The Quirky Post

Why China wants more gold and less dollars

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Gold over Love

2009-11-09T19:48:00.006+01:00

LAST WEEK, FAMOUS INVESTOR Warren Buffet, when asked why his investment vehicle Berkshire Hathaway had still so much cash ($20 billion) on hand, after just having bought an entire railroad company, gave the inevitable Scrooge McDuck answer: " I like cash."
No doubt one of the main reasons for Mr. Buffet's fondness of cash is that you can dive around in it like a porpoise, burrow through it like a gopher, toss it up and let it hit you on the head. Still, many investors, traders and governments have lately been falling in love -anew- with another financial evergreen: Gold.

To some, man's love for gold is the ultimate proof of his stupidity. After all, you can't eat it, drink it or burn it. The value is entirely based on its kitschy, shiny color and relative rarity.
To others, our love for gold (I admit, I like it too) is -on the contrary- proof of true civilization and the capability to think in abstracts (since it requires a lot of imagination and civilization to accept the concept that a bar of gold is worth more than a healthy cow).

Be it stupid or smart, one financial fact is undeniable: the price of gold is on the rise. And it doesn't take a financial wizard to know the reason why, either. Traditionally, whenever things are bad, we turn to gold, like we have been doing for thousands of years. And clearly, last year's clearing of a global financial meltdown by the skin of our teeth, the ensuing crash of the markets and the start of the Great Recession, already merit the prediction of an impressive gold rally.

But there's something else. The US dollar.

The greenback was weak even before the financial crisis started. In fact, some analysts argue that if it weren't for the fall of Lehman brothers, the dollar would already have been put on the list of endangered currencies. While that remains a 'what if' for ever, you won't need much leeway getting the point across that the fundamental position of the dollar is weaker today than it was in the summer of 2008.

The economic position of the U.S. in comparison to the global community has weakened.
The U.S. budget deficit has exploded, with no end in sight.
Traditional buyers of U.S. treasuries are increasingly switching to….gold

Last month, London department store Harrods started selling gold coins and bars, including the 'real deal' Fort Knox type of gold bar, weighing 12.5 kilogram (home delivery included with the purchase of two bars or more). According to the Geneva based gold refiner who supplies Harrods, the bars weighing 100 ounces or less are especially popular. 'Portable wealth', two words igniting warm, fuzzy feelings in people of all ages, sexes, races and ideologies. And after the recent crackdown on tax havens and tax evaders, those words must burn even brighter for many Haves. Said Mr. Oberli, employee of a Swiss gold refiner, putting the feeling of many in words, while picking up a 100 gram gold bar: "It's like a $3,000 Swiss chocolate. I like these very much."

We too Mr. Oberli. We too. Even though you can't very well dive around or burrow through it, much less toss it up and let it hit you on the head.

_

More from category Funny Money:

Second biggest sucker's rally in history

Next financial crisis already in the works

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

That Wall

2009-11-05T18:42:00.007+01:00

IN NOVEMBER 1989, weeks -days even- after the Berlin Wall had fallen, my brother went on a week long excursion to Berlin with his history class. Senior year, 18 years old, traveling from Holland to Berlin, Germany, where it was all happening. The Germans, who never partied, never did anything spontaneous, who always maintained law and order, suddenly found themselves throwing the party of the decade, without having organized as much as a bar and a band.

People took to the streets, bringing beer and champagne, laughed, talked, hugged total strangers. Flower Power in Germany, all in the middle of a particularly rugged autumn. So, chaos, party, action and a fun demolition to boot. And while I had to watch it on television with my parents, my brother was actually there. Not sure if I've ever been more jealous about something.

I also remember President Reagan, giving a speech some two years earlier in (then still) West-Berlin, in front of the Brandenburger Tor, saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" It's probably one of the most defining one liners of Reagan's Presidency. Standing there all brave and determined (well, in a senior citizen kind of way), challenging that most reasonable of all Soviet leaders. I never thought much of it back then, but lately I've started seeing it in a different light.

Of course it was an actor's line, and one like no other President could have delivered the way actor Ronald could. In the days leading up to the speech, aides advised Reagan to scrap it from the speech, because it might jeopardize his - otherwise promising- relationship with Mr. Gorbachev. But how could he have ever even considered it? It would be the line of his life, spoken right there in front of the Berlin Wall, that San Andreas fault of world politics.

And so he did.

Did saying it really change the world? Did it really 'tear down The Wall'? It's tempting to think so, and many still do. How it emboldened the East-German people to fiercer resistance and louder voices of dissent. One argument sustaining this, is the apparent hope of today's Iranian protesters, to receive the same sort of support from President Obama in their struggle for freedom. At recent anti-government rallies, many of them could be heard chanting: "Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us". They realize they can't expect much more than verbal support, but it would still be more than they've gotten so far.

To be sure, after you unravel all the bullshit, there really isn't much difference between Communism and Islamism. Both ideologies use supposedly supreme principles, leaders and rituals to suppress people into obedience, and worse.
And though I know it's early days, I can't resist thinking about the one liner that will define President Obama's Presidency. Will it be "Yes we can!" (but we never did). Or something more like: "Mr Ahmadinejad, tear down this dictatorship!"

My brother did bring me back something from his school trip to Berlin in November 1989. It was a small piece from That Wall. I still have it.

More on category Politics:

A strange year for Democracy

Taliban commanders going soft on Democracy?

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

A strange year for Democracy

2009-11-02T16:52:00.003+01:00

THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, it will be exactly 1 year since Democracy celebrated one of its more promising victories, when the United States elected as its President a black man who campaigned on positive change.
This year, so it seems, democracy hardly has reason to party at all (if not mourn over lost opportunities). Altough, much of it may prove to be in the eye of the beholder, changing perspective over time, with history soldiering on.

In June, for the first time since -well, ever- democracy started openly shaking its tail in Iran. Though elections are held regularly there, the Islamist powers that be always make sure nothing too distressing ever results from them. Like you have the (infamous) communist democratic model -offering the choice between one candidate- there is also the Islamist democratic model -offer the choice between several candidates who are exactly the same.

But this year, something odd happened, when a previously normal (that is: islamist, highly conservative, defender of the Great Revolution and all that) kind of candidate, gained momentum as the preferred candidate of many of the young -slightly more modern- Iranians, because rumor had it that Mr.Mousavi was not wholeheartedly against women participating in public life, seemed to have a less destructive eye on the development of secular education and did not like adulterous women being stoned to death. Suddenly, Mr.Mousavi was crowned -both inside and outside the country- as the Obama of the Middle East, a hero of change.
When incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still won the election, widespread fraud was suspected and uncovered, whereupon the Islamic Republic of Iran showed its true face, clubbed some of the more vigorous protesters to death and imprisoned dozens of others. 0-1 for Democracy.

Another novice to freedom of choice, Afghanistan, also held its elections in the Summer of 2009. Or held, 'started' might be a more suitable description, since the process took until today to fully unfold, and then only because the last remaining opponent withdrew from the race.
What happened? Well, a couple of weeks after the first round, Hamid Karzai was elected winner of the whole thing, because he had so many votes a second round wasn't even necessary. Turned out though that the elections had been riddled with fraud ( a little disappointing after you've defied Taliban suicide attacks and thumbcutting reprisals to cast your vote in the first place) and a second round was necessary after all.

But today, opponent Abdullah Abdullah withdrew, stating that not enough guarantees had been made to prevent the same widespread fraud in the second round. 0-2 for Democracy.

And last but so not least, the E.U. Presidency. In less than two weeks -barring extremely anti-climactic events- the European Union will chose its first permanent chairman of the European Counsel, an office popularly known as that of 'European President.' Candidates range from former U.K Prime Minister Tony Blair to incumbent Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende.
And to make it absolutely, 100 percent certain no voter fraud is even possible with the election of the European President, no election will be held at all. That's right, the Lisbon Treaty on which the European Presidency is based, in its effort to make the EU less complicated and more democratic, has -in its infinite wisdom- provided for the creation of a European Leader who will have ZERO electoral mandate. Instead, the 27 leaders of the European Union will make the choice for the people. I'd say that's 0-3 for Democracy.

So, which of these three Presidents will be chosen democratically first? Being a European, it shames me to admit, that I really don't know.

More on category Politics:

Frenchies pulling a Chavez?

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

French online piracy law, and how to circumvent it

2009-10-26T19:25:00.006+01:00

LAST THURSDAY, the French Constitutional Court signed off on what some have already dubbed as the 'Anti-Internet Law'. The so called HADOPI 2* law (after HADOPI 1 was shot down by the same court, in July 2009) means to help the entertainment industry fight internet piracy, by allowing them to terminate the internet connection of people who download files which are copyright protected.
Altough the agency which is to enforce the law -and in which the entertainment industry will play a pivotal role- is not allowed to order disconnects itself, the law is set up in such a way that judicial review is but a formality.

As a foreigner who is living in France for a couple of years now, I can attest to the fact that French bureaucracy is seriously flawed. Procedures are often unclear, civil servants are badly trained (except in being extremely arrogant) and mistakes abundant. While this is annoying enough when applying for new license plates or a telephone connection, it's positively dangerous when your internet connection depends on it.

Regardless whether, in principle, you're in favor of or against a law that allows terminating one's internet connection as punishment for downloading copyright protected files, enforcing it will be littered with nasty consequences for every French citizen. To name a few:

1)End of internet privacy. 'The Agency', charged with enforcing the law, has no magic wand that lights up the culprits in the dark. Everyone's internet behavior will be monitored, specifically the kind of sites people visit and the content they download from it. (so as to be able to use content identification techniques such as watermarking and fingerprinting)
2) Mistakes will be made. As stated earlier, a lot of mistakes are made in French bureaucracy, and chances are it won't be any different with the procedures tight to this new law. But with people growing increasingly dependent on the internet, such mistakes will have heavy consequences for the ones suffering them.
3) Increasing cost of internet access. British Telecom, the U.K.'s biggest telecommunications company and Internet Service Provider (ISP), recently stated that the cooperation required from ISP's to enforce a French style anti-piracy law, will be expensive, increasing the cost for all broadband users.

How to circumvent the anti-piracy law.

Basically, 'The Agency' will be allowed to see what content you're downloading. Assuming you haven't taken any measures yet, right now both your IP address and most of the content you download will be identifiable. To avoid detection by 'The Agency', masking the identity of your content is the most important.

Now, internet data packets have two parts: a data payload and a header used for routing. The data payload is whatever is being sent, the header discloses information about source, destination, size, timing etc of the file.

There are two ways to mask the identity of the content you're downloading:
1) using an anonymous and secure P2P network
2) using a VPN (Virtual Private Network).

Bear in mind though, that not all networks provide equal protection.

P2P networks use encryption to send data to you, while VPN's use a method called 'tunneling', preventing hackers (and eager government spies) from viewing or grabbing content you're downloading .
Examples of P2P can be found here: numerama.com.
Examples of VPN's can be found here: avinashtech.com

Lastly, the best and most thorough way to protect your online privacy is provided by the torproject.org. When comparing internet privacy with safe sex, Torproject is like the pill, two condoms and a diaphragm, all wrapped into one.

Godspeed.

*Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des droits sur Internet

_

More from category Online Revolution:

French Internet Gestapo vs. The People: 0-2

Next financial crisis already in the works

Goldman Sachs thanks you for your money

Who rules the internet?

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Press 2 for investment banking

2009-10-22T19:56:00.005+02:00

TO MOST PEOPLE, the idea of increasing the mortgage on your house with a high interest loan, and then using that loan to play the stock market, would have sounded insane a couple of months ago. After all, housing prices had completely tanked, unemployment was on the rise, and many home owners were already having trouble making their payments. Besides, you'd have to be certifiable to invest in the stock market at all, let alone using borrowed money to do so.

But even though housing prices are still low and unemployment is still rising, ask those same people today and many of them will probably show a greedy interest in that very idea (provided they still have a home). This is bad enough of course, but you can't always stop people from making stupid decisions; plus, it would only affect them. But what if it could also affect you?

This is exactly what the powers that be thought, back in 1933. Deeply emerged in the greatest financial crisis the world had ever seen, with a banking system practically dead in the water, politicians and financial regulators were highly motivated to seek and destroy the chief reasons for the Great Depression. One such reason was believed to be the intimate connection between commercial banking and investment banking. Simply put, many banks not only served as savings and loans facilities, but also traded actively with their own money (sounds familiar? ***cough, cough, Lehman Brothers, cough***). The -pretty obvious- danger of this proprietary trading is that when a bank's trading desk goes down, its normal banking activities will be quickly dragged down with it. This, in turn, hurts the real economy -dealing with goods, services and resources. And if it's a very big bank, others might very well follow. One way to counter this risk, is to simply separate investment banking from commercial banking.

So, in 1933, U.S. Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act, prohibiting companies from combining commercial banking and investment banking. This dramatically decreased the risk of Wall Street dragging down Main Street, since the bankruptcy of an investment bank would not endanger any normal banking activities. But, in 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed again. (right before a rapid, sixfold increase in subprime loans; what a coincidence indeed). China's banking system by the way, is still based on the separation of commercial and investment banking as laid out by the Glass-Steagall Act, and many economists contend this is one of the main reasons why China's banking system escaped relatively unscathed by the financial crisis.

Yesterday, a senior official of the Obama administration confirmed the White House will move forward with ordering "the biggest bailed- out companies to drastically cut the pay packages of 175 top executives" (as reported by CNN). Sure, it's a nice, people appeasing step in the right direction, but still a far cry from capping all bonuses in the banking industry (which Obama has already spoken out against, at last month's G20 meeting in Pittsburgh). Even worse is that the White House has also stated not to seek the forced separation of investment banking and commercial banking, but instead will focus on tighter regulation of the current system. (in other words, metaphorically: increase the mortgage on your house to play the stock market if you want, but report back regularly, diversify your portfolio, and don't do drugs)

Thing is though, if you don't change a system, it will eventually repeat itself.

_

More from category Funny Money:

Party like it's 1939

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

E-Reader Unstoppable

2009-10-19T21:53:00.006+02:00

THE STAR TREK SERIES has always been filled with wonderful toys and inventions. Warp technology, phasers, the medical tricorder, the universal translater, holodecks, who wouldn't want to be a space explorer with that kind of technology? Over the years, scores of books have been written about real world technology, resembling Star Trek tech. And even though we're not off to deep space any time soon (according to NASA) some seriously smart people are actually trying to develop (faster than light) Warp technology.
Compared to the promise of lightning speed, the tablet PC fulfills a far more modest role. Although they are used all over the place in an average Star Trek episode (called PADDs), they've stopped looking futuristic a long time ago. And it's true, Apple already started developing it's first tablet PC, Newton platform, back in 1989, when the average household was still drooling over their lumpy iAPX 286. But 20 years later, the tablet PC still hasn't conquered the world; yet.

Last week, Google announced that it planned to open an online bookstore with an initial library of 500,000 books. Google has already scanned 9,5 million more books (well, their Oompa Loompa's have) but these are the 500,000 books for which they actually secured the digital rights. Their e-books can be read on any kind of e-reader, in fact, any device with a Web browser. Google is also still trying to settle a lawsuit with American publishers in the U.S. , so it can also offer online versions of the other 9,5 million books. Doubtless they will get their way at some point in the near future.
Meanwhile, to stay ahead in the game of e-reading, Amazon has said it is going to offer its Kindle (the first commercially successful e-reader) in as much as 100 countries outside the U.S. And the arrival of Kindle competitors such as Sony's Reader and the Dutch IREX (from electronics giant Philips) undoubtedly puts even more dynamic pressure in the e-reader market, whose growth numbers have been picking up speed over the past 18 months or so.

Together with the Kindle, it's the success of the iPhone and its tactile touch screen that has renewed the dream of a commercially viable PC tablet. As it turns out, people do want to get their fingers dirty performing all kinds of operations on tiny digital screens. And even though smartphones, netbooks, laptops and e-readers already offer users a buffet of digital options, it has been decided we must also want a PC tablet. Both Apple and Microsoft are rumored on working to introduce tablet computers of their own, with Apple perhaps launching its tablet as soon as early next year. Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer has not yet confirmed that his company is working on a tablet computer, but he did comment on rumors about a supposed Microsoft tablet prototype that was shown on Gizmodo. "I got an e-mail from some customer who said, 'I want that' " -which goes to show that at least for Ballmer, the customer really is the king. (Next week I'm emailing him to ask for a Windows version that is just as stable as the Apple OS X)

I don't like e-reading. I like the crisp feeling of a real New York Times, staining my fingers with ink, blowing in the wind, crunching when folded. I like to quickly scan my paper, back and forth, comparing it with articles in earlier papers, still opened on my reading table. I like to walk outside to the mailbox and find my paper inside it. No, I don't want an e-reader.

I did always like those spiffy Star Trek PADDs though.

_

More from category Online Revolution:

Towards a new Islamic Golden Age

Who rules the internet?

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Save Iran, or stand accused

2009-10-15T19:38:00.006+02:00

The leader of all Italians is a 73 year-old narcissistic, power-hungry, corrupt, womanizing dandy, but one thing keeps standing in Berlusconi's way, keeps preventing him from becoming another Italian dictator.
Yes, it would be wonderful if that thing were The People; sadly though, the democratic part of the (Italian) Republic has been conspicuously underperforming over the past few decades -and not just in Italy. Over 50% of Italians are still very happy with their bribing, billionaire babe watcher, even after numerous scandals. No, if our protection against the government would have to come from the people, we'd be lost in chains.

But thank god there's also the judicial system.

It was the judicial system that stopped Berlusconi's unbridled Il Duce look-a-like contest last week, by rejecting his 'Immunity Law'. It was also the judicial system that stopped French President Nicolas Sarkozy, earlier this year, when he wanted to institute an anti-piracy version of the infamous Spanish Inquisition. His plan was to allow a non-governmental body to terminate people's internet connections as punishment for online piracy, without first allowing the accused to seek recourse in a Court of Law. But while the people where still disorganized, stupefied and hesitant, the French Constitutional Court ruled the proposed law unconstitutional.
It was also the judicial system that saved the United States from chaos in December 2000, when outdated voting procedures had deadlocked the Presidential elections. (interestingly enough, the U.S. Constitution does not talk at all about the separation of powers, although it does embody the concept)

We're always talking about how the ancient Greeks blessed us with that Great Good of Democracy, but sometimes we seem to forget that the idea of the 'separation of powers' can also be traced back to the ancient Greeks (later inspiring Montesquieu to write his The Spirit of the Laws), thereby saving the fundamentally flawed concept that democracy really is. For instance, in 1932, Adolf Hitler's NSDAP was made the biggest party by popular vote, but can you really blame a six year-old for playing with his daddy's gun? The German judges though, they were intelligent men, schooled in the rule of law, familiar with Montesquieu, legal history and its excesses. For them, there's no excuse.

It's fair to say that the French, Italian and American judicial systems are strong enough to protect their citizens against possible excesses of their governments. But what exactly is the state of the Iranian judicial system, where the people's need for protection against their government today, is very real, and very acute.

On Tuesday, a report from the Iranian government acknowledged it was investigating former presidential candidate Mahdi Karroubi, on alleged "propagating against (the) Islamic System", punishable by long prison terms. Formal charges have not yet been filed, but from earlier actions it comes as no surprise that the Iranian authorities will try to use the courts against the most important dissidents - thus seeking to legitimize their actions.

Last week, three Iranians were already convicted to death for being part of opposition groups, while dozens of other protesters are still on trial. The death sentences can be appealed in a higher court. But let it be clear, that when young Iranians finally succeed in forcing the divorce between 'Islam' and 'Republic', no Iranian judge will be allowed to claim he had no choice. They all did, and they should have protected you.

More on subcategory Iran:

Second biggest sucker's rally in history

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Party like it's 1939

2009-10-12T22:13:00.005+02:00

A couple of months ago, an old and dusty word turned young and hip in a matter of days. Traditionally, this word would mostly conjure up images of coupon shopping, of wives who save pennies in jars and of putting on an extra sweater because the house is so cold. In short, the kind of word you wouldn't want to be caught dead with. But after Lehman Brothers fell and the world entered The Great Recession, frugal became the new star of the dictionary (because we all had to look it up first).
Suddenly, everything had to be cheap; food, clothes, gifts, and most of all: behavior. For the first time since never it was cool to be cheap. Whether you lived in Southwest Detroit and simply had no money to buy new sneakers because you were laid of by GM (days before its directors flew to Washington in a private jet, begging for more money) or in Manhattan -not owning sneakers but still having to sell the villa in Tuscany- you could both look cool by wearing a pair of worn out adidas.

Should you have missed the start of the hip frugal party, don't bother, because it's already over. Within six months, frugal has gone from hero to zero and back again, and with it, a whole bunch of other things that seemed destined to be changed. The banks would be restructured, bonuses would go down, every American would (finally) be able to afford health care, Iran would be called to order and the world would go back to normal again. And when you hold a patch over one eye and squint the other, it might even look that way, if only for a moment.
But without wanting to sound discerning, to me, 2009 much more resembles 1919 than it does 1946. True, we just overcame a huge problem, preventing the complete meltdown of the financial world. Governments issued hundreds of billions of dollars of stimulus money, guaranteed to back banks and their toxic loans, and replaced the elitist G7 with the (slightly less elitist) G20. But just as defeating the Germans and founding the League of Nations wasn't good enough when it came to preventing the Second World War, the current half-assed measures aren't going to prevent a second, real, meltdown.

'Back in the day' (meaning about 4 months ago), when everybody was still being frugal, about the only thing Republicans and Democrats agreed upon, was that something needed to be done about those big banks, to prevent another systemic crisis. Meanwhile, those big banks themselves kept very, very quiet, after just having received hundreds of billions of dollars to shore up their balance sheets and honor their agreements. But then the markets bottomed out, the banks put all those (taxpayer)billions to work to get in cheap, and suddenly they were making billions in profits again. Soon thereafter, they paid off their government debts and that was that.
In all fairness, some European countries -notably France, Germany and the Netherlands- did make headway with capping bonus pay in the financial sector, but the banking system itself was left alone everywhere.

So what do we have to be afraid of? Last week, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the U.S. budget deficit over the fiscal year 2009 (which ended at September 30) was a whopping $1.4 Trillion, which is 9.9 percent of the GDP, while the deficit for 2008 was $459 billion -which was already considered huge at the time. As of today (12 Oct 2009) the U.S. national Debt Clock stands at $11.9 trillion. (if you love numbers, be sure to watch the debt clock roll on).
Meanwhile, the dollar is weak and getting weaker (in part because of the growing debt) and even though a weak currency has its advantages when it comes to international trade, these advantages will be outweighed by their negative brothers quickly, when investors decide to abandon the dollar in favor of a more robust currency. In fact, one of the reasons the dollar has been losing value against the Euro so quickly (16% since March) is because investors are already turning elsewhere. Of course, if needs be, the dollar will be propped up by the Fed and foreign central banks; for now. But for how long? And because banks have not been restructured, the Goldman Sachses and Morgan Stanley's of the financial world will continue to grow, doubling or tripling in size (compared to the fall of 2008) over the next 10 to 15 years.

And then? Will they be saved again, when it's '1939'? Or will the next crisis be even bigger and ever more incomprehensible?

_

More from category Funny Money:

Next financial crisis already in the works

Goldman Sachs thanks you for your money

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

When Silvio does it, it's not illegal

2009-10-08T20:12:00.006+02:00

IN ITALY, POLITICS is fun. Sure, the Italians have their share of problems, financial, criminal, infrastructural and what not, but always there is Silvio to cheer the people up. Standing trial, a very public divorce, standing trial again, a sex scandal, snubbing a foreign leader, standing trial again, another sex scandal, standing trial again, whatever is needed to distract the people's attention. Nothing is too crazy for Silvio Berlusconi.

This is why he needs to be above the law. Not to protect himself, but to be able to entertain the people (foreign and domestic). Or, as he said himself during his election campaign in 2006: "I am the Jesus Christ of politics. I am a patient victim, I put up with everyone, I sacrifice myself for everyone."
An assertion that might even be too modest, since Christ stood trial only once, while poor Silvio had to endure 17 such ordeals already. Though, in all fairness, in each case he was cleared or acquitted because the statute of limitations had expired. (one of those hidden advantages of a slow, inefficient legal system)

In 2008, to prevent more such unnecessary and unfair trials -concocted of course by leftist conspirators- Berlusconi's parliament passed the Immunity Law. This law amended earlier legislation that granted immunity to Berlusconi but had been rejected by the Constitutional Court in 2004. So for a while, the lesson to aspiring politicians (that is, Italian politicians) seemed to be: when the court strikes down your law, simply create a new one, exactly the same as the rejected one.

But on Wednesday, the Constitutional Court struck back, rejecting the Immunity Law just as it had rejected its predecessor, dragging Mr. Berlusconi back into the world of mortal coil (again). Beforehand, several of Berlusconi's lawyers suggested that the beloved leader might not be able to remain in power if the Immunity Law was repealed. Said Piero Longo to the Court (apparently meaning it as a threat): "It is not possible to serve at the same time, and effectively, in the double role of top official and defendant.(…) A high-ranking official must be available for any event that might require his political attention" (such as going to the birthday party of an 18 year old girl, sleeping with a prostitute and insulting foreign leaders and members of parliament).
Niccolo Ghedini, another one of Mr. Berlusconi's lawyers, tried a 'Southparky' Chewbacca defense, when explaining to the court that although all Italians were equal before the law, "its application" was not necessarily equal for all. (which is lawyerio for "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!". Reportedly, Mr. Ghedini often has great success with this defense when arguing with his wife)

Because of the Court's decision, three trials are to be reopened again. In one of them, the so called 'Milan Trial', Berlusconi is accused of bribing a British lawyer, in exchange for false testimony at two hearings in two other corruption cases. The Lawyer, Mr. Mills, was convicted of corruption last February.
However, lucky for all Italians, Silvio has already vowed to stay in office until 2013, notwithstanding the troubles coming from the "double role of top official and defendant." As Silvio said himself, upon hearing the Court's verdict: "We are going forward. We've ruled without the law before and will continue. And thank God there is Silvio, because otherwise the Italians will be in the hands of these leftists."

Really, when do these leftists get it into their head, that "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

More on category Politics:

Towards a new Islamic Golden Age

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

German official a rabble-rouser?

2009-10-05T21:36:00.012+02:00

Sometimes smart people say stupid things. And when they're said in public and coming from a politician, a simple 'sorry, won't happen again', isn't always enough.
A couple of days ago, German politician Thilo Sarrazin gave an interview to magazine Lettre International. Mr. Sarrazin, a member of the SPD (social democratic party), was recently appointed board member of the Bundesbank (German central bank), after a seven year stint as Berlin's treasury secretary.

In the interview, Sarrazin shares his views about Germany -particularly the city of Berlin- while insulting migrants, single mothers and everybody without a job in the process (or perhaps that is the process). Some examples:

About migrants: "A large part of the Arabs and Turks in this city (Berlin), whose numbers have grown through bad politics, have no productive function whatsoever, apart from the fruit- and vegetable trade."

About single parents and the poor: "40 percent of Berlin's newborns are from the lower classes ("Unterschichtgeburten") and they fill up the schools and classrooms; among them, many children from single parents. We have to completely change social politics: away from cash benefits, especially when it comes to the lower classes."

About social programs: "Why should I accept people who are living off the State but also reject that State, who don't take enough care for their children's education and constantly produce new, little, headscarf-clad girls. (Kopftuchmädchen)"

Naturally, migrant organizations were furious about the former treasury secretary's remarks, and both SPD politicians and Bundesbank president Axel Weber hastened to distance themselves from the inciting remarks (ironically, Mr. Weber was visiting Istanbul at the time). Today it also became known that the state prosecutor is looking into the case, to determine if a case can be made against Sarrazin being a "Volksverhetzer" (rabble-rouser).
I wonder how long it took Mr.Sarrazin to realize he had given an interview filled with the kind of remarks quite unbecoming a social democrat. In an apology he issued after the interview was published, he said it wasn't his intention to "discredit particular ethnic groups." (meaning he really likes fruit and vegetables and is really happy the Turks and Arabs are selling them), and that he would be "more careful and cautious in the future" when making public remarks (just thinking them instead).

One of Mr. Sarrazins most interesting statements in the interview was that "Everybody who can do something and wants to achieve something is welcome; the rest should go somewhere else." After researching some of Mr.Sarrazin's earlier remarks (made during his time as Berlin's treasury secretary) it becomes clear that this last remark conveys much more about his ideas than the ones about migrants and single parents. What irritate him are not the Kopftuchmädchen or the babies popping out of the lower classes like popcorn from a pressure cooker, but the (perceived) notion that the country grows weaker because it doesn't attract enough hard working high-fliers. Sarrazin is not a racist, he's a meritocratist, someone who only values people based on what they have to offer. He wants a society that only welcomes hard working people, achievers, entrepeneurs and smart people, while ditching the rest. Might be a very efficient society, but not a very humane one. (also, this kind of society has already been tried once in Germany).

When Bundesbank President Mr. Weber was asked whether Mr. Sarrazin should resign, he replied: "It is not about people. It is about institutions. The Bundesbank's reputation has been damaged."

That much was already apparent. (it not being about people)

Iran and US set to talk until A-bomb is ready

2009-10-01T15:13:00.006+02:00

WITHIN 10 YEARS Iran will have the bomb, and every analyst, high ranking policy maker and senior diplomat knows it. There are several reasons why they still want to talk about stopping Iran's enrichment program, but none of them has anything to do with actually stopping Iran's enrichment program.

Today, nuclear talks between Iran, the five members of the UN Security Council, Germany and the EU started in Geneva. Driving force behind the talks is the US, which, for the first time in 30 years, will be engaging in direct talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Washington says it wants more inspections and suspension of Iran's program, the Russians are just doing the Americans a favor as a thank you for not building a missile defense system in their backyard, the Chinese feel they must participate, as part of their new -yet still touchy tickly feely- role as a Global power, and the EU is there because, well, they just never miss a summit about anything, do they? Iran, for its part, just wants to buy some time.

A senior US official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said the negotiations "cannot be an open-ended process, or talks just for the sake of talks. (…) We need to see practical steps and measurable results and we need to see them starting quickly." Another senior official stated the Iranians needed "to come clean about their entire nuclear program."
To add some perspective, on April 9th, 2006, Iran succeeded in enriching uranium for the first time. Iranian President Ahmadinejad subsequently declared that day 'National Day of Nuclear Technology'. Since then, Iran celebrates its passed and present nuclear achievements every year on that day, while fiercely praying for new ones. Now, does that seem like the kind of country seriously contemplating shutting down its enrichment program?

Of course Iran is not going "to come clean about their entire nuclear program" (and even if they did, who would believe them?) and the only "practical steps" and "measurable results" they'll be taking will be towards achieving increased, measurable results from their 30.000 or so enrichment centrifuges. But if everybody at the negotiating table knows this, why the talks?

Because that's the way the game is played.

For the West, the benefits of talks are threefold. One, Western governments -particularly the young US administration- need to show their electorate they're doing something about the nuclear threat that Iran poses. Two, talks (together with Iranian refusals to shut down their nuclear program) will build political capital for using military force somewhere in the future. Three, any concession Iran will make - even if only to buy more time- will still slow down its progress.

Iran itself can't afford not to talk. It has to, to demonstrate its willingness to cooperate, even if it never will. The Iranians lie and cheat to the I.A.E.A, the US and the rest of the world, but that alone is not enough cause to invade or bomb their country, and they know it. Besides, for now, time is on their side. The US is already up to its neck in Afghanistan (while not even having properly left Iraq) the Russians and Chinese will never take any serious action against oil rich Iran (until the oil runs out of course) , and when in the past 60 years have the Europeans shown any willingness to fight a real war? They just want to go to the summits.

So they'll talk. And a few years from now, the Islamic Republic of Iran will have some really cool fireworks to display on National Nuclear Technology Day, when it conducts its first underground nuclear explosion.

More on subcategory Iran:

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Gaming industry decides to kick ass

2009-09-28T22:41:00.016+02:00

It had always been such a pleasant business model. First you become a huge company and corner the market with a couple of other huge companies, then you turn on the lazy boy, put your feet up and slap customers with big prices and mediocre products for decades to come.

Of course there are several potential drawbacks about making an art out of lazy complacency. For instance, other companies could enter 'your' market and offer a better product for the same price, or - worse still- a lower one. In such cases, lazy, complacent companies have two options:
1) Run home to daddy and tell him those new kids are picking on you (meaning, run to the government and ask for protection against the big bad better companies)
2) Mobilize the masses by appealing to their simple prides, childish love, fear of change and lack of knowledge.

Usually it's best to combine both tactics to achieve maximum result. Thus, the Big Three of Detroit (GM, Chrysler, Ford) succeeded for years in preventing laws that would have required higher fuel efficiency standards, while also appealing to simple prides of the people with that most socialist of slogans: "Buy American".
Or how about the music and film industry, who are trying to convince the public that it's actually stealing when you copy music or movies (charging $40 for a CD that costs less than $1 to make, is of course perfectly legitimate) while also lobbying governments to enact laws against piracy. Seems to be working too, because Sweden, Britain, France and the US are all (considering) taking steps toward stricter anti-piracy laws. Laws that will above all ensure the persistence of a music and film industry continuing to lack innovation and creativity for another 20 years.

And let's not forget the darlings of the decade, the health insurance and banking industry. They're both so tight with Washington they're ready to morph into a diamond. Banks got hundreds of billions playing the 'fear of systemic risk' card, and health insurers continue playing their trusted 'Big Government be bad' card; again. (as opposed to ' who's afraid of the Big Bad Health Insurer ')

But what do you do when the one that is eating away at your cushy oligopoly is an American giant, selling products like yours for about 1/30th of your prices, or even for free!? You get a scared.
What to do? Can't ask the US government for help (why would they take side against an American company?) and can't mobilize the idiot masses either, not against something that is way cool and super cheap.
Such is the conundrum of the Big Three of the gaming industry, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. Their Nemesis being Apple and its iphone, one of the most revolutionary products of the decade. The iphone forever changed the cellphone market, forever changed the online music market (no thanks to the music industry by the way) and is now forever changing the gaming industry, selling fun, original and addictive third party games for a couple of bucks, sometimes even giving them away for free.

But the three gaming giants don't plan to remain lazy and complacent, dying off like the American auto industry. Microsoft, for instance, has been developing gaming technology that lets people play games using natural body movements (a beta version came out last June), and Sony is promising 3-D video games.
At the Tokyo game show, which ended yesterday, it was Shin Unozawa, CEO of game maker Namco Bandai, who perhaps captured the mood of the industry the most accurate, when conceding that "it's quite frightening to change to a completely different business model."

Yes Unozawa, time to man up and dazzle us again with products that are actually worth $30 or $40.

_

More from category Online Revolution:

Piracy is hot

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Controlling The Beast

2009-09-24T16:48:00.005+02:00

With the G20 gathering in Pittsburgh today, every man and dog is putting in his or her two cents on how to "get to those banks" (as one -less subtle- liberal radio host put it). How to "cap those bonuses" "eliminate the bonuses", or, my personal favorite, how to "claw back the bonuses" (note to self: idea for new super hero movie, 'The man with the silver claw' , steals from the banks, gives to the poor).

There has been so much attention for bankers and their outrageous bonuses that you'd have to be a 3rd week fetus not to have an opinion about it. (And to all those 4th week fetuses and up who have a dad in the banking business, now's the time to ask for a big allowance raise: 'but dad, you still got that big bonus last year and I'm afraid to tell my friends you're a banker.' triple AAA guarantee that it'll work)

Now I'm no friend of the banking industry -as my articles on banks and the bailout scheme show- but blaming bankers for being greedy is like blaming dolphins for eating fish. (yes, they look cute and it would be so jolly golly wonderful if they were vegetarians too, but they're not). The simple fact is that bankers -like most people- have always been greedy.

So when former French foreign minister and current special adviser to the UN secretary general on innovative financing, Philippe Douste-Blazy, writes in an op-ed in today's NYTimes that the banking industry "has a duty to give back" , it's immediately clear that while having a beautiful job title, Mr. Douste-Blazy is no economist (in fact, he's a cardiologist). Mr. Douste-Blazy wants to tax the foreign currency market, arguing that banks won't even miss the money, just like the "small tax on airline tickets" -has- "without hurting the airline industry, raised about $700 million". Obviously Mr. Douste-Blazy thinks that those $700 million were actually paid by the airline industry itself, instead of being charged as extra fees to airline customers.(must be wonderful to live so far from the real world). And is he really serious with his 'it's not really stealing when the amount is really small' argument? If so, let's help the French hope he'll never become the head of the Trésor Public (Public treasury)

Also searching for culprits, in his new film "Capitalism: A Love Story" , Michael Moore goes one step further, blaming the entire system of capitalism. Moore: "Capitalism, in the last year, has proven that it's failed. All the basic tenets of what we've talked about the free market, about free enterprise and competition just completely fell apart." Sounds very plausible for a moment, but so does sex flavored ice cream (we all like sex, we all like ice cream, who wouldn't want this flavor?) until you stop and think it over for a moment.
Capitalism has neither failed nor changed, we have. We just can't handle those high peaks and steep canyons anymore, the years of double digit jobless rates and belly up. Maybe we expected capitalism to change with us and it didn't - and it never will. We'll just have to change it ourselves.

Let's hope world leaders will leave themselves some time for discussing the necessary changes in Pittsburgh (after clawing back those bonuses of course)

_

More from category Funny Money:

Dutch banks lead the way

Goldman Sachs thanks you for your money

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Mao's China, where did it go?

2009-09-21T19:42:00.006+02:00

IN A FEW DAYS, it will be 60 years since the Communist Party of China (CPC), led by Mao Zedong, established the People's Republic of China. After a civil war that had lasted 22 years and was only interrupted so both sides could fight as allies in another war (against Japan, from 1937-1945) -talk about a devil's pact- the CPC came out as victor.

On October 1, 1949, in a grand ceremony at Tiananmen Square, witnessed by 300,000 people, chairman Mao solemnly proclaimed the People's Republic of China. (reading from a Letter sized crib, so as not to forget to mention all the people without whom the People's Republic would not have been possible)

But just as many modern day Republicans, Mao struggled with the discrepancies between Utopia and Reality. His Utopia was the communist society, purged of all "liberal bourgeois elements" (meaning capitalism). But he also wanted a modern society, wealthy, powerful and internationally respected. This, of course, is remarkably similar to Republicans who want health care companies to provide better, cheaper care for everybody, without being regulated at all, just out of the goodness of their capitalist hearts. (meaning where the lion lies with the lamb and all that)

Like so many dictators before him, Mao meant well but could never quite accept that Reality always has some demands of its own.
For instance, with the Great Leap Forward, which he launched in 1958. The idea behind it -rapidly transforming the country from an agrarian society to a modern, industrialized nation- was a noble one. But the program proved to be too big a success for its own good, as hinted at by its aka name, Great Chinese Famine ( and the fact that 36 million Chinese starved to death).
Just as the 47 million uninsured Americans are -in some ways- a monument to the success of capitalism. Because there is a reason why those people are uninsured or left untreated, namely their cost would outweigh the yield. They might be sick already, have a higher risk of becoming sick, or can't afford insurance. To insure such people would be a losing proposition. (and that's not what this country is build on)

A few years after the disaster of the Great Leap, Mao started the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). Trying to uproot the evil tree of Capitalism once and for all through post-revolutionary class struggle. Much like there are those in today's world who will do anything to put that capitalist tree back on its exact same spot again, even though the storm of 2008 showed some of its roots have long been dead.

To some, a good old fashioned ideology is worth millions. Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China. Millions died or were ousted from their jobs, humiliated, re-educated and imprisoned.
But under Mao's successor, Deng Xiaoping, China quickly learned the key lesson to survival and success: always remain flexible and adaptable, instead of becoming dogmatic and rigid.

Amazingly enough (considering the US was already the richest country in the world when the Chinese were still painting their Little Red Book) the challenges the US and China face in the coming decade(s) will be largely the same: getting the people better health care, education, environmental protection and other social services. Seems the US needs Barack Obama to be its own, home grown Deng Xiaoping, teaching it to become flexible again, and adapt to the challenges of today and tomorrow.

_

More about category China:

Why China wants more gold and less dollars

Why China wants more gold and less dollars

Why China hates porn

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Why Republicans don't want to reform health care

2009-09-17T20:00:00.028+02:00

Poor Senator Baucus. After more than a year of preparation and three months of playing 'she loves me, she loves me not' with a small group of Democrats and Republicans, his health care plan was shot down faster than a white guy entering the South Bronx wearing a captain's hat. And so, Senator Baucus, trying to put something in it for everybody, ended up with nothing.

And that while the plan itself was pretty damn good, considering. (considering the three blind Republicans in his band of merry men, saying no to everything except maid Marian).
For instance, it's the cheapest of the health care proposals going through Congress so far. The 10-year cost would be $856 billion, while each of the other plans would cost at least $1 trillion (though, obviously nobody pays sticker price when it comes to something that costs a trillion dollars).
Also, it would vastly expand Medicaid (the insurance program for the poor) and offer subsidies to modest income families. For the lower middle class families, it would set a cap on health care expenses of 13% of household income. Families that make over $88,000 a year are on their own, but hey, you can't have it all.
Another important point of the Baucus plan is that it would end the policies of many health insurers to refuse to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.

So why will it not outlive this week's news cycle, other than as a footnote? Simple, because most Democrats argue it won't improve the health care system enough (which, truth be told, was the initial goal of Republicans and Democrats alike) and Republicans argue that it doesn't cut costs enough. (they would like to cut, say....$856 billion more). Said Senator Michael Enzi -one of the three blind Republicans-: "The proposal released today still spends too much, and it does too little to cut health care costs for those with health insurance. At a time when our nation faces a $9 trillion deficit, we should target assistance to those in the greatest need without creating unsustainable new entitlement programs." Which is Republican for: 'we should look for a way to help those in greatest need without it costing anything' (for instance, offering free surgeries performed by first year med students)

the free market model was never about being cost effective, but about being growth effective

Of course it's impossible to cut health care cost while keeping the government out (at least not while keeping the same quality of care) but it's one of two reasons why Republicans will oppose any bill on health care reform. (the other reason being one of political strategy: oppose as much as possible for as long as possible, until the electoral tide turns once more). Republicans keep arguing that government 'interference' will prevent the market from doing its work: providing better care for less money.

To explore and illustrate this argument, take a look at the stuff you bought over the past few years. I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial part of it is the result of you and the free market economy conspiring to buy products you never needed in the first place (and probably still don't)

This is because in essence, the free market model was never about being cost effective, but about being growth effective. If it was all about cutting cost, most of us would be driving different cars, live in different houses and drink less expensive beer.
In recent years though, there has been a growing misrepresentation of the free market model, notably in debates about the economy, globalization and social services -like health care and education. The lesser informed, conservative masses (aka 'Have Nots') have been duped into believing that the best way to go is to let the market take care of everything. The (counterproductive) result of this has been lower efficiency and often higher cost, in area's where the free market model is difficult to applicate (namely, with goods and services that are both very expensive and very essential, like education, transportation, health care etc).

This is why of all the developed countries, the US spends the highest portion of its GDP on health care, while ranking only 37th when it comes to the quality of health care (source: WHO). It's because there isn't enough government interference. In an unregulated health care system, drugs are more expensive, doctors are tempted to prescribe unnecessary drugs, specialists are tempted to perform unnecessary procedures and health insurers are tempted to strong-arm their customers. Why? Because they can make more money doing so.

And so, Senator Baucus' plan was doomed to fail the moment he decided to try and expand coverage to 30 million more Americans, with a little help from the government of the richest country in the world.

Second biggest sucker's rally in history

2009-09-14T17:19:00.009+02:00

A year ago today, Lehman Brothers collapsed.

I recently discovered a blog that gives a daily summary of the Wall Street Journal from the corresponding day in 1930 (newsfrom1930.blogspot). Browse through a couple of days and you'll soon find yourself in 1930, realizing that not much has changed in the almost 80 years that have since passed (or maybe it has, only it changed back again)

'History repeats itself' is a cliche of horrendous proportions. In fact, it's even a cliche to use it as an example of what a cliche looks like. Numerous writers have tried to say it differently (one of my favorites being Aldous Huxley: "The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different.") but a cow is still a cow if you put it in a purple meadow.

Of course there's a reason why a cliche becomes a cliche (which is almost -or perhaps already, I forget- a cliche itself), namely that it's describing the truth; history does repeat itself. The fact that this is true and that everybody knows it to be true, makes it all the more ironic that history is still able to repeat itself so often.
Why do we allow history to sneak up on us and repeat itself, when we really don't want it to? Because time is moving fast, and we simply don't have any moment to spare to look over our shoulders and keep the image of history alive.

Maybe we should though.

Take the Wall Street crash that started on October 24, 1929. After Black Thursday, Black Friday, Black Monday and Black Tuesday (must have been a fun week), the Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallen 48%. Then, in early 1930, the market rallied again, to a point that was only about 20% below the previous peak. Investors call this the biggest sucker's rally in history.

"Anyone who bought stocks in mid-1929 and held onto them saw most of his or her adult life pass by before getting back to even."

In April 1930, the sucker's rally came to an end. The DJIA crashed again, this time ending up more than 80% lower than the 1930 high. For the next quarter of a century, the market did not reach the 1930 high again. Or, in the words of economist Richard M. Salsman: "Anyone who bought stocks in mid-1929 and held onto them saw most of his or her adult life pass by before getting back to even."

From October 2008 till March 2009 the Dow Jones lost more than 50% of its value, making it slightly worse than the 1929 crash. Since then, it has rallied to about 30% below the 2008 peak (harking back about 40% of the sustained losses).

A year ago today, Lehman Brothers collapsed. Since then, have fundamental changes been made to the international financial sector? Are US based financial institutions abiding by stricter accounting rules (uhmm)? Are they curbing their short-term-gain bonuses (uhmm)?

If your answer is no, don't become a sucker yourself.

"I would get these newspapers from 1929. I couldn't get enough of it. I read everything - not just the business and stock-market stories. History is interesting, and there is something about history in a newspaper, just seeing a place, the stories, even the ads, everything. It takes you into a different world, told by someone who was an eyewitness, and you are really living in that time." - Warren Buffett, investor.

_

More from category Funny Money:

Next financial crisis already in the works

Goldman Sachs thanks you for your money

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Dutch banks lead the way

2009-09-10T20:16:00.010+02:00

Friday, September 11, 2009, it will be exactly 400 years ago since the Dutch discovered what would later become New York City. They built a prosperous and fortified city (the name 'Wall Street' is derived from the strengthened boundary of the original settlement) and proudly named it New Amsterdam, but later traded it away to the British, in exchange for Suriname. Unfortunately for the Dutch, Suriname turned out to be no New York.

In 1602, a few years before founding New Amsterdam, the Dutch East India Company also established the world's first Stock Exchange, the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. This to better facilitate the trading of its printed stocks and bonds (also a world's first).

Yes, when it comes to money, the Dutch have never been afraid to take a little risk. Be it smuggling guns to American revolutionaries, slave trading, or entrepreneurship of a nature less morally challenged, wherever there is money to be made, you will find the Dutch.
Therefore, it may have come as a surprise to some when, this Wednesday, the Netherlands Bankers Association (NBA) was the first banking association to announce the adoption of a voluntary code of conduct, aimed at strengthening risk management and restraining bonuses, by limiting them to the amount of a banker's fixed compensation. (it's not uncommon for a trader to earn a bonus outweighing his fixed salary multiple times).

Wouter Bos, the Dutch finance minister, was very pleased with the decision of the NBA: "I think that would be an incredible help, if something like this could be agreed worldwide." He added that if a country wanted to cap bonuses at an absolute level, it could be handled at a national level, but "the structure of pay, I believe, is something we should coordinate internationally." Let's see if mr.Bos can sprinkle some of this belief and enthusiasm on his Anglo-Saxon colleagues, when he meets with them later this month, at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh.
Earlier this month, both the UK and the US stated they saw little in capping bonuses, as suggested by the French and the Germans. They'd rather count on the soundness of mind of the financial sector itself (wouldn't hold my breath)

Perhaps it's time to explain to mr.Blankfein, that it's not really considered risk taking when someone else licks up the juice of the grapes that turned sour

On that point, Goldman Sach's CEO Lloyd Blankfein (a.k.a 'Lord Blankcheck', because of the generous support his bank got from both the US government and investor Warren Buffet) urged policy makers to refrain from creating a system "designed solely around protecting us from the 100-year storm."
Of course such a viewpoint is all the more understandable when coming from the CEO of a company which, after the poorly build steamer finally hit the iceberg, quickly climbed in one of the scarce lifeboats.
Mr. Blankfein goes on to lecture us about how "taking risk completely out of the system will be at the cost of economic growth.", and: "We know from economic history that innovation and the new industries and new jobs that result from it require risk taking." (Perhaps it's time to explain to mr.Blankfein, that it's not really considered risk taking when someone else licks up the juice of the grapes that turned sour). But at the end of the day, all this wise lecturing by Goldman Sachs serves only one purpose: to keep the big bonuses in play, which, Goldman says, are necessary to retain the best people.

So why are big Dutch banks like ING Group and ABN AMRO adopting a code to curb those bonuses? Don't they care anymore about retaining the best people? Have they gone soft? Probably not. Rather, it seems they have decided that committing to solid risk management will be worth more in the long run. More, in any case, than lecturing policy makers about how there's nothing wrong with the blueprint of the Titanic, as long as the ship only hits an iceberg every once and awhile (and there's always a lifeboat reserved for you).

_

More from category Funny Money:

Will banks fool us twice?

Goldman Sachs thanks you for your money

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Towards a new Islamic Golden Age

2009-09-03T09:00:00.007+02:00

Summer break is over, and while Western countries are preparing for widespread outbreaks of the Mexican flu in schools and universities, the Iranian regime seems to be preparing to combat an even more elusive virus, believed to be going around Iran's universities: independent thinking.

Last Sunday, Ayatollah Khamenei said that the study of social sciences "promotes doubts and uncertainty", which is Islam fundamentalist code for saying "they're bad, m'kay?". (Or, as master Yoda could have told Luke Skywalker: 'Thinking leads to doubt, doubt leads to moderation, moderation leads to reform, reform leads to evil.')
Khamenei went on to say that "Instructing those sciences leads to the loss of belief in godly and Islamic knowledge."
Meanwhile, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made similar remarks in recent speeches, suggesting that the study of secular ideas has made universities hotbeds for the political unrest that has swept through Iran since the presidential elections last June.

When a government starts fearing its universities, the writing's on the wall. Inevitably, such a government is doomed, since the guys & gals in the universities are destined to rule the country in the foreseeable future. The only way to effectively stop this from happening is to kill them. Most regimes go for door number 2 though, a wishy-washy crack down on some professors and student leaders, hoping to scare the rest into submission.
Door number 2 is exactly what Iranian universities are fearing at the moment, particularly the political and social sciences departments. An understandable fear too, since the religious leader of their highly religious country is calling on "ardent defenders of Islam" to "review" universities' social sciences because they "promote secularism" (which is Islam fundamentalist code for "If it wasn't so damn hot in this country, we'd organize ourselves a good ol' fashioned social sciences book burning").

if they couldn't keep ideas from foreign civilizations out back then -when they were transported on the back of a camel- how will they keep them out today -when they are transported on the back of a mouse

Granted, writing off all social sciences would be a good first step towards returning Iran to the way it was before all those foreign ideas came pouring in, back to that comfy cozy 6th century A.D. No evil economics, history, linguistics, political science, psychology and sociology, just the Qur'an and nothing else (except of course for the Arab invaders, occupying the country). Obviously it would be hard to play a significant role in the world of today, but as long as the oil keeps flowing, why bother.

During the Islamic Golden Age, scholars, artists, poets, engineers and philosophers contributed to the growth and enlightenment of an Islamic culture that influenced societies all over the world. From the 7th till the 13th century -hundreds of years before the European Renaissance- Islamic scholars studied and incorporated knowledge from ancient civilizations such as the Roman, Mesopotamian, Greek and Chinese. During that period, Islamic thought was open to ideas about freedom of speech, democracy, liberalism and even the occasional secularism.
Makes you wonder though, if they couldn't keep ideas from foreign civilizations out back then -when they were transported on the back of a camel- how will they keep them out today -when they are transported on the back of a mouse (click).

What a difference with the Islam of today. How disappointing it must feel to some, that a religion once open to new ideas, spreading wisdom and enlightenment of its own, has become so rigid, angry and frightened. And how disappointing that a country that could turn this around, showing the world there was once a different Islam, an Islam of contemplation, openness and kindness, is instead moving in the opposite direction.

Or perhaps they are turning it around right now.

More on subcategory Iran:

How Iranian protesters outsmart the police

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Health care reform, the Dutch way

2009-09-01T13:19:00.019+02:00

Last week, the news of the 13 year old Dutch girl who wants to sail solo around the world, quickly sparked a lively debate in the sort of countries where 13-year-olds normally go to school without a care in the world (article '13-year-old to sail solo around the world') On CNN.com, the article about Laura Dekker and her aspirations got more than 80 comments in a matter of hours. Interestingly enough, about 30% of the commenters (Yes, I actually counted) wrote that it was completely up to the parents and none of the government's business, if the girl wanted to circumnavigate the globe. And for a short second, that sounded really cool.

Over the last couple of weeks, the debate about health care reform has been fought along the same lines. Republicans saying health care is none of the government's business, it's up to the people to decide for themselves. If they chose not to get health care coverage and get sick, that's their problem. If they do get health care coverage, get sick and are denied payment by their health insurer, they can always go to court. Over time, the bad health insurance companies will get bad reputations and will be forced out of business by better companies, that's the way the market works. (unless you're a big bad bank of course, in which case, the government will get billions of dollars to save you)
And for a short second, that sounded really good too. Until you check the WHO ranking of the world's health systems and find out that the US is in 37th place, making it the worst Western country to get sick in.

When it comes to abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage etc, Republicans want the government to be very involved indeed

When it comes to health care reform, the biggest obstacle for Republicans like Senator Orrin Hatch and John McCain seems to be the 'public option', a government run agency that would offer health care insurance to the public -as an alternative to commercial health care insurers. This would be much like the 'Federal Employees Health Benefits Program', available to all members of Congress (apparently, we're not all created equal after all). A variation on this theme, the so called 'nonprofit health care cooperative' (co-op), has been dismissed by Republicans as doing exactly the same as a government insurance plan, only labeled differently.
Now, of course Democrats don't really need the Republicans to agree with them, since they have a strong majority in both Houses. They could move forward with the public option regardless (something I advocated in 'the price of being civilized') However, if they want to make one last effort to enlist some of the Republicans who aren't receiving large campaign contributions from the health insurance lobby already (in other words, those that are still allowed an open mind) they could try the Dutch way.

And what, pray, is 'The Dutch way' ?

Regulating health care, instead of taking complete control over it.

The Dutch recognize that health care is not just any product, and therefore it needs to be protected by more safe guards than those the free market economy can provide on its own. However, that doesn't necessarily mean health care needs to be completely taken over by the government (like the NHS in the UK) or that a government insurance option needs to be created to provide a counterbalance (like President Obama suggested).
Instead, it's the commercial health insurers who provide insurance for Dutch citizens, though operating within certain, government set boundaries. For instance, a health insurer is obligated to cover an individual seeking health insurance. The government has also set up a standard 'base' package, which lists treatments that have to be covered. Price of health coverage is only partially government regulated, so as not to impede competition among health insurers. Also, every citizen is obligated to get health insurance. (last year, the Dutch health care system was again voted the best of Europe in the Euro Health Consumer Index)

Most of us don't like government interference. And with good reason, because governments tend to try and increase their influence by nature (power always wants to grow). Sure, Republicans / conservatives will protest this, saying that -on the contrary- they're in favor of a smaller government, but that's just as far as the economy and social programs like health care, public transportation and public education are involved. When it comes to abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage etc, Republicans want the government to be very involved indeed.

Truth is, in a well developed civilization, some government interference is unavoidable, including deciding what parents can and can't do when it comes to their children. That's why every Western country has compulsory education for children (including the US), and laws against unwelcome things such as underage drinking and physical and/or sexual abuse by a child's caregivers. So no, it should not always be up to the parents.

#Googlefail

2009-08-27T20:45:00.012+02:00

This week, the Swiss government official in charge of federal data protection demanded Google shut down its Street View Maps Service in the country, only days after the pictures were introduced.

Since the introduction of Google Street View in 2007, numerous countries, institutions and individuals have objected against violation of privacy laws. Earlier this year for instance, Greece downright rejected Google's bid to roam the streets with cameras mounted on vehicles. And in Japan, following complaints about photo's showing views of fenced homes, normally obscured for pedestrians, Google had to agree to re-shoot all the photographs.
By and large though, Google remains impertubable. It states that, when people complain about being recognizable, "in most cases, the pictures are deleted within hours". (sounds very nice, until you are not one of those 'most cases')
And of course people have to notice the pictures featuring themselves first, subsequently filing a complaint with Google. In many cases though, it will not be the individual recognizing himself, it will be someone else, which can lead to painful discoveries (as it has in the past).

And then there is Google's effort to digitize and commercialize millions of books. Last week, three other Web Mammoths, Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo, announced they were planning to join a coalition of nonprofit groups, library associations and individuals, opposing Google's attempt to settle with groups representing authors and publishers. Back in 2005, Google had already started scanning books when authors and publishers sued the company. As with Street View, Google's strategy is to offer to take authors out of the process if they expressly so request. But shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't Google ask for permission first, before it starts digitizing someones work? Or is the new philosophy 'Take first, maybe give back later.'?

such a powerful statement could lead to the view that this is a company so dedicated to spreading information it just can't wait for such petty things as privacy and copyright laws

Maybe they just haven't updated their mission statement yet, because that still starts with:

"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Granted, such a powerful statement could lead to the view that this is a company so dedicated to spreading information it just can't wait for such petty things as privacy and copyright laws.
But why then, does Google cave so quickly and easily when it comes to the censorship rules in China? Between June 3 and June 11 this year for instance, Google.cn blocked all results having to do with search queries about Tiananmen Square. A far cry from organizing the world's information "and make it universally accessible and useful." And while Google is only the second biggest search engine in China, it has a virtual monopoly in search in much of the rest of the world. So what if it decides to do a little censoring of its own?

Actually, it's doing this already.

For instance, last year, Google launched the experimental 'Lively', with the goal of "providing people with more ways to express themselves on the web." However, when it turned out that some people wanted to express themselves sexually, this was quickly verboten. Or how about Youtube, where you won't see so much as a woman's nipple in any of the videos, because the company employs a staff to manually police the content. And last but hardly least, Google's SafeSearch Filtering,which is turned on by default. You actually have to switch it off yourself, in search preferences.

Sneaky bastards.

_

More from category Online Revolution:

Who rules the internet?

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

13-year-old girl to sail solo around the world

2009-08-24T19:20:00.010+02:00

We all know the Dutch are good sailors. In 1667, Admiral Michiel de Ruyter sailed up the River Thames and bombed the hell out of the British (forcing them to make peace with the Dutch). In 1642, Abel Tasman discovered New Zealand, and between the 16th and 19th century the Dutch were among the foremost slave traders in the world (well, maybe that's not the best of examples). But now, a new sailing record is on the horizon for the Dutch!

Next week, when school starts, a 13 year old Dutch girl plans to embark on a solo sailing trip around the world. As far as excuses for skipping school go, I give this one a 9.5, on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being 'I didn't feel like it' and 10 being the classic 'I know I look like a child, but I'm really 74 years old, haven't you ever seen Benjamin Button?'). Of course, other than that it's sheer lunacy.

But that's ok, 13 year old girls are supposed to have a couple of ludicrous ideas every once and a while (just like grown up women do, or so it seems). In an interview with a Dutch news channel, the girl said she completely understood all the dangers of sailing solo around the world in 2 years, and God bless her pure, innocent heart for it. With all the religious intolerance, hate crimes, disease, financial havoc, rape warfare and terrorism going on, it's really comforting to know there are are still 13 year old girls around who don't know anything about the dangers of the real world.

For instance, when your 11 year old says he wants to be an actor, it's ok to support this disastrous -and somewhat unoriginal- idea, that would probably lead to a disappointing, poverty stricken existence

Of course when it comes to parents, it's a completely different story. As a parent, one of your many jobs is to groom your children for the real world, while simultaneously trying to protect them against making too serious mistakes.
For instance, when your 11 year old says he wants to be an actor, it's ok to support this disastrous -and somewhat unoriginal- idea, that would probably lead to a disappointing, poverty stricken existence (after all, you still have a couple of years to subtly sway him to your point of view). But when he asks you for money for a plane ticket to Los Angeles and rent for a room with a view on the Hollywood sign, you tell him he should finish high school first. And if he still goes on and on about it, saying he very well knows all the dangers of pursuing an acting career in Hollywood, you just tell him he has to do what you say as long as he's a minor. You do not -as this poor girl's parents are doing- support the 13-year-old's fantasy and wish her a good journey.

Dutch Social Services filed suit last week, seeking to temporarily deprive the parents of their parental rights and name a guardian, so as to prevent the girl from leaving. A court in Utrecht is expected to issue its decision this Friday.

Meanwhile, the girl herself doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. And that's quite alright, when you're 13 years old.

The price of being civilized

2009-08-20T17:28:00.010+02:00

Over the last couple of days the debate on health care reform has shifted focus from a government insurance plan to a nonprofit health care cooperative. Reason for this shift are signals from the White House that indicate it would accept the idea of a cooperative as an alternative to a government run insurance plan.

Clearly it's meant to appease those who hate the word 'government' almost as much as the government itself, but naturally it won't have that effect. Because, as Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah (R) put it: "You can call it a co-op, which is another way of saying a government plan".
For a Republican, everything that isn't market regulated is government regulated, and everything that is government regulated is badly regulated (including wars that don't result in victory).

Whatever else the White House comes up with to quell those fires of laissez -faire, burning in Republican hearts, it's nothing but a waste of time. The only thing Republicans want to do about health care is lowering the costs and keeping government out. They don't really believe there's anything wrong with the health care system, just as they don't really believe there's something wrong with the financial system or the educational system. They reason that if you leave it alone, the market will always do it's job.

Would be great if that were true.

If granting that right to every citizen means that some of us who have a lot more also have to pay a little bit more, than so be it.

But of course there is no market. There are only people, trying to make a buck. Shareholders, executives with stock options, mid-level managers trying to get that promotion (so they can finally get their hands on some stock options themselves) and millions of paycheck minions doing whatever they're told.
The 'market' has no compassion, no heart, no mercy. It's a game, with only one real objective: making money. So even if you give the 'market' another 50 years to fix health care on its own, health insurance companies still wouldn't cover pre-existing conditions if it were up to them, or cover people with high risk factors, or stop trying to wiggle themselves out of paying for treatment. Just like executives of big banks will continue paying their traders insane bonuses for taking insane, short term risks, as long as there's no regulation forbidding it. Just like private schools will continue educating only those that can afford it, instead of those who need it.

Health care is not just any product, it's a right. Like food, clothing, shelter, electricity, education, public transportation, internet access. If granting that right to every citizen means that some of us who have a lot more also have to pay a little bit more, than so be it. That's 's the price we pay for being a civilized society.

The Obama administration shouldn't concern itself too much with how the Republicans view its plans. After all, such bipartisan courtesy wasn't often extended by the Bush administration either.
Be bold, be brave, stop back peddling and do what you came to do: introduce the public option, so as to expand coverage, lower the costs and increase the quality of health care.

Taliban Commanders going soft on democracy?

2009-08-17T15:11:00.018+02:00

It can't be easy being a Taliban commander in Afghanistan these days. Responsible for a platoon of suicide bombers who are aching to claim their 70 virgins, while election fever is taking hold of you for the first time in your life.
Of course you still want to blow stuff up (delegating the blowing up part, for obvious reasons) shoot thieves on the spot, stone adulterous women to death and continue to fight for the right of a husband to rape his wife, but it's just so darn exciting to see which leader the people will chose out of their own free will.

This Thursday, Afghanistan will hold presidential and provincial elections. However, The Taliban still have influence in almost half of the country and they do not take kindly to free elections (or anything else that involves freedom of choice, fun, or breasts) . As Mullah Wakil, a close aide to The Taliban leader Mullah Omar, has explained before:

"The sharia does not allow politics or political parties. That is why we give no salaries to officials or soldiers, just food, clothes, shoes and weapons. We want to live a life like the Prophet lived 1400 years ago and jihad is our right. We want to recreate the time of the Prophet and we are only carrying out what the Afghan people have wanted for the past 14 years." (march 1996)

But some Taliban commanders have agreed to allow the upcoming elections to go ahead unhindered. According to Afghanistan's intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, they will allow Afghan police and army to provide security for election officials and voters at polling stations.
In recent weeks, suicide bombings in Afghanistan have increased, articulating the voice of dissent Muslim fundamentalist style - lots of suicide bombers and many more civilian casualties. (one can only imagine the impact on the political landscape should The Taliban decide to weigh in on the Town Hall meetings about health care reform). However, Kabul has largely been spared, indicating that some Taliban commanders might be reluctant to mount a campaign against the elections.

Still, perhaps some of the other commanders cannot help but be intrigued by the increasingly interesting presidential elections.

Since The Taliban hold no internal elections and don't allow dissent, the mere fact of some Taliban commanders striking individual agreements with Afghan security forces, signals leadership troubles at the top.
Of course there are also commanders who are firmly holding their own, like the one who ordered the firing of three rockets last Sunday, on a stadium where thousands gathered at a rally in support of President Hamid Karzai. Unfortunately, the rockets missed their target, killing a woman in her home near the stadium. (or perhaps she was the target after all. Think about it, a woman living close to a stadium, place of fun and happiness; surely Allah would not approve of that).
Still, perhaps some of the other commanders cannot help but be intrigued by the increasingly interesting presidential elections. Will it be Karzai, re-elected, or will he lose to main contender Abdullah Abdullah, or even outsider -and American educated - former finance minister, Ashraf Ghani? Poor commanders, they must feel riddled with guilt, for allowing the peaceful passing of something as evil as democratic elections.

But cheer up guys, after Thursday's elections you can go back to killing and maiming again. Because whoever will have won the election, you can be sure you will want to kill him and everybody else who is against the introduction of 14th century sharia law (or is living close to somebody who is against it).

More from category Politics:

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Only in America

2009-08-13T21:07:00.006+02:00

A politician should never overestimate the people. It's a rookie mistake really, but understandable, especially if you're a closet idealist with a law degree (a description probably fitting about 75% of all politicians). Still, every politician would do well to put a plaque on his desk or a piece of paper above his bed, saying: 'Never forget that most people are morons.'

The current rowdy Town Hall "debates" (I'm gesticulating quotation marks Dr. Evil style here) on health care reform, clearly caught President Obama off guard. After all, last year, in the months leading up to the presidential elections, independent polls showed 78% of all Americans wanted the next President to deal with health-care reform, even if it meant greater government debt. In fact, 70% said health-care reform was even more important than cutting taxes. (and if American voters say something is more important than cutting taxes, you better get on that something if you're a politician, lest you want to commit political hara-kiri)

So, more than three quarters of the nation wants it, you, the President, want it, and your own party has a comfortable lead in the Senate. Pretty open and shut case, right? (Read the plaque on your desk or the piece of paper above your bed before answering).

Now, it is very well possible that people who were living a 100 years ago were just as stupid as those living today. Maybe even more so. But, lucky for them, we don't have any art about that. We do however have tons of footage about the morons of today....

Obama is an Arab
Obama is a terrorist / Muslim
Obama is not an American citizen / I want my country back
Town Hall meeting on health care, mob goes crazy

Aggravating Obama's problem is that most morons are also lazy bastards. Their only source of information is FoxNews and the likes of Sean Hannity ("I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at  Guantanamo - every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress.") and Rush Limbaugh (on African Americans: "They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"). So when FoxNews says that health-care reform means implementing 'death panels', advising old people to opt for euthanasia, they believe it (and start screaming it to their neighbors).

But even though European and American societies are made of the same raw materials, they were heated in different fires and shaped in different forges.

Meanwhile, Europeans have been watching the "debate" (gesticulating quotations marks again) on health-care reform in growing amazement. Why would people so fiercely protest better health-care coverage? With 47 million Americans uninsured, insurance companies refusing to cover sick people (which is their legal right) and often finding reasons not to pay for treatments undergone by their customers, you'd expect people want something to be done about that.

But even though European and American societies are made of the same raw materials, they were heated in different fires and shaped in different forges. American society came together against (what was increasingly perceived as) a foreign tyrant, European societies mostly came together against oppression from within. The colonials fought for freedom from constraint, Europeans fought for the right to be treated as equals.
The difference between these two ideologies is still visible today, actually even clearer than before. Most Europeans want their country to help them, most Americans want their country to protect them. Americans want to go about their business unhindered, Europeans want to be secure.

And yes, maybe all that governmental cuddly cuddly makes Europeans pussies, but at least they're pussies with health insurance.

More on category Politics:

Trust inc.

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

What have the Romans ever done for us

2009-08-10T17:49:00.012+02:00

Last year's presidential elections evolved around health care, the war in Iraq and the economy. Republicans wanted to keep government out of health care, in Iraq and out of the economy. In other words, the Iraqi people should be helped (whether they wanted to be or not) GoldMan Sachs, A.I.G and Morgan Stanley should also be helped, but US citizens should take care of themselves thank you very much.

Just before leaving office, President Bush (images of the kind old captain holding the wheel in the movie 'Titanic' come to mind) signed off on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). TARP handed out hundreds of billions of dollars to the big financial institutions -through the buying of assets nobody wanted- thus keeping the big boys from drowning. But Republicans on the Hill fiercely resisted tighter regulation of the financial sector, arguing "the market is best served without government interference".
Well, apparently the financial market now seems to think it's necessary to hand out tens of billions dollars of bonuses to its employees again. Goldman Sachs alone has already put aside as bonus money half of it's $5.2 billion profit for the first two quarters, which, if repeated for the next two quarters, comes to over $300,000 per employee (they must have the best paid janitors in the world). The financial market also seems to think increased risk taking is the smart bet, since the government will have its back when things go sour anyway. So the same Goldman Sachs that received $10 billion in relief money has increased it's Value At Risk (VAR) considerably since January 2009.

Meanwhile, ordinary Americans operating without a cushy safety net, are trying to deal with their own VAR. Many have a monthly income worth less than Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein's cuff links, but they have their own bonus system going. As reported by the NY Times last week, sales of guns, ammo, chicks and garden seeds are up considerably, compared to last year. And even though it costs about $8 to raise a chicken and you can buy one for less than $4 in the supermarket, it still gives a sense of security. (you know, like having a couple of spare sets of those platinum cuff links you love so much).

Can somebody please explain to these poor, dumb bastards that they're the ones who would actually benefit from a 'big government'

The irony (or sadness, really) is that many of the people buying those guns, ammo and chickens are also the people against "big government".
They oppose tighter regulation of the financial sector, even though it will be their hard earned tax dollars bailing out the 'too big to fail' banks and insurance companies again, if they make the same mistakes again. (and why wouldn't they? What do they have to lose?)
They oppose increasing public funding for the public transportation system, even though they're the most frequent users.
They oppose increasing public funding for the public educational system, even though their children won't come anywhere near private schools.
They oppose stricter gun control laws, even though the US has a homicide rate more than 5 times higher than the UK and the Eurozone. (yes, the 2nd Amendment says 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed', but let's face it: most of us are not in a militia, nor are we living in a country unable to defend itself).
They oppose public health care, even though 47 million of them are uninsured and the rest have insurance from companies that never pay up.

Can somebody please explain to these poor, dumb bastards that they're the ones who would actually benefit from a 'big government'? That it would mean better public transportation, safer bridges and fewer holes in the road, better public education, fewer homicides, better unemployment benefits and yes, universal public health coverage that would not financially ruin them whenever they break a leg?

It's like that classic scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian (see video): "But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?!'
'Brought peace.'
'Oh, peace, shut up!'

More on category Politics:

Trust inc.

Towards a new Islamic Golden Age

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

How Iranian protesters outsmart the police

2009-08-06T15:26:00.011+02:00

Before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn into office for a second term as president Wednesday, a short film was shown, highlighting Iran's scientific achievements. (among them the launching of the Omid satellite and the cloning of sheep, of which Ahmadinejad suppposedly is particularly proud). Meanwhile, a couple of streets away, protesters of the opposition put into practice another Iranian achievement: the political flash mob.

A flash mob is a large group of people who assemble in a public place, perform an unusual action for a brief time, then quickly disperse. The first flash mob was created in Manhattan, in May 2003, by Bill Wasik. The largest flash mob to date is Worldwide Pillow Fight Day, which took place on March 22, 2008. (In New York City alone, 5,000 people participated). Another recent example is The Michael Jackson Tribute, taking place in Stockholm on July 8, 2009. (see video of Michael Jackson Tribute flash mob)

The flash mob is not a political phenomenon. It's just something silly and fun, meant to surprise and entertain both participants and bystanders. But the young Iranians who are resisting their country's new found tyranny, have found a use for it other than being served as yet another anecdotal story, at yet another cocktail party.

The most romantic way of opposing a tyrant -apart from sticking flowers into gun barrels- is marching through the streets of the capital, by the hundreds of thousands. But the average tyrant doesn't take kindly to such marches, and usually ends the romanticism with a good old fashioned bloodbath.
The most effective way of opposing a tyrant is through armed resistance. But that would mean civil war, which is a thousand times more bloody than marching through the streets, and changes a country forever.
So, when thousands of riot police officers and para military members are continuously patrolling the streets of your city, ready to strike down any protest, using every available means, you have to adapt.

And so they have.

Flash mobs, not meant to entertain, but to crash the reign of political terror hard and fast, if only for a moment.

During the last couple of days, the protesters in Iran have started using a new tactic. They cluster together and chant anti-government slogans, only to disperse quietly into the surrounding crowds as soon as the police approach. Flash mobs, not meant to entertain, but to crash the reign of political terror hard and fast, if only for a moment. Crash mobs.
Like Al-Qaeda, they look for places where there are lots of people. Only, instead of blowing themselves up, trying to make as many civilian casualties as possible, the protesters are reaching out to the people, showing them (and the authorities) that the resistance won't go away, that they have not been beaten into submission, that the winds of change are still blowing.

Today, several Tweets, marked #iranelection, read: "2009 Revolution is about 53 days old, 1979 revolution took over 352 days! Be strong, smart,get organized"

This will not blow over.

More on subcategory Iran:

How close did we come to Tyranny?

Walking with dinosaurs and burqa's

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Trust Inc.

2009-08-03T07:27:00.003+02:00

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has recently proposed a law that seeks to punish media that 'cause panic', 'disturbs social peace' or compromises national security. He also threatens to shut down hundreds of radio stations and Venezuela's last remaining anti-government television station, Globovision.
Independent polls show that more than 80% of the Venezuelans are opposed to the new regulations, but there's not much they can do about it, apart from starting a revolution, like the Iranians are maybe doing.

Over the last couple of days, Iranian protests have begun to shift from just demanding an electoral do-over, to demanding more profound, constitutional changes. Protesters are now chanting "Esteqlal, Azadi, Jomhurie Irani." "Independence, freedom, and Iranian republic."
Only slightly different from the slogan during Ayatollah Khomeini's era, when people demanded "Independence, freedom and Islamic republic." But by omitting the world 'Islamic', the protesters are acknowledging the impossibility of having real, guaranteed freedom and independence as long as the country's supreme leader is a cleric hovering above the law.

The problem with allowing the governing of a state to be based on trust and good will -instead of a constitution and a bill of rights- is that the nature of power is not to serve others. As with the ring in The lord of the rings, no man can resist using power for selfish reasons. (save for, perhaps, midgets with sad eyes and a very negative self-image). Ayatollah Khamenei's first and foremost interest is in preserving his own power, thus enabling him to preserve the power of (his version of) Islam. Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez wants to stay in power so badly that he changed Venezuela's constitution earlier this year, allowing him to rule indefinitely. Like Fidel Castro, he expects the people to trust him to do the right thing, but doesn't trust them back.

the nature of power is not to serve others

Even if we in the West have more experience with distrusting our governments, (having been disappointed by them many more times) we encounter the same kind of problems in our continuing failure to distrust our revered economic model enough to push for more regulation.

Take US health care for example. 47 million uninsured Americans, but many still feel ill at ease with adopting regulation to soften the hard realities of a free market economy. They trust the market will regulate itself (and it will, only if you have a pre-existing condition you will be left uninsured, and if you can't pay the bill you will be left uncared for). With all the momentum President Obama has going for him, he's still having a very hard time convincing people that companies aren't going to insure sick people out of the goodness of their hearts.

And what about the financial system. Many people are outraged that after being saved by the tax payer, big banks like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, take zero responsibility in preventing a recurrence of the same events that pushed the world to the brink of financial meltdown. On the contrary, they intend to pay out billions of dollars in bonuses again this year and are placing even heavier bets on the markets than before the crisis. But why shouldn't they? The nature of banking isn't trying to prevent a systemic meltdown, it is to make money. Can't blame the banks for not having a moral code that corrects the flaws of capitalism.

In October 2008 former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan conceded finding a flaw in the free market ideology, after having believed in the pure stuff for over 40 years. Greenspan acknowledged financial companies didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.

Took him 40 years to figure out that where greed fosters risk, huge greed fosters huge risk.

More from category Politics:

The virus of absolute power

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

10 ways to know you're not " just three guys having a beer at the end of the day."

2009-07-31T14:54:00.012+02:00

You know you're not "just three guys having a beer at the end of the day", when:

1) You received a written invitation for it, and a White House visitor's pass. (so you won't get shot as a potential black Muslim terrorist / white supremacist when you show up, shouting frantically 'Let me in you pigs, the President asked me to have a beer with him!')

2) You arrested one of the other guys a couple of days ago.
One of the other guys arrested you a couple of days ago, when you were doing nothing but minding your own business, comfortably breaking and entering into the privacy of your own home.

comfortably breaking and entering into the privacy of your own home.

3) Your bring your wife and kids.

4) You never drink beer, you drink wine. (You once told a fellow professor jokingly you'd never ever drink beer, unless the President of the United States himself offered to have one with you personally)
You never drink beer, out of a glass that is.

5) The other guys are a cop, the President of the United States and the Vice-President of the United States.
The other guys are a Harvard professor of some sorts, the Vice-President of the United States and the guy who called you stupid the other day (also the one who invited you for the beer by the way)

6) The peanuts and pretzels are served in silver bowls

7) A butler brings the beers to your table.

8) Everybody is drinking a different kind of beer.

9) You're sitting in the White House's Rose Garden (well, at the edge of it; have to preserve some room for Marine one, in case of a sudden nuclear attack)

10) After 'just having a beer at the end of the day', three of you issue public statements.

The most powerful woman on the planet

2009-07-30T19:08:00.009+02:00

Yesterday, Microsoft and Yahoo finally reached their long-awaited partnership on online search and advertising. Both Yahoo Chief Executive Carol Bartz and Microsoft's very own Steve -Monkey Boy- Ballmer (see the video of Steve Ballmer going crazy) made very enthusiastic statements, full of the kind of Google bashing that is considered very bad ass among Silicon Valley billionaires.

However, there is one more serious hurdle before they can officially cut the cake and have the first dance: The European Commissioner for Competition.

Couple of centuries ago, when native Americans still had the whole of North America as their Indian reservation and European nations waged wars instead of playing soccer, the world was ruled by noble (and not so noble) kings and queens, who entered in marriages blessed by the Pope in order to increase their political and military power.
Today, large corporations are the new kings and queens. Their mergers are the new royal marriages, and the "Pope" who needs to bless those kind of marriages is European Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes (aka "Steely Neelie", aka "Nickel Neelie", aka "Donna Corleone")

Very few things can scare big multinationals. In many ways they act with sheer impunity, bullying their workforce, exploiting their customers, threatening whole countries if needs be. And of course it's not just about companies like Shell, Microsoft and Ford. Young-companies-formerly-known-as-cool have proven themselves to be just as manipulative and power hungry as the older ones. Facebook trying to steal the content of their members, Amazon trying to remove gay and lesbian books from their ranking system (#Amazonfail), Google trying to monopolize the book market by violating copyrights on a massive scale. (though, granted, it's still nothing compared to Ford continuing to sell the Ford Pinto, knowing it had an easily exploding gas tank, simply because resulting law suits would still be cheaper than the $11 per car repair)

Young-companies-formerly-known-as-cool have proven themselves to be just as manipulative and power hungry as the older ones

But Neelie Kroes has their respect. Microsoft of course already has intimate knowledge of what she is capable of, being fined for a total of $2,038 billion for failing to comply with a 2004 antitrust order. Another tech giant recently bitch slapped by Kroes is Intel, fined $1,45 billion last May for abusing its dominance in computer processors, by offering rebates to computer makers who used more of its chips ('Intel Inside' indeed). And mighty MasterCard Inc. agreed last March to reduce its fees in Europe to avoid being fined by Kroes.

These and other cases confirm the word on the street (the cozy, suburban, white collar street that is) that when it comes to antitrust cases, the EU's global clout is growing rapidly, and Kroes has a lot to do with this. Firm, fair and with a ton of experience when it comes to running large corporations (having been on the board of several). Therefore, she is TheQuirkyPost's pick for the number 1 spot on Forbes Magazine's list of most powerful women on the planet in 2009.

She has competition of course. In 2008, Forbes Magazine ranked Angela Merkel the most powerful woman, for the third year in a row. But 2009 is an election year in Germany -something always hampering democratically elected leaders- and the German economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930's (forcing the Chancellor's hand on many financial issues)
Hillary Rodham Clinton is another powerful woman, but she ultimately has to follow the agenda of her boss, and also wields little power in the area that arguably commands the most attention this year: the economy.

Meanwhile, Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, said yesterday he looked forward to explaining the details of the planned partnership to the antitrust officials in Brussels. Poor bastard.

_

More from category Funny Money:

Goldman Sachs thanks you for your money

Of bankers and godfathers

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

How close did we come to Tyranny?

2009-07-27T19:47:00.007+02:00

On Oct. 23, 2001, less than 6 weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the US Justice Department wrote a memorandum justifying the use of the military on domestic soil.
The memorandum was already declassified last March, but only a couple of days ago it became known that in 2002, top Bush administration officials actually considered using this document to justify the deployment of American troops on US soil.

Notably former Vice President Dick Cheney pushed for using the military to arrest a group of men in Lackawanna, near Buffalo, who were suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda. His chief opponent was Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser. Reason for the debate was concerns about not having enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the Lackawanna six.
Mr. Cheney argued that less evidence would be needed to declare them enemy combatants, in which case they could be send to military prison. Also, this course of action wouldn't have to be limited to the Lackawanna six. (meaning it could also be applied to you)
Everybody suspected of being part of a terrorist group would be stripped of their civil rights by designating them enemy combatants. Not innocent until proven guilty, no lawyer, no public trial.

Not innocent until proven guilty, no lawyer, no public trial.

In the summer of 2005, Mr Cheney told Republican Senators that President Bush would veto the annual defense spending bill if it contained language prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. personnel.
In the fall of 2005, Mr. Cheney proposed that Congress legally authorize "enhanced interrogation methods" (aka torture). However, Congress did not, as this would violate some of the most basic human rights. (hurray for Congress)
In June 2009, Cheney (now way past deserving the title Mr.) admitted "enhanced interrogation methods" had been used anyway.

So, in Cheney's United States, the government should be able to use the military to round up citizens suspected of membership of a terrorist organization, ship them to a military prison -foreign or domestic- strip them of their legal rights, deny them trial and torture them for information.

Exactly how would this differ from an Afghanistan run by The Taliban, an Iran run by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an Iraq ran by Saddam Hussein, even a Germany run by Adolf Hitler?
On 21 May 2009, Cheney, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, said: "no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things."

If that really is the case, what then separates us from them?

Just take a moment and imagine what the world might look like today if President Bush had died in office.

How close to oppression we still are, after centuries of freedom.

More on category Politics:

Will banks fool us twice?

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Goldman Sachs thanks you for your money

2009-07-23T21:06:00.012+02:00

When I grow up I want to be a banker. Or a bank. Yes, I want to be a bank, and I'm pretty sure which one too. The bank that cannot be broken. The bank that goes on where others have left of or cowardly shied away, humbly admitting their mistakes. The bank that has a whole nation of taxpayers as its safety net and has quarterly profits that eat many a small country for breakfast.

Yes, I want to be Goldman Sachs!

Less than a year ago GS needed the US government (aka the taxpayer) to bail them out. They received $10 billion in relief money. Other banks were not so big (and thus not so lucky) and went bankrupt. Many republicans warned that bailing out companies would lead to socialism. But instead, it birthed a new form of capitalism: safety-net capitalism. (when you're too big to fail, the tax payer will always save you)

Last week, Goldman Sachs reported its second-quarter net profit. $3,44 billion. More than the Gross Domestic Product (which of course is measured per year) of Congo, Niger, Rwanda, Mongolia, Barbados, Bermuda and a whole bunch of other countries. The reason for this breathtaking record profit was that during the second quarter, GS took on even more risk than the quarter before that, and much more risk than any other bank.

But many American legislators and financial experts said we needed "to put the fire out first" before thinking about how to prevent a new fire

Another big investment bank, Morgan Stanley, reported a loss of $1.26 billion. Main reason for this is that they have taken on less risk for the past few months, trying to build a more stable, solid business model (Silly bastards). They did however set apart 72% of their revenue for bonuses. So even while losing money, their traders still get 72% of the money they made for the bank.

I wonder how big a loan you could get from a typical bank, if your company has the following business model:
1) Trader, takes huge risks with company's money, is paid astronomical fee if risks pay off, suffers nothing when they don't
2) Company, pays for those risks with other people's money, pays shareholders divident if risks pay off, begs the US treasury for credit if they don't.

Last fall, when everybody was panicking, there was momentum for change, for more regulation of a financial sector that doesn't even understand itself anymore, and at the same time has grown so important we can't let them pay for their own mistakes. But many American legislators and financial experts said we needed "to put the fire out first" before thinking about how to prevent a new fire (criticizing mainly the Germans and the French, who wanted to do both). And now financial companies start reporting profits of billions of dollars again, and nobody is talking about preventing a new fire anymore.

Sadly, I've already sort of grown up, but I'm already refocusing my 6 month old son's attention from becoming the first man on Mars to becoming Goldman Sachs. In him, my dream of risk-free-unaccountable-gambling-with-other-people's-money-while-making-billions-of-dollars, lives on.

_

More from category Funny Money:

Of bankers and godfathers

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Man on Mars for $100

2009-07-20T20:19:00.004+02:00

Where were you? Where were you when Kennedy was shot? (indeed, which one). And Dr. King? John Lennon? Where-were-you events are often about famous people who were killed, or terrible ordeals like 09/11. Always something negative, with one big -very optimistic- exception:

Where were you when we landed on the Moon?

Unfortunately for me, I was nowhere yet. Of course I have seen the epic footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the lunar surface and heard the cracking voice speaking that one sentence that has lost nothing of its magic, even after 40 years. But seeing it live on TV while it was actually happening must have been something else.
Hazy black and white images of a man coming down a ladder, the voice of Walter Cronkite (deceased just a couple of days ago, aged 92) describing the scene, and finally those rough cut, computerized letters in the middle of the screen, when the man makes his small step:

ARMSTRONG ON MOON

Forget that it was all done because of the Cold War and a silly space race. Forget that it cost billions of dollars and didn't yield any measurable profits. And don't believe we could have also spend those billions on feeding the world or developing greener technology. Things have never worked like that. (nor will they ever)

But all over the world people were ecstatic over this astronomical event, which was a definite uptick in a roller coaster decade. Even today, the lunar landing stands tall in the all time top 10 of species pride.
It was the Americans who went to the Moon, but all of mankind shares in the pride of the achievement and its promise for the future. After all, we are explorers, always dreaming beyond the visible horizon.

But it's been 40 years ago, and many of us have yet to experience such a moment of species pride of their own.

But it's been 40 years ago, and many of us have yet to experience such a moment of species pride of their own. To be honest, we could all use some good news. Climate change, a nuclear North Korea and Iran, energy crisis, financial crisis; it's another roller coaster decade, but this time without the cookie at the end.

A manned mission to Mars will cost about $40 billion. There are no direct advantages to be gained and no practical, technological breakthroughs to be expected. The trip alone would take a year and the many unknown factors make it a very risky investment (the kind only Goldman Sachs wouldn't shy away from, because they know that however big they fuck up, the government always has their back; neo-capitalism, gotta love it).

$40 billion. That's about 5% of the total amount of money the US government injected into the financial system, because it didn't want the banks to pay the price for their own bad decisions. Raise your hand if you think it's ok to bail out Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and A.I.G, but not to use 5% of that money to put a man on Mars. (no not you Lloyd C. Blankfein, your vote doesn't count).
We could even start a public fund ourselves. "Put up $100 if you want mankind to go to Mars!" Tell you what, as soon as 400 million people have commented 'YES!' on this post, I'll set up a bank account, so we can raise the $40 billion and make the Mars voyage happen ourselves.

Look, I really don't care if it's the Chinese, American, European or Russian President who's saying it, as long as it sounds like a variation on the theme that brought us to the Moon:

"The exploration for space will go on, whether we join in it or not. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond. (...) We choose to go the Moon, not because it's easy but because it's hard."
John F. Kennedy

The Next Roman Empire

2009-07-16T18:45:00.010+02:00

There is a new Rome on the horizon, fixing to dominate the world for centuries to come. And like all the other Romes before, it's hungry. Hungry for commodities like oil, steel and grain, hungry for cheap money to fuel its fast growing economy, hungry for respect.

A little over 30 years ago, Mao was still busy purging China from its 'imperialistic intellectuals' by means of the Cultural Revolution. But today, 33 years after his death, China has replaced the ideology of playing farm with that of playing monopoly. Turns out they have a nack for that too.
For the past 25 years, average annual GDP growth of China has been above 10%. in 2008, it was ranked the third largest economy in the world, with a GDP of $4.33 trillion (ranked first is the US, with a GDP of $14.26 trillion). An economic giant already, how will it affect the world if it keeps on growing at this pace?

Energy is key. Coal and steam power propelled the British Empire, oil is the golden locomotive (and cage) of the United States. But to become the world's largest economy China needs more. They're using coal and oil, and lots of it, but there simply isn't enough of it to keep going for more than a couple of decades. So China has turned to renewable energy.

China has found a loophole in the failing ideology of communism: cut out everything that has anything to do with communism, but keep the highly centralized one party state.

This year, it has passed the US as the world's largest market for wind energy. It also has the largest solar panel manufacturing industry, and in the renewable energy market,Chinese-owned companies went from 25% domestic-market share four years ago, to 75% this year.

How come it's all going so fast? How is it possible that in a couple of years, pole positions and market shares in these strategic markets are lost by western countries and companies? Because the Chinese economy is not nearly as laissez-faire as the US economy.

China has found a loophole in the failing ideology of communism: cut out everything that has anything to do with communism, but keep the highly centralized one party state. So when the Communist Party of China (CCP) wants to build 6 wind farms with a capacity of 10,000 to 20,000 megawatts apiece, they make it happen. No congressional commissions, no haggling with individual Senators who will only go along if they get something extra for their own state. None of that.
Sometimes foreign companies are allowed to bid on government contracts, but of course they never actually win. Just like Japan and South Korea shielded their car market from Detroit automakers, so does China shield its renewable energy market from European and American wind turbine and solar panel producers.

There are several ways to get respect. You could kick the living shit out of everybody -the classical Roman way- you could pick on decidedly weaker opponents and demand respect from them -the British Empire way- or you could give everybody easy money and hope they'll use it to buy all the stuff you're producing -the American way.

Within 25 years, we'll get to know the Chinese way.

More about category China:

Why China wants more gold and less dollars

Why China hates porn

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Helping the Germans win the war

2009-07-13T21:19:00.009+02:00

SOMETIMES I CAN'T HELP but wish the Germans would have won the war. I'll be the first to admit it wasn't very nice of them to systematically mass murder all those Jews, gays, gypsies and mentally challenged people. Not very nice of them indeed, even bad.

But so is a France run by the French.

France is among the most beautiful countries in the world. It has Paris, the Cote d'azur, The Alpes, lots of fertile farmland, thousands of years of history and culture, and phallic shaped bread. Maybe God realized this was too big a blessing upon one country, and created the French. (don't worry about them being insulted, their English is so bad they'll never be able to read this).

Everything is fine, until you need something done. Fixing up your house, getting a new license plate, an internet connection, insurance, they're all first class tickets to purgatory. You always need another form, another stamp, two more weeks of waiting before the next appointment. Half the time the civil servants themselves don't even know what's needed, so they simply throw a whole bunch of requirements in your general direction, hoping to bounce you off to a colleague.

They just don't think things through. They update client's software needed to go online, but simultaneously kill every client's connection and offer the update as a download only.
Or they pass a law that allows an entertainment-run agency to terminate internet access of suspected illegal downloaders (French anti-piracy law) and then need the Germans -of all people- to tell them it's against the most fundamental principles of their own constitution. Or they divide the country up in 93 districts -some of which are smaller than a Hummer- and then tell people they have to get new license plates every time they move. (When we had to get our new plates at the prefecture the other day, there we're 111 other people waiting)

'He, how about you leave the Jews, gays, gipsies and mentally challenged people alone, and I'll tell you how to win a really big war.'

Thank God I don't have a time machine, because ever since I moved to France there have been moments I'd be tempted to use it and go down in history as Adolf Hitler's evil genius.

First I'd have to prove to him that I'm for real of course. But I already have that covered, thanks to Back to the Future Part II. All I have to do is buy a book with all the sports results of the 1936 Olympics, then set the time machine to travel to the eve of the opening ceremony.

And after I've won der Fuhrer's trust, I'll be like: 'He, how about you leave the Jews, gays, gipsies and mentally challenged people alone, and I'll tell you how to win a really big war.'
And he'd be like: 'Sauerkraut, krieg und donnerwetter!' but in the end he'd realize I'm right and accept the deal.
Now I'm the only one knowing I've saved millions of lives ( but I don't mind, since I'm very modest by nature) and keeping my end of the bargain, I'll tell Adolf -of course we're on a first name basis now: 'Look, forget Eastern Europe, most of all Russia. Let them choke in that damn cold. Instead, focus on Holland, Belgium and France. Holland is full of hardworking people, France is beautiful and Belgium, well, is in between.'

After that I would travel back to the future and live happily ever after in a France where every train travels on schedule, internet always works and everybody speaks English with that adorable accent they have in those war movies from the sixties.

But of course those movies won't be there anymore.

_

Islam and the summer of '09

2009-07-09T15:05:00.007+02:00

IS 2009 GOING TO BE the summer of Uighur and Iran?

Are the Muslims waking up to a revolutionary era of their own? Are they warming up to the ideas of certain inalienable rights, democracy and the rule of law? Hard to say. The revolutionary process knows several stages, and the Iranians only just completed the first one: Anger. The second stage -coming up with an alternative organization of the state- is much more difficult. Meanwhile, the Uighur in Xinjiang autonomous region are still very much in stage one.

We've always been the restless kind. A revolution loving species, unlike sharks and crocodiles, who haven't changed their tricks in a gazillion years. In the past 500 years alone, we went from burning witches and infidels at the stake, to, well, ehmm, stoning them.

No no wait, I can save this.

Look, it's like this. You can't build an organized society without living together peacefully, and you can't live together peacefully without devising some set of rules everybody needs to adhere to. When humans started living together they didn't have any Locke, Montesquieu or Rousseau, all they had was imagination, so they came up with religion.
Religion gave them a body of rules and bounded them together, so they could live together peacefully, and build pyramids, temples and lighthouses. (and fight wars against other peaceful societies)

For thousands of years, the Haves used (or abused, depending on the view) religion to oppress the people. The king, pope, emperor, ayatollah, dalai Lama, grand wizard of Waziristan or whatever his name, was said to be handpicked by the allmighty and that was the end of it. Do as he (usually a he) says or burn at the stake. (or be stoned, boiled in hot oil, buried alive, eaten by giant lizards, you get the idea)

Let's hope it won't take the Iranians as long as it took the West to successfully claim those certain, unalienable rights.

Then the Age of Enlightenment arrived and some people started writing about the rights of the individual, democracy and the rule of law. Their ideas had some early success in some distant colony on the other side of the world and before you could say 'United States of America' they started to catch on at home in Europe, too.

For 200 years the West wrestled with its democratic experiment. No to a king, yes to a king as long as he doesn't have any powers, nobility running parliament, elected officials running parliament, away with democracy let's all hail the dictator, away with dictators let's hail to the chief. We messed up terribly of course. Only in the last couple of decades are we starting to get it right.

Back to stoning.

The reason why (some) Muslims are still stoning gays, adulterers and infidels (although nowadays shooting and hanging is also allowed), is because their society is still bounded by religion, instead of being bounded by the rights of the individual, democracy and the rule of law.

Some right-wing Western politicians think there is reason for smirking about this, but when you look at the last 200 years of history both in the US and in Europe, there can be only one real conclusion: after systematically killing and/or enslaving millions of Indians, blacks, gays, gypsies, Jews and political adversaries, there's really nothing left for the West to smirk about when it comes to basic human rights.

Still, let's hope this really is the summer of Iran and Uighur. Let's hope it won't take the Iranians as long as it took the West to successfully claim those certain, unalienable rights. And should the Uighur win their independence, let's hope they won't lose another 30 years of freedom by putting the word 'Islamic' in front of the proud name of their new nation.

More from category Politics:

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Walking with Dinosaurs and Burqa's

2009-07-06T19:11:00.009+02:00

THE CREATION MUSEUM in Petersburg, Kentucky, has dinosaurs and man living side by side. According to the Museum, Earth and the Universe are a little over 6,000 years old and were created by God in six days. The dinosaurs died out around 2348 B.C, because of the worldwide flood that God sent as punishment for all our sins. (and those of the Dinosaurs; bastards)

So while the ancient Civilizations of Akkad and Egypt flourish (the Pyramids of Giza had already been built) cities exist in ancient China and on the Indian Subcontinent, and Gilgamesh rules Sumer from the capital city of Uruk, T-Rex walks the earth and Pterodactyl (wingspan of 20 feet) flies above it, without ever being described.

How is this possible?

Because creationists take the Bible literary, an axiom that also leads them to not working on Sunday's, not to engage in homosexual activities and instruct the wives to obey their husbands and wear skirts (and underwear).
Rigid obedience yes, but perfectly understandable. The Bible is their holy book, which they believe is actually dictated by God Himself. Of course they take it literary, just like some Muslims try to take the Koran literary, Jews the Torah, etc. They all want to follow their God as best they can.

If you're waiting for the punchline, there won't be any. Well, maybe just the one:

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Atheism, they all claim to be The One True Faith, but which is the really real one? Should we just fight it out, with the winner dictating religion? And how long would that uneasy peace last? Have we ever had people unanimously follow one religion in any country, city or even street block?

Have we ever had people unanimously follow one religion in any country, city or even street block?

Then maybe we should not fight it out.

I don't like the burqa. In fact, I dislike it. Or, as long as we're being completely honest with each other, I actually really hate it. I hate not being able to see someone's face, I hate codes of conduct telling women to either deny or overstate their femininity, and I love seeing the female figure (and then some).

Last week President Sarkozy declared war on the burqa, saying 'The burqa is not welcome in France.' His main argument: 'The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women.'
But of course it is very much a religious sign and as far as the submission argument goes: should the government be given the right to force women not to wear certain clothes? Do we really want the government this deep into our personal lives? Again?

This is the hard part about freedom, about living in a free society, about being free: to allow others to use their freedom to say, think, want and wear things you hate with a passion.

So you won't hear me come out against the Creation Museum either, even though it teaches 5 year old's that kids just like them were playing with Dinosaurs while the Egyptians were building their Pyramids.

Let them walk with Dinosaurs if they so wish.

More on category Politics:

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Who rules the internet?

2009-07-02T21:05:00.008+02:00

WE THE PEOPLE have never been more powerful. We live in an age where governments and companies are bigger than ever, yet the people have never been so well positioned to rule the world themselves.

The internet is making us less ignorant, less intimidated, less stupid. News, knowledge, education and information travel faster and further than ever, making it increasingly difficult for governments to belie us, totalitarian regimes to control us, and companies to cheat us.

In the past few months alone Netizens (citizens of the internet) exposed foul plays from Amazon and Facebook, organized and protested against election fraud in Iran, and forced cracks in the authoritarian vault that is the People's Republic of China.

China's Netizens are among the most active in the world, which is ironic when considering that China also has one of the most active governments in the world when it comes to hindering its people's online freedoms.
For instance, it has hired tens of thousands of people to monitor blogs and counterblog, erected a firewall around mainland China that deserves a place on the UNESCO list of World Heritage, and almost succeed in equipping every PC with 'total control' software called Green Dam. Almost, because two days ago the Chinese government announced the "postponement of the Green Dam project". (postponement being political jargon for cancellation. Indeed, why not say cancellation then)

Should you pay taxes for an online shop that's being hosted abroad, and if so, what are you paying taxes for?

But the battle for online freedom is long from over. In fact it's only just beginning and taking place in different regions, on different levels. In China it's mostly about publishing and browsing freedoms. In the Middle East it's about basic access of many Western websites, in Africa it's about basic access of the internet itself.

In most Western nations the battle is more subtle. Most people there have internet access and are reasonably free to write and read whatever they want. But questions about the relationship between people, internet and government are beginning to surface. What's the legal status of the internet? Who controls it? Should your government be able to regulate what sites you can visit, even if those sites are based and operated abroad? Should your government be able to forbid virtual behaviour? (like virtual rape, murder etc in an online game / world). Should you pay taxes for an online shop that's being hosted abroad, and if so, what are you paying taxes for? What kind of service does the State give you in return?

In short, Is the internet starting to become a nation of it's own (under Gods) where many traditional rules don't apply and national sovereignty hardly plays any role, or should it remain a rich and fruitful colony, ruled from afar?

_

More from category Online Revolution:

Young Iranians storming their Bastille

Piracy is hot

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Why China hates porn

2009-06-29T18:15:00.009+02:00

THIS WEEK, THE CHINESE Health Ministry banned most internet users from seeing medical research papers on sexual subjects. It didn't specify further what constitutes a 'sexual subject' though, probably relying on the 'gesundenes volksempfinden' to pass judgment. (so to all those Chinese feet fetisjists out there: you're probably still allowed to go through medical research papers for pictures of those yummy tiny feet and crazy hot lolita pinky toes)

Nicholas Bequelin, a Human Rights Watch researcher in Hong Kong, stated the government's statistics for seizures of illegal publications tend to include both pornographic and political documents. 'These campaigns work hand in hand' (and) are closely associated', he said.

It seems that just as there is a correlation in (most) oil exporting countries between the height of the oil price and the degree of repression, there is also a correlation between the degree of authoritarianism and the availability of pornography. (meaning a teenage boy living in an oil exporting dictatorship has about the same kind of life as a lobster sitting in the aquarium of a good sea food restaurant)

Idealists feel morally superior, and in their eternal war defending a perceived superiority, sexuality is the ultimate battleground

As far as totalitarian regimes and pornography go, China is clearly no exception. For instance, porn was strictly forbidden in nazi Germany. Apparently, besides being a vegetarian and neither drinking nor smoking, der Führer was also no fan of sex (fun guy). In the Soviet Union, the mere possession of 'pornographic material' carried a prison sentence of 3 years. Today's Cuba also has highly restrictive laws against pornography, same of course for all those fun and games regimes in the Middle East.

But what's the reason? Why do totalitarian regimes hate porn? Is it because sexual freedom can act as a dangerous gateway to other freedoms? Is it because totalitarianism seeks to control every aspect of human life? Probably, but there is a more fundamental reason. Dictators are idealists.

Idealists feel morally superior. They genuinely think they know best. Christian fundamentalists against abortion, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) against eating meat, Muslim and Christian fundamentalists against gay people, Chinese neo-communists (a term reserved for politicians who like communism but no longer take it seriously) against pornography. Idealists feel morally superior, and in their eternal war defending a perceived superiority, sexuality is the ultimate battleground. Gay marriage, sex education in high schools, abortion, pornography, laws against adultery, they're all battles in a war that's being waged to make certain people feel better than other people, so they can feel better about themselves.

But honestly, has anyone ever seriously wacked off to medical research papers covering sexual subjects?

Toulouse: A young man's paradise

2009-06-25T22:57:00.006+02:00

THERE IS NO Starbucks in Toulouse. Now, before you say 'I don't care about Toulouse, I don't even know where it is', know that no other city is home to so many beautiful young women. They come here to study at the renowned Université de Toulouse, one of the oldest universities in Europe, established in 1229. Young, cosmopolitan women from France and around the globe, who know how to dress, flirt and enjoy life in one of the most beautiful cities in the South of France.

Is that something you might be interested in?

Half a million inhabitants, 120k of whom are students, roughly 25% of the total population. What do you think that does to a city? I'll tell you what it does, it makes it look like a hot young chick. By comparison, it's making Paris look like Coco Chanel when she was already in her sixties, Barcelona like a skanky crack whore pretending to be hip, and Rome like a wrinkled old man forgotten by God.
Students have taken possession of the bars and restaurants, streets and squares of Toulouse. Like spoiled statues they hang out at Allee du President Roosevelt, parade a bit at the Place du Capitole or look for a little afternoon shade in the park with the merry-go-round, behind City Hall. There are also a lot less tourists than you'd expect, since they all go to Paris and the Côte d'Azur (Cannes, Nice, Monaco, a.k.a the expensive part of the South of France).

landmarks won't give you any love; they're nothing more than whores in a neverending gang bang

Paris, of course, does have a Starbucks, several. When I lived there, I frequented two Starbucks cafe's, one in the morning and another one in the early evening. Every morning I sat in the most beautiful Starbucks in Paris, gently waking up to the crisp sound of gripped pages of the International Herald Tribune, the taste of a double espresso and the view of a seriously over the top jugendstil ceiling. (my evening Starbucks was a much more run-of-the mill coffee house, but I did see a Buddhist monk there; twice).

And of course there also are beautiful, young, cosmopolitan women in Paris, probably even more than there are in Toulouse. But their presence is much more polluted; by tourists, by normal, old, and ugly people. And yes, Paris has the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre (hideously looking Mona Lisa included) the Tuileries, the Notre Dame and Montmartre, with its overpriced drinks and arrogant waiters (especially the cafe with the blue and white canopy, on the corner of the Place du Tertre.) but so what? I lived in Paris for three years and absolutely loved it, but not because of the landmarks. These days everybody is trying to impress others with their travels (or maybe it's always been that way) but trust me when I tell you that landmarks won't give you any love; they're nothing more than whores in a neverending gang bang.

Maybe I should open up my own Starbucks. The first one in "Le Ville Rose", as Toulouse is affectionately called by the French (because of its distinctive brick architecture). Free wifi for all the customers, a long, mahogany table with dozens of French and international newspapers and a complementary glass of pineapple juice during happy hour (after the secret recepy a friend of mine has come up with this week).

I hear girls love pineapple juice.

P.S. If you ever do go to Toulouse, tell me how it was. :)

_

More from category Starbucks Stories:

A Buddhist monk in the Starbucks

The most beautiful Starbucks in Paris

Buddhist monk running on empty

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

The virus of Absolute Power

2009-06-22T16:34:00.014+02:00

MAYBE IRAN'S SUPREME LEADER, Ayatollah Khamenei, is right. Maybe there was no voter fraud, no election rigging of any kind. Maybe President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really did get 62% of the vote. Maybe the millions that have marched through the streets of Iran are wrong. Seriously, they could be. But it's still no excuse.

It's still no excuse to forbid peaceful demonstrations, to sanction police and para military violence, to block communications, to arrest reporters and opposition leaders. To kill.

Every revolutionary is an ideologist. He firmly believes, knows, he's on the right side of morality. And because his vision of society is so very obviously the right one, no citizen needs protection against it.

Before the arrival of Joseph Stalin, who in their right mind could think Russians needed to be protected against the communist State of Lenin?

Before the arrival of the Reign of Terror, who in their right mind could think the French needed protection against their own Revolution?

Before the arrival of Dick Cheney, who in their right mind could think Americans needed to be protected against being tortured by their own government?

All societies are based on a social contract between the state and the people. The state is given authority to rule the people, who in return get stability and protection from and against the state. The state should never be run by people, but by the rule of law. Governments handling the affairs of the State have to abide by that law.

And because his vision of society is so very obviously the right one, no citizen needs protection against it

We tend to forget democracy is not the cake, only the icing. It's very nice to be able to go into a voting booth every four years or so, but the cake is made with those 'certain inalienable rights' that create free citizens and protect them against their most likely enemy: the State itself. This is why the Iranian revolution of 1979 (and so many other revolutions during the past 50 years) has failed; it hasn't given the people any absolute rights, protecting them against the state.

And now it's too late.

The social contract between the people of Iran and the State of Iran has been broken. Peaceful protest is met with state sanctioned violence, and if there is one thing the elections have proven (once again) it's that Iran's true leader is not a President chosen by the people. (So much for the word 'republic' in the Islamic Republic of Iran)

The people in the West have had to fight in the same struggle for power. Against tyranny, dictatorship, communism, fascism, religious fanaticism. Some of these fights lasted for years, decades even. Millions were lost. Eventually the people won, for the most part at least. But lest they remain vigilant they might still lose, because no people is ever absolutely safe against the virus of absolute power.

More from category Politics:

Why Tibet beats the Uighurs

Why Tibet beats the Uighurs

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

The end of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

2009-06-18T13:47:00.007+02:00

THE FRENCH PEOPLE that stormed the Bastille on the 14th of July 1789 were allied by their hatred of the conservatives and divided by almost everything else. They had no shared vision for the future, no taste for compromises and no idea what was to be next.

The ensuing power struggle took 10 years and costed more than 40,000 lives. Continued civic unrest increased the power of the army, eventually enabling the 30 year old general Napoleon Bonaparte to stage a coup d'état and cease power on november 9th, 1799.

For the past few days, the Iranian peope have been marching through the streets, enraged by the results of last Saturday's election, which declared a landslide victory for incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Despite worsening inflation and unemployment Mr Ahmadinejad got 7 million votes more than in 2005, on a total of 39 million votes.

But by this time, what constitutes winning?

Meanwhile, there are many reports of the government using force against the protesters -notably outside the high profile capital- but so far, at least for this regime, reactions have been mild.

Soon, this will change.

If the protesters persist (and it looks like they will) Iran's ruling, conservative elite has only two options:

1) give in to the will of the people and withdraw support for Ahmadinejad

2) crush the protests with all available means.

Considering the nature and history of Iran's ruling elite, it doesn't seem likely they will give in to the people. In 1979, they were the revolutionaries themselves and ousted the Shah. It takes one to know one, and they know all the tricks. So they will probably go for door number 2: die hard skull crushing massacres.

There are two ways in which a government's all out war against its own people can fail (besides being already a failure of mammoth proportions by definition): a- the army chooses the side of the people, or b-the people don't give up.

Let's assume the people don't give up. Thousands have died, maybe more, but they have won. But by this time, what constitutes winning? Is it still only about Ahmadinejad stepping down? Even after Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, not only supported the fraudulent elections but also sanctioned the killing of thousands of protesters?

Probably not.

So then what? Declaring the end of the Islamic Republic, adopting a constitution that will guarantee individual freedoms, democracy, and the separation of church and state? Breaking the power of the ayatollah's, the military, reforming or disbanding the Revolutionary Guard?

Probably not.

How about Moussavi as President, a new Ayatollah as supreme leader, but other than that no real changes to the system, preserving the Islamic Republic? Very probable. A compromise, but a very costly one.

More category Politics:

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

Young Iranians storming their Bastille

2009-06-16T12:09:00.023+02:00

THERE ARE TWO KINDS of fake democracies:

1- the no-choice democracy

2- the all-you-can-cheat democracy

The no-choice democracy is democratic in every way, except when it comes to letting the people decide. They get ample opportunity to vote, polling stations have generous opening hours and scores of soldiers make sure the streets are calm. But there's only one option on the ballot, and it always supports the powers that be. Examples are the former Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea and the People's Republic of China (indeed, what's in a name) .

In a no-choice democracy, the ruling party generally gets 99.9% of the vote. Results like these are meant to prove to the people they all think extremely alike (which is why there's also no need for different types of cars, clothes and shoes; or colors, for that matter) and they are all very much in agreement about the excellent job the glorious leader is doing.

The all-you-can-cheat democracy does let the people decide for themselves, but subsequently manipulates the outcome. Opposition leaders who become too popular are usually jailed or worse, media mostly cover the ruling party, and military and police forces are never far away, ready to 'keep the peace'. Examples are the Republic of Zimbabwe, Russia and -as of last weekend- the Islamic Republic of Iran.

He needed a landslide victory to wipe out any hope, any belief, any idea that change was possible

Last saturday, the closest electoral race Iran has ever seen ended with a landslide victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. According to the Interior Ministry, Mr Ahmadinejad got 62% of the vote, while Mir Hussein Moussavi, his most important opponent, got 34%. This, while most polls before election day showed a very tight race, with Mr. Moussavi having the upper hand.

Following the elections, several opposition leaders were arrested, opposition websites were shut down, text messages were cut off, universities were closed and a huge police force was called in to disperse the public. If it was a South Park episode, this would be the moment where everybody cries "shenanigans!'". Instead, angry young Iranians are calling it a coup d'état.

Of course claiming 62% of the vote was insanely stupid. All the pre-election polls showed a tight race. Not to mention the packed streets of Tehran, showing powerfull forces at work in the hearts and minds of Iran's young men and women. Claiming a landslide victory under those conditions is like an office worker stealing his whole cubicle, instead of just a couple of pens.

So why did he do it? Why claim 62% in all regions (including Moussavi's home town) instead of an overall 52%? Throw in a couple of losses in regions besides Tehran and you're almost certainly homefree. Very tight race, very tight result, but in the end the President won. Don't think that would have drawn a million protesters in the streets of Tehran.

But winning wasn't enough anymore. Ahmadinejad (and the conservative elite behind him) wanted to crush what was starting to become a movement of change (and to a conservative, change, any change, is bad). He needed a landslide victory to wipe out any hope, any belief, any idea that change was possible. Like it had never even been there, that even the mere idea of hope had never been more than a phantom, a mirage. Mr. Moussavi called the election result an act of official 'wizardry' , and that was exactly what the ruling party had attempted to achieve.

Sadly for all the dictators out there, it doesn't work that way. You can't kill an idea. Can you beat people into submission? Yes. Can you kill hundreds of thousands of your own people? Yes. But you can't make them agree with you. You can't make them love you.

No matter what he does next, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lost his legitimacy as President. And if Ayatollah Khamenei keeps supporting him, he's in danger of losing his own legitmacy. Spontaneous, popular movements are a funny thing (some would say dangerous). Like a wild river, they can turn ugly and topple the raft of power in the blink of an eye. Then, suddenly, it's not just about replacing the current bearded guy for a more benign version, but about a much farther reaching revolution, in this case aimed at undoing the shackles of the previous one .

How will it end?

Like always, the outcome is up to the people. It's all about how much they really want it.

More from category Politics:

The en of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Free Uighur with a T-shirt

_

Your comments are very welcome.

And if you liked this article, sharing it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg or Twitter would also be much appreciated of course. :)

China's Brave New World

2009-06-11T14:23:00.012+02:00

REVOLUTIONS MAY BE inspired by philosophers, they are started by the commoners. By the ones who've got nothing to lose and everything to gain; laid off factory workers, students without career prospects, soldiers fighting an endless war they don't understand.

The only time people really stand up to their leaders, demanding change, reform and rolling heads, is when they're completely out of options. The French people didn't storm the Bastille because they wanted to reform their government into a democratic republic upholding the rule of law, they stormed it because they didn't have any more bread left (hearing of this, Marie Antoinette famously advised them to eat cookies instead)

People don't give a shit about democracy. They don't give a shit about political reform and they don't give a shit about civil liberties

On June 4th 1989, Liu Suli stood in front of a rolling tank at Beijing's Tiananmen square, armed with nothing but a plastic bag and a determined mind. Trying to circumvent Liu, the tank moved, but Liu moved with it, maintaining his position. The tank moved again, and Liu moved again. (video)
That day, Liu won the battle, but lost the war. The protesters -demanding political reform- were crushed by the military, killing hundreds (some say thousands). Liu Suli himself was imprisoned but survived. Today, he's 49 years old and has a cafe / bookstore in Beijing, close to Peking University.

Here's what the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has learned since that day: People don't give a shit about democracy. They don't give a shit about political reform and they don't give a shit about civil liberties. People care about stability, jobs, security, cars, cell phones and sex.
Therefore, there has been little political reform in China since 1989, but a lot of economic reform. The CCP is still all powerful, but the most important principle of communism -all available goods and resources are shared by everybody- has been replaced by the most important principle of capitalism: the right to individual ownership. As a result, the country has thrived economically, rewarding entrepreneurship, hard work and creativity.

A couple of weeks ago students at Peking University were asked about their thoughts on the 20th anniversary of'Tiananmen Square'. Most of them only had a vague notion of it, or had never heard of it at all. After talking about it a bit, they agreed political reforms in China were necessary, but that reform would eventually happen by itself and no protests were necessary. In reality, they were much more occupied by the financial crisis and the (current) problem of getting a good job after graduation.

But like NASA, the Chinese government doesn't take any risks. So, last week, it took every precaution to make sure nobody and nothing in China commemorated the 20th anniversary of the student protests (/killings). Blocking thousands of websites, including Twitter, Flickr, Windows Live and Youtube, they aimed to keep history where it already was: in the past.

And while the students are busy caring about getting a good job, the Chinese government is tightening its grip on their internet access and freedom of speech. This week, it issued a directive requiring all personal computers to be equipped with a new software program called 'Green Dam'. This program will enable the government to block all manner of content, monitor individual internet usage and collect personal information. In essence, it will create a Brave New World.

Companies like Dell, Lenovo and Hewlett-Packard are still 'studying' the new rules, declining to comment. In the end they will of course do what powerful Yellow-bellies like Yahoo, Google and Microsoft did before them: comply. (after all, 'Resistance is futile'). At the end of the day, it's always about the all mighty Renminbi.

Maybe we should hope the next financial crisis is worse.

More from category Politics: