. The quote from a German Marshall Fund technocrat, a institutional relic of the Old Cold War, originally funded by a gift from the West German government, and another technocrat from the Soros funded European Council on Foreign Relations adds a dash of ideological verisimilitude, indicative of ‘European Values’: perhaps the prerequisite for those ‘values’ is perpetual economic/political amnesia and the chutzpah to pretend that the Dream of Europe is still viable. While the European and American economies are still mired in the watershed of the utter failure of Free Market Delusion. What is holding this decidedly fragile thing together? The ideological infused chatter, indeed apologetics of a servile economic press, and their allies in various think tanks: the itinerant, for hire intellectuals who make the Sophists appear virtuous?

Political Observer

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/09c4ff30-2fb9-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html#axzz3gcrREluL