Why Greece will not Leave the Euro

I am going to make a rash prediction: Greece will not leave the Euro.

All that is required for this is the following: the ECB does what is necessary to keep Greece in the Euro. If the ECB acts rationally and in accordance with its legal mandate and obligations, then this is what it will do – it is obligated to ensure the stability of the Eurozone monetary system, and Greece is part of that system. The ECB has all the tools necessary to do this. Greece will only leave the Euro if the ECB acts irrationally and fails to fulfil its legal obligations. To date, the ECB has acted rationally and has fulfilled its legal obligations.

In order to understand what has been actually happening here one must first of all ignore the meaningless posturing of politicians and the “markets”, and look at the real, meaningful events.

Consider the two most meaningful and important REAL events that have happened this year:

FIRST MEANINGFUL EVENT:

Earlier this year the interest rates on Spanish and Italian debt started increasing to dangerous levels. What happened? The ECB lent lots of money to Spanish and Italian banks on the condition that they would then lend it to the Italian and Spanish governments. The interest rates then went down. If the interest rates again reach dangerous levels, the ECB will do the same thing again. The significant thing here is that the Italian and Spanish banks did what they were told to do by the ECB - they actually have no alternative, since they are effectively bankrupt and thus utterly dependent on the ECB for their survival.

(Previously, I argued here that the ECB should lend money to governments via the EFSF. Instead, the ECB has lent money to governments using the private banks as conduits rather than the EFSF, thus maintaining the charade that “the markets” are doing the lending.  I am glad to see that the Mario Draghi followed my advice and put my plan into action, but he found an even cleverer way to implement it!).

SECOND MEANINGFUL EVENT:

Consider the recent withdrawal of deposits from Greek banks, and other periphery banks. Most of that money is being put in German banks or other core country banks. The German banks have no one to lend this money to (they are hardly going to lend it back to Greece!). So what are they doing with these new deposits? They are depositing them in the ECB to get some interest. What will the ECB do with that money? It will lend it back to the Greek banks and periphery banks, in order to replace the deposits lost in the withdrawals, thus ensuring the stability of the Greek monetary system. Or it will lend it to periphery governments who will then nationalise the banks (The ECB effectively did the same thing when there was a run on Irish banks a few years ago).

CONCLUSION:

These events demonstrate two things: the ECB will willy-nilly do whatever is necessary in order to make sure that neither governments nor private banks in the Eurozone collapse. It has a legal obligation to do so, since its mandate requires it to guarantee European monetary stability. German politicians cannot stop the ECB doing this even if they want to. (A THIRD MEANINGFUL REAL EVENT of the last year was that the German hawks were removed from the ECB board and replaced with political appointees commited to preserving the Euro).

The over all effect of these policies is the following: private European banks are rapidly becoming wards of the ECB. Their balance sheets with the ECB are exploding, effectively putting them under the complete command of the ECB. The ECB tells them what to do and they do it. They are under de facto control of the ECB.

Now: the Eurozone banking system is by far the biggest banking system in the world. In other words, the largest component of “global markets” is gradually being placed under effective public control i.e. under the control of the ECB, which is a non-profit maximising public institution. The profit-maximising institutions are being controlled by a non-profit-maximising institution. The private banks are no longer profit-maximising institutions, since they effectively destroyed themselves in their quest for short-term profits (in the run up to the Great Recession).

Thus, attempts by the “markets” to abolish the Euro will lead the abolition of the markets.

(Incidentally, this will happen even if Greece leaves the Euro. If Greece leaves the Euro capital controls will be implemented all over Europe, thus abolishing the free international movement of capital i.e. thus abolishing the “markets”. That would be an irrational thing to allow to happen. Far better to gradually strangle “the markets” by slowly placing private banks under complete public control).

Consequently, there is no need for European populations to elect Communists or Leftists to power in order to abolish the “markets” since this is already occurring right before our eyes, albeit in a gradual manner, unannounced by the authorities and unnoticed by the general population.

Remove Finland from the European Union

I don’t know about the rest of you but I am increasingly sick and tired of the recent carry on of the Finns. I have tried my best to hold my tongue, but I cannot in good conscience keep silent any longer. The treacherous Finns have been causing trouble all over the place. They have even been suggesting that Greece should be kicked out of the euro. Well, I say: kick Finland out of the euro. Finland is barely even a country. It is just a mobile phone company with a few saunas. So let’s see how many mobile phones they can sell when their new currency appreciates by 5 million percent against every other currency. And Nokia is screwed now anyway since they do not make good smart phones. These arrogant Finns need to be taken down a peg or two. Give the so-called “True Finns” what they want and then let’s see how they get on.

Have you ever met a Finn that you liked? Think about it. Seriously. Think hard. Have you ever met a Finn full stop? The other Scandinavians do not even regard Finland as part of Scandinavia. The Finnish language is of uncertain provenance. Where did this mongrel dialect come from? Nobody knows. Are the Finns really even Europeans? Give the Finns back to Russia and see how they like it.

Ever since Lordy won the Eurovision Song Contest the whole tone of that event has lowered to the point now where it can no longer be taken seriously as a music competition. I blame the Finns. The rot started with them.

In the long run what has Finland got to offer Europe? In this definitive list of 66 beautiful towns of Europe, not a single Finnish town appears. What has Finland contributed to European culture? The composer Sibelius, we are frequently told. If I had a euro for every time I have heard a Finn drone on about the “genius of Sibelius” I would be a rich man. But ask yourself this: if Sibelius is really such a great composer, then why have you and I never heard any of his music?

Who has given more to European civilisation, Greece or Finland? Well, for starters, Greece INVENTED European Civilisation. If Greece had never existed, there would be no Europe; if Finland had never existed, no one in Europe would notice its absence.

The overweening Finns have been demanding collateral for the money they are lending Greece in the bailout. Oh puh-lease! If it wasn’t for the likes of Greece, the Finns would have had no one to sell their surplus mobile phones to in the first place. It’s not Greece’s fault that there is nothing to do in Finland except work really hard making lots of mobile phones to sell to Greece. Nor is it Greece’s fault that there are plenty of fun things to do in sunny Greece that make it seem less necessary to spend all of your time working hard to make mobile phones – especially when you can just get the Finns to do it for you and then buy them with money that you have, in effect, “borrowed” from the Finns with no intention of paying back. Why would the Greeks need to work when they can have such a good time lying on the beaches of beautiful islands or having a riot in Athens? The Finns are basically jealous.

Enough! It was not always like this. In years past, Finland was a country you could respect. It was a country you could believe in. It was a land of hopes and dreams. Who can forget the immortal Monthy Python song eulogising Finland?

Finland, Finland, Finland,
The country where I want to be,
Pony trekking or camping,
Or just watching TV.
Finland, Finland, Finland.
It's the country for me.

You're so near to Russia,
So far from Japan,
Quite a long way from Cairo,
Lots of miles from Vietnam.

You're so sadly neglected
And often ignored,
A poor second to Belgium,
When going abroad.

Would Monthy Python take the trouble to write such a complimentary song about Finland now, given that country’s recent disgraceful performance?

I doubt it.

Occupying Wall Street – a New Birth of Freedom?

Previously we discussed the progressive protests and revolutions that are breaking out all over the world and terrifying the hell out of people with power and in positions of authority. One place where such progressive protests and revolutions appeared to be strangely absent was in the United States of America. At the time I thought this might be due to the uniquely docile and obedient nature of the American populace. Well, it turns out that this was just anti-American racism on my part. At the end of the day Americans are just like the rest of us – as is shown by the current Occupation of Wall Street. The protestors may not succeed in conquering Wall Street this time and the occupation may fizzle out, although thus far it appears to be gaining momentum. But if not today, then one day the people will rise up and conquer Wall Street - and history will remember the current protestors as heroes.

In an important way, this attempted revolution in Wall Street is the Big One, in the sense that it is going straight to the heart of the matter – to the epicentre of “the markets”. If it gains traction you would be surprised at just how fragile the current system is, and at just how quickly it could fall to pieces - it is an ideological construct based on a series of myths and fantasies, so it could easily collapse like a house of cards.

Today, we fear and obey “the markets” in the same way that we used to fear and obey God. “The market” is this weird abstract entity that everyone lives in terror of, even though no one has ever seen it – just like God used to be - omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Everything must be done in order to appease and satisfy “the markets”, just as things previously needed to be done in order to satisfy and appease God. Our leaders act in order to try and calm the rage of “the markets” in the same way that they used to act to try and calm the rage of God. We must not raise taxes on the wealthy, not because God would disapprove, but because “the markets” would disapprove. We must reduce government expenditure, not because God will throw a hissy-fit if we don’t, but because “the markets” will throw a hissy-fit if we don’t. We must reduce the amount we spend on health and education not because God demands it, but because “the markets” demand it. The poor and the vulnerable must be sacrificed because “the markets” demand it, just as previously the poor and the vulnerable needed to be sacrificed because the gods demanded it.

Of course, in previous eras the power of God did not actually come from God himself, but from people’s belief in the power of God. The same is true of “the market” – its power over us comes, not from the market itself, but from our belief in its power and its omnipotence – and from the belief that this power is inevitable and immutable. “The market” is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz – if we saw it for what it really is, it would no longer wield its power and people would see that things do not have to be like this. “The markets” can only do what they do because the laws allow them to get away with it – ultimately, because we allow them to get away with it. If Wall Street is to be successfully torn down then first we must tear down the walls in people’s minds that prevent them seeing that things do not have to be like this.

Of course, no one who can think still believes in Capitalist propaganda. Does anyone think financiers deserve the money they get? Only the severely brainwashed still really believe this, because we have all seen financiers being bailed out by the taxpayer and have seen them protected and molly-coddled by the nanny-state. We have seen how our system of socialism for the rich involves vast forced transfers of wealth from the less well off to the better off. People have now stopped believing in this stupid system. And once people stop believing in a system it cannot long endure – it is already dead. The pent up anger and rage of the people towards the system is now literally immense.

Can you hear the fear in the voices of the apologists for power and wealth as they desperately try to fool you into believing their lies and their propaganda? They don’t even believe it themselves. They die with their conceits, and only piteous scorn upon their folly waits.

Who's Afraid of the Internet?

Who is afraid of the Information Revolution? Who is afraid of the Internet?

People who work in media and publishing hate and fear the internet and the Information Revolution. So do politicians. And government armies and the police. It terrifies them. What about doctors? They hate it and despise it – or if not quite yet, they soon will. Lawyers? The same. What about IT professionals? Surely they must be happy about it? Nope. Even people who work in IT hate and fear the information revolution because each new major development renders most of their jobs redundant. So the answer to the question “Who is afraid of the Information Revolution?” would appear to be: everyone. Everyone is afraid of the information revolution. Or at least, everyone who makes their living and who gets their power from controlling access to information.

The absolute material wealth and well-being of the human species has increased hugely over the last couple of centuries because more work has been done by machines, robots and computers. Also, the quality and quantity of information available to people has increased and improved, thus allowing them to act more rationally and more effectively. Life-expectancies have increased, infant mortality has decreased, literacy has rocketed. Not only that, the world has become a much, much safer and more civilised place. The oppression of women, ethnic minorities and homosexuals has decreased and become less and less acceptable. Violence has decreased. Basically, for most people things have been getting better and better in every way. Technological development (particularly since the Industrial Revolution) has allowed us to largely abolish slavery and serfdom and replace them with wage-slavery (or “employment”). The onset of the recent Information Revolution will transform our societies just as dramatically, but as yet most people are only dimly aware of just how dramatic this transformation will be.

For example, as indicated above, professional employment is increasingly going to become a thing of the past. Computers and robots will render most “professional” jobs more-and-more irrelevant. Most of the following professionals will no longer be needed very much and you will not need to pay much or anything for their services even if you do ever want them: surgeons, doctors, dentists, pharmacists, lawyers, judges, professors, journalists, architects, engineers, bankers, stockbrokers, financial advisors, accountants, tax consultants, bureaucrats, intelligence agents, managers, salespeople - as well as information technology professionals. Even at the moment, most professionals spend most of their “working” day surfing the internet, pretending to work, drinking coffee, and going to lunch, simply because there is actually very little for them to do (everyone, that is, except me, since I work incredibly hard myself). And they only get paid what they do because artificial barriers to entry allow them to enjoy monopoly power for the moment. Eventually, this farce will end and the barriers will be torn down. So if your self-respect depends on the status and money you hope to get from paid professional employment then be afraid. Be very afraid. On the other hand, if you are a nice person who is fun to be with then there is no need to be afraid of the Information Revolution – you will have high status in the new world that is coming.

MAny people are fretting about the increase in unemployment due to the recent recessions. But they are looking at this problem from the wrong perspective. Unemployment is only a problem because people’s status in society is currently determined by their job. That may have been feasible in the world of the Industrial Revolution. It is utterly unfeasible in the world of the Information Revolution. The best way to get rid of unemployment is actually to get rid of employment. Employment is a new concept. Until the industrial revolution the concepts of employment and “jobs” scarcely existed. We only imagine this to be the natural order because that is all we have experienced. But it wasn’t like that in the past and it will not be like that in the future.

Currently, the biggest determinant of a person’s status in society is their employment or job. Success in employment chiefly indicates two things about a person
a) a capacity to endure boredom and
b) an ability to suck up to people who are responsible for your “success”.
Why either of these abilities should determine a person’s status in society is beyond me. Nevertheless, that has been the case for some time. Anyway, that will all change now – your status in society will increasingly depend on your moral qualities and your social qualities i.e. it will depend on how nice you are and on how creative and fun you are to be around. That is why the mediocre people who currently thrive in the tedious world of professional employment are so terrified of the Information Revolution.

Personally, I am looking forward immensely to the annihilation of employment and an end to wage-slavery. We managed to get rid of slavery and serfdom. Now for the next (and perhaps final) revolution: the elimination of wage-slavery and employment.

Steven Pinker

Steven Pinker knocks it out of the park ... again. Is he the most intelligent human being alive? You decide.

http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker

Religion in the Modern World

Many if not most human beings have a profound and ineradicable yearning to be part of a genuine, officially sanctioned spiritual and religious community with shared rituals, customs and beliefs. These shared rituals need to be something that all the Community and all the Family participate in during the most important life-ceremonies surrounding birth, coming-of-age, marriage and death. This gives meaning and structure to people’s lives and gives them a sense of stability and belonging. People bound together like this feel grounded and they do not feel like isolated atoms. Today, this yearning is not easily satisfied in modern, individualistic societies. Consider the temples, cathedrals and mosques at the centre of ancient cities – these buildings were the visible expression of the collective hope and shared spiritual outlook of the people who lived there. The people who lived in these cities were part of real communities; but the people who live in our fractured and fragmented modern cities are not part of genuine communities – they are isolated atoms, at best clinging together in small, degraded cults. At the centres of our old cities, the temples existed beside the market-places – the temples testified to a higher human need than those of just the market place. But in our new modern cities there are only markets at the centre.

In the modern world there is a kind of spiritual anarchy that leaves people at a loose end. People drift around from cult to cult, feeling vaguely lost. There is no officially sanctioned purpose or structure to life – people have to try and find their own meaning as best they can, and more often than not they fail to get very far with this. If every individual goes off and finds the cult that he likes best, then how can that provide a shared space where Communities and Families can act as one and experience being a unity? The centre cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Why did this happen? Why was religion, so to speak, banished from the central square of human cities? How and why did this change come about? It happened because of the Modern or Enlightenment notion of the separation of “church” and “state” – the separation of religion from politics. The Enlightenment guarantees freedom of religious worship. The point of this project was to end religious intolerance, persecution and wars. Because of this, in Modern countries religion became a purely private matter – no particular religion can lay any public claim to the centre of our cities. Every religion has equal rights and none has a special claim. This freedom of religious worship is at the heart of modern societies. This arrangement has its benefits but it also has its problems (as outlined above). Is there any way around these problems? What, if anything can be done about this?

The traditional organised religions are now dead or implausible to many – their rigid and dated doctrines often no longer suffice. There is no returning to their special, privileged status at the heart of the city, especially in our diverse, globalised, scientific societies. A multiplicity of established religions in different countries with competing claims also sets up lethal tribal and religious conflicts between various peoples which we can no longer afford. There is no going back. But trying to replace the old religions with “new religions” works even worse – such manufactured cults are contrived and ridiculous (at best, they are the religious equivalent of Esperanto) and have even less claim to be at the heart of the city. So what to do?

The answer to the problem is quite simple in my view – the established, officially-sanctioned religion of modern society needs to be based on tradition, and not invented from scratch, and it needs to include the teachings of all the greatest and most influential prophets of human history. If this was done correctly it would not be superficial or artificial. The Scripture of this religion would be a compendium of the teachings and stories of the greatest prophets and educators of human history – Confucius, Laozi, Buddha, Mahavira, Socrates, Jesus, Muhammad and perhaps some others. Think what a wonderful book that would be! The most wonderful book in the world, containing the best of all that has been thought and said by the wisest most influential figures of human history. Beautiful, magnificent temples would be built in the centre of each city where everyone would go to worship and meditate together, get married, name their babies, be buried, and also learn the teachings of the great and wise prophets. This official religion needs to be a system of thought and stories with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, atheism, agnosticism, gnosticism and others. In other words, the established religion of all countries needs to be a modified and much expanded form of something like Hinduism, because Hinduism is like that. Nobody can claim that a religion with doctrines as diverse and tolerant as the one I have described above is impossible, for the simple reason that Hinduism IS such a religion, and it works, and its tradition is older and more enduring than that of any of the other existing great religions. In Hinduism there is no one principle founder or prophet, but a whole series of them, all co-existing. There is no fixed dogma, but a whole range of beliefs and traditions putting forward their claims from under the same umbrella. The religion for our globalised world needs to be something like this, but it needs to fully incorporate the teachings of the other great religions as well.

Some people might worry that such a religion would be an incoherent jumble of all the existing religions, slightly modified. I merely reply: ALL of our existing great organised religions are already merely a jumble of numerous already existing religions, slightly modified. Christianity manages to incorporate the prophets and teachings of Judaism even though the two might appear to be in conflict. The Bible itself is the ultimate cobbled-together, incoherent jumble of a book. Islam manages to incorporate the prophets and teachings of both Judaism and Christianity even though they might appear to be in conflict. As already noted, Hinduism manages to incorporate a huge amount of apparently conflicting ideas and traditions from a massive pile of diverse teachers. The Chinese managed to synthesize Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. The Japanese managed to synthesize Shintoism and Buddhism. In point of fact, all the great “traditional” religions are syntheses of other religions that evolved over time - they built on the best of the past and modified it as necessary.

On the farm of one of my in-laws down in Longford in Ireland there is a six thousand year old dolmen. Every Winter Solstice I dance around it naked, festooned with wild flowers, to honour the gods of my forefathers. This dolmen stood in that field for thousands of years before that arriviste St. Patrick came to Ireland and introduced the teachings of Jesus to our small yet great nation. The pre-Christian world-view of pagan Ireland never completely died out, and still exists deep in Irish hearts, along with the Christian world-view. The Celtic Cross is the visible expression of this synthesis of the Pagan and the Christian in the Irish spirit – the Celtic Cross marries the principle symbol of Christianity with the pagan symbols of pre-Christian Ireland. The point is this: we Irish are both traditionally Pagans and traditionally Christians. The same is true of much or even all of Europe. Traditional European religious rituals and beliefs ARE a synthesis. Christmas, the most popular Christian holiday, comes from Yuletide, a pre-Christian pagan winter festival. Spiritual synthesis can and does happen in all sorts of contexts when it needs to happen, and it enriches all traditions when it does so. It happened in the past and it can happen again now and in the future. Our globalised world needs a new religious arrangement. It may take a few hundred years for the religious arrangement outlined above to come into existence, but (in my view at least) it needs to happen.

The UK riots and the Speeding Up of History

The standard line of the official English-speaking media is that the riots in the UK were fundamentally different from the democratic protests we have been seeing in, for example, the Middle East. The English rioters, we are told, were a bunch of criminal, non-political, inarticulate nihilists who just wanted to steal things. That, of course, is exactly what the official media in the Middle East say about protesters there. Revolutions everywhere consist of large groups of poor people who want to “steal” things (i.e. who want to take wealth off the rich and redistribute it to the less well-off). Fundamentally, the English riots were no different in this respect. If the state is not prepared to redistribute wealth then other methods have to be found. The English rioters were deemed “criminals” but the theft involved was much, much less than the theft perpetrated by the financial industry on England over the past decade. In a way, the riots were a response to that. They are a response to the fundamental injustice of the current system that people live under. People have an understanding of what is really going on that was not previously there. If those with power and wealth behave like a bunch of criminal thugs then why should poor people behave any differently?

So the riots in England were just another manifestation of a growing phenomenon we are seeing nearly everywhere in the world. We are seeing massive protests in Israel, as well as in India, China, and the Arab Middle East. We are also seeing them in Spain and Greece. Latin America has practically undergone a collective revolution with leftist governments taking power, redistributing wealth, and uniting in order to end US control over their continent.

Why are all these things happening now and with increasing frequency? The answer is fairly obvious and commonly understood: the Information Revolution is speeding up history even more and creating the conditions for an outbreak of authentic democracy and progressive forces nearly everywhere around the globe. The ability of the existing power-class to control information (and thereby society) is being destroyed by the internet, by Twitter, by Facebook, by Youtube, by email.

There was a time when any tin pot dictator could destroy an entire town, murdering everyone in it, and hardly anybody would know about it. Now, if the dictator does that, the images are all over youtube in a matter of minutes, and the public outrage is unmanageable.

This change does not just apply to tin pot dictators in minor countries but to traditionally powerful institutions like the US military as well. Until quite recently, the US military could behave basically as it wished in the developing world, and nobody either there or in the West would know much about it. Now if the US military, for example, kills some civilians in Iraq, it is beamed relentlessly into every living room in the Middle East with access to the internet or to satellite TV. This is part of what made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so prohibitively difficult and expensive for the US. The game has changed, and changed RADICALLY.

The situation in China is particularly interesting. Over the last couple of decades there we have witnessed the biggest move of people in history out of poverty. If China wants to be a world power, then it needs wealth, and if it wants wealth it needs an educated middle class. Educated middle classes do not tolerate being censored by governments, and the power of the Chinese government to control information is eroding fast. This is leading to a dramatic increase in the REAL freedom of the Chinese people.

In the 15^th century the discovery of the printing press in Europe lead to a huge increase in democracy, wealth and freedom, as the old power-order of priests, monarchies and aristocrats was overthrown. Slavery was abolished, human rights were established, women were liberated. Unimaginable events that had never happened in human history happened for the first time. The ability of the then existing power-class to control information (and thereby society) was destroyed by the printing press. This took a couple of hundred years. Now what we are seeing is history speeding up even more. The power of the rulers to control information and society is eroding at such a rapid pace that all sorts of amazing things are likely to happen, not just in a matter of centuries, but in a matter of decades, years, weeks, days, hours and minutes.

Those who currently have power will tremble with fear, and shriek that the world is falling down around our heads and descending into uncontrolled anarchy. And life for most people will improve immeasurably, in ways that were previously unimaginable.

How to solve the so-called “Euro-crisis” (and also save Western Civilisation as we know it)

Here is how to solve the so-called “euro-crisis”: Allow the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) to borrow from the European Central Bank. The loans made to eurozone states by the EFSF, and the conditions attached to them, would then have to be unanimously agreed by all the eurozone governments. By doing this, the EFSF would be a vehicle for creating "eurobonds", but Germany would have effective control over the process.

This would solve the “euro-crisis” in a stroke, and could even save the Western world from continued decline. The plan would have the following characteristics:

1 - The plan would remove the “markets” from the equation. What are the "markets"? The "market" consists of a handful of individuals in a handful of private financial institutions who decide where to put the money they have at their disposal. This handful of individuals has no democratic accountability to anyone. They lend money to governments. Where do they get the money that they lend to governments? Some of it comes from deposits, but most of it is borrowed from Central Banks, at a lower interest rate than that at which they then lend it on to governments. This is how they make their profits. They are useless intermediaries who don't do anything except cause trouble when they start demanding extortionate interest rates from the governments to which they are lending. So they need to be removed from the equation. If the ECB could lend to the EFSF and then the EFSF lent to governments, it would simply remove the useless parasitic "markets" from the equation.

(Btw, if you are wondering where the Central Banks get the money they lend to the private banks – the answer is: they create it out of thin air, by pushing a couple of buttons on a computer somewhere).

2 - The plan would give Germany effective control over the fiscal policies of feckless eurozone states. How much is lent by the EFSF and at what rate, would need to be unanimously agreed by all the eurozone governments – thus giving Germany the required veto. What the loans are to be spent on, and the plan for how they are to be paid back, would also require unanimity. This would ensure that the fund is not abused by feckless states. In effect, any member state that wanted to use the fund would have to hand over a substantial part of their fiscal policy decisions to the other member states. If they don't want to do that, then they don't need to use the EFSF - they can just go to the "markets" (which will still exist) and borrow off them instead. But if they are frozen out from the markets, they would need to have the agreement of the other eurozone member states as to their fiscal policy - this would create a de facto fiscal union in the EU.

3 - At the moment the ECB cannot lend directly to governments, because of the danger that it would print loads of money and cause hyperinflation. Under the above plan, the ECB would not be lending to governments but to the transnational institution of the EFSF, which could only act if there is unanimous agreement between the 17 eurozone governments. Again, the responsible member states could just block anything they didn't like.

4 - The ECB would retain complete control over eurozone interest rates - it would decide at what rate it would loan to the EFSF. Thus, the independence of the ECB would not be at all compromised.

5 - Using the EFSF would probably not require a treaty change - the plan could be implemented quickly. It would not require creating any new European institutions since the two institutions involved (the ECB and the EFSF) already exist.

For the first time in over a decade, I am optimistic about the future of Ireland and the Irish.

Why am I optimistic? The main reason I am optimistic is because I like to be the opposite of everyone else. For example, during the Irish boom I was a prophet of doom, confidently predicting national bankruptcy. Now that everyone is filled with gloom, my infantile contrarianism is compelling me to be positive.

Here are some other reasons why I am optimistic:

• The country is now run by Trichet, Merkel and the European Commission. They more-or-less know what they are doing, unlike the ruling class in Ireland.

• Exports are booming and for the first time in years the country has a balance of payments surplus. The country is selling more stuff than it is buying. We haven’t done that for years. It is a sign that we are finally living within our means.

• Deflation is making the cost of living here more realistic, which in turn can make salaries and and other costs more realistic. That will restore our “competitiveness”. We will recover more quickly than people think.
  

• We are eventually going to default on a lot of the debt. There is no way we can pay it. When things settle down in the eurozone, Trichet or his successor will give us the green light to start reneging on all the debt, and then this “unfortunate little episode” will all be forgotten.

• The boom was a financial disaster but it generated lots of real wealth – roads, bridges, infrastructure, buildings, hundreds of thousands of houses and apartments. Once we default on the debt, the financial problem will be ameliorated but the real wealth will still remain, and people will be able to buy things at realistic prices.

• Lots of young people are emigrating. They will be able to lead decent lives abroad, in nicer climates. They are educated and dynamic and these young Irish people will thrive wherever they go. Then, when things get a bit better here (after we default on the debt) they can come back if they wish. This is better than them staying here, and working their entire lives as debt-slaves to pay off the borrowings of Fitzpatrick, Fingleton and all the other arseholes.

• For the few young people who manage to stay in Ireland, houses and everything else will become an awful lot cheaper. Their lives will be much more pleasant than was previously the case.
  

• There will be a general election in the New Year, and Fianna Fail will be decimated. This will be of symbolic importance – marking a break with the past. But it will only be of symbolic significance. There will be a new government, but that won’t make any difference in reality, since from now on, Irish politicians will just have to do what they are told to do from Europe.

• By the time this is over, there will no longer be any Irish-owned banks – they will all be given or sold to foreign banks. Given that the Irish banks destroyed the country, this is appropriate. It also means any debt-risk in future cannot be transferred by the government to the Irish people. It will prevent booms from happening in Ireland. New Zealand has no domestically owned banks, and it works fine.

• The cosseted, cliquish, ageing, smug, over-paid professional class in Ireland will be forced to reform. They will be given an enormous kick up the arse by the foreigners who now control the country. They won’t know what has hit them.

• What has happened with the IMF\EU bailout is a disaster for the ruling, insider class in Ireland. It is they who are now doing most of the screeching and the wailing. For most of the rest of the country, the disaster has already happened, and the future if anything is beginning to look a bit brighter.

Did Jesus Ever Laugh? Thomas More versus Erasmus

According to Thomas More (Renaissance philosopher and author of “Utopia”, an imagined perfect community) Jesus never laughed in the gospels. More (pictured right) thinks that the purpose of this absence of laughter was to show us that this life is a vale of tears: `To prove that this life is no laughing time, but rather the time of weeping, we find that our saviour himself wept twice or thrice, but never find that he laughed as much as once...'

And if you look through the four New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, you will see that Jesus never laughs.

But the four gospels of the New Testament are only a fraction of the gospels written to recount Jesus’ life – they are the Canonical Gospels. However, in addition to these there are numerous Gnostic Gospels, written in the centuries after Jesus’ death, but rejected as unsatisfactory by the Church authorities. In one of these, "The Gospel of Judas" Jesus laughs four times - and he laughs at his disciples, because they have distorted his message and got it so wrong. "Master, why are you laughing at us?" asks Judas. It turns out that only Judas truly understood Jesus' teachings, according to this gospel. Apparently the Gospel of Judas interprets Judas Iscariot’s "betrayal" of Jesus as not a betrayal at all, but rather as an act of obedience to the instructions of Jesus - because Jesus required a second agent to set in motion a course of events which he had planned. According to this gospel, Judas Iscariot was a hero, rather than a betrayer, and the other four gospels maligned him.

Thomas More's friend, the famous Renaissance humanist Erasmus, had a different view of Jesus. He believed that Jesus was an Epicurean. Recall that few were more despised and mistrusted by Christians than the godless, materialist, hedonist Epicurus, who languishes in the sixth circle of Dante's hell. Epicureans think that pleasure is all that is ulitmately of real value for human beings. And here is what Erasmus says about Jesus:

"If people who live agreeably are Epicureans, none are more truly Epicurean than the righteous and godly. And if it's names that bother us, no one better deserves the name of Epicurean than the revered founder and head of Christian philosophy Christ, for in Greek epikouros means `helper'. He alone, when the law of Nature was all but blotted out by sins, when the law of Moses incited to lists rather than cured them, when Satan ruled in the world unchallenged, brought timely aid to perishing humanity. Completely mistaken, therefore, are those who talk in their foolish fashion about Christ's having been sad and gloomy in character and calling upon us to follow a dismal mode of life. On the contrary, he alone shows the most enjoyable life of all and the one most full of true pleasure."

Literary Bluffers and Show-offs. Exhibit A: Nabokov

I like simple styles. As Stendhal says “Only great minds can afford a simple style”. So I am suspicious of people who write “dazzling” prose in an affected manner. You know the type. Those writers for whom style is so much more important than substance; those show-offs for whom the way something is said is so much more important than the thing which is said; those little boys who always seem to be trying just a bit too hard to impress us with the cleverness of their sentences. Even when they have little or nothing to say, by God they intend to say it, and they intend to say it brilliantly.

AA Gill (right) does it wonderfully, despite his dyslexia. He’s the best thing you will find in the Sunday papers. Martin Amis (below) tries to do it, but doesn’t quite pull it off, which is a bit embarrassing for everyone involved. Then there is Clive James. John Banville is another one. We’ll go easy on him because he’s Irish. Taking it up a notch, there is Saul Bellow. And then perhaps Joyce, when he gets a bit carried away. And Vladimir Nabokov (above). Ah Nabokov. Don’t like him at all. Never liked him. Never really read him. So the other day I picked up “Transparent Things”, and started to read it so that I could scoff at it.

And?

Well. I had to quickly engage in one of my characteristic 180 degree pivots. The writing is just amazing. Stunning. You have to take off your hat. How can someone write like that? It’s the literary equivalent of watching Lionel Messi playing football. How did he do that? You can even see the effects of reading Nabokov on this blog, as I try to be all clever in my prose. Now, you won’t have read “Transparent Things”, it being one of his lesser known works (and it wouldn’t do at all for me to be reading something well-known by him, would it? Oh no. I just had to come up with something impressively obscure). But you will all have heard of “Lolita”:

Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.

You are now nodding your head and muttering “great opening” to yourself. How about this opening line from another of his novels, “Pale Fire”:

I was the shadow of the waxwing slain
By the false azure in the window pane;
I was the smudge of ashen fluff - and I
Lived on, flew on, in the reflected sky

I don’t know what this means, and neither do you, but it sounds cool doesn’t it? Every so often a bit of fancy writing doesn’t go astray. If you can recommend any more stylish writing of this sort, then please let me know.

Burning 18.3 billion of your money

I hope they are lying. I hope the government does not really intend to put 18 billion more into Anglo-Irish Bank. I hope they are just pretending that they are going to give Anglo all this money in order to boost “international confidence” - but that really they intend to wind it down. That’s our only hope now. That the government is lying.

According to Lenihan "Winding-up the bank is not and was never a viable option" because an immediate wind-up would lead to a fire sale of assets resulting in additional losses of €30bn. Yes, but those losses would NOT fall on the Irish taxpayer, if the winding up takes place AFTER the government bank guarantee lapses at the end of this year. And unless the government is insane, they will allow this guarantee to lapse. The foreign banks to whom Anglo-Irish Bank owes money would then need to make the best of it once the bank is closed down.

So really the government must be lying. Because if they are NOT lying, you know what this means? You want to know why the government would be doing this? It’s hard to believe the reason. I have difficulty believing it myself. It is incredible. But here is the reason: if Anglo-Irish Bank is closed, the foreign creditors will seize all the worthless property and land and sell it at knock down prices. That would mean that houses and apartments and land would become affordable to ordinary Irish people, which would be great for the people who live here, and a great boost to our economy’s competitiveness. But it would be a disaster for Fianna Fail and their property developer chums, as well as for the other banks.

Think about that all you young people out there, as your pay is being cut, or you are losing your job, or as you struggle to pay your mortgage, and are told that there is “no money” for any of these things. The state is taking 18 billion of YOUR money and pouring it down a hole. That is eighteen thousand million euro. You could build about 50 major hospitals for that, assuming each hospital cost 300 million euro. We have become so accustomed to hearing these large figures being thrown around that we no longer know what they mean – how many schools will be underfunded, how many hospitals will be understaffed, how many people’s incomes will be reduced, in order to pay for it.

Pedal Pumping – the hot new sexual fetish

Apparently “pedal pumping” is a strange sex fad in conservative America, in which men watch women trying to start stubborn cars.

According to the Daily Beast:

“The foot is slender, sleek, unmistakably female, and about a size 8, partially enclosed in a six-inch, sequinned white-satin stiletto sandal. In the video, it repeatedly and fruitlessly depresses the car's gas pedal as the woman revs the ignition and coaxes, "Come on. Start." Cherry-red polish glints on her nails, and a gold ring encircles her middle toe.

Aroused yet?

If so, congratulations: You're into pedal pumping”

Personally, I find it implausible that only conservative, working class Americans would find this a turn on.

The United States joins the Civilised World

I see the United States has passed health care. Or that’s the impression I’m getting any way. It’s impossible to work out what the hell is going on over there. At the very least, it appears that something a bit like universal health care has sort of been passed. Whatever. It sounds to me like good news over all.

But Jeez, you underestimate the persistence this guy Obama at your peril don’t you? People have spent the last year denouncing him for being “weak” and “vacillating”. The right have relentlessly targeted his health care reform, calling it “socialist” and “communist”. For a while it looked like this campaign had worked, because a couple of months ago Obama lost his super-majority in the Senate. Who would have bet on health care reform passing then? Not me. But now Obama has achieved what so many Presidents have tried and failed to do. This is the most significant piece of social legislation in the US for the last 60 years. The bill is imperfect, but it’s a start. Once the principle of universal health coverage is established, it always proves wildly popular, and impossible to reverse.

There's nothing Modern about Post-modernism

A READER WRITES: “I must object to your response to my question. I can’t believe that you don’t prefer the excitement and originality of postmodernism to dry, boring, passionless analytical philosophy. What a yawn it is! At least the postmoderns aren’t boring – they are saying something new and fresh.”

BB SAYS: There’s nothing modern about postmodernism. People have been saying the exact same things that postmodernists say since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks. For example the Ancient Greek sophist Gorgias wrote a book called On the Non-Existent in which he made the following three claims:

1. There is no such thing as reality.
2. Even if there was such a thing as reality we couldn’t know anything about it.
3. Even if we could know something about reality, we could not communicate it using language.

Well, that’s basically what all the postmodernists say. Whether it’s Derrida (pictured above trying to look enigmatic), Lacan, Foucault, or Braudrillard. All these writers are making the same three banal points. If you look beneath all their jargon, and all their self-important posturing, they are just saying the same things that Gorgias said over 2000 years ago. But they dress it up in fancy language in order to make it appear more original, more complex and more mysterious than it is. What they are saying is neither original nor interesting.

Postmodernism is what happens to many people who spend too much time in university arts departments. They start thinking that there is no reality for words to refer to. And why wouldn’t they think that?

So again, I reject BOTH the continental, postmodern approach to philosophy AND the pro-science, ultra-rational analytic approach. True philosophy consists in the Golden Mean between these two approaches. A great philosopher is both a scientist AND an artist, both a Presocratic AND a Sophist. For example, the Platonic dialogues, in which Socrates is the hero, provide a way of speaking about human life and the world that is both scientific and poetic, both rational and passionate, and hence superior to either science or poetry.

The Banker as Psychopath

Quite a few readers have contacted me to say that I should not be feeling any “pangs of sympathy” for Sean Fitzpatrick, given that he has cost the country billions that could have been much better spent on schools ‘n hospitals. He has ruined and damaged countless people's lives. And now he has been released, for the moment.

I agree that he should be locked up forever, but I reserve the right to feel some sympathy for people. The difference between normal people and the psychopaths who run banks is that the latter are incapable of feeling ordinary human emotions such as sympathy, pity, empathy, guilt or shame. Psychologists say that sociopaths or psychopaths are simply missing the normal human moral emotions, and that is why they act as they do. They can feign feeling these emotions but they don’t really feel them. Some estimates suggest that 2% to 4% of men are sociopaths, to one degree or another. Hardly any women are sociopaths. Senior figures in politics, business and finance often display psychopathic behaviour. The stereo-type of the psychopath is that he must be a serial killer, but that's not the case at all.

In any event, although we should be aware of psychopaths, we should not become like them, since what distinguishes us from them is precisely the ability to feel compassion for the suffering of others.

The characteristics of pyschopaths are, in terms of clinical diagnosis:

1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Pathological lying
4. Cunning/manipulative
5. Lack of remorse or guilt
6. Emotionally shallow
7. Callous/lack of empathy
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
9. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
10. Parasitic lifestyle
11. Poor behavioral control
12. Promiscuous sexual behavior
13. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
14. Impulsiveness
15. Irresponsibility
16. Juvenile delinquency
17. Early behavioral problems
18. Revocation of conditional release

As is clear, most of the above characteristics apply to the people who run our financial systems. The reason these kind of people end up in control of banks is precisely because they are psychopaths, since no morally normal person would do what is required in order to gain control of a bank. We should acknowledge this obvious fact and regulate banks accordingly. But we should strive to feel sympathy and compassion for everyone, even though it is often very difficult to do so.

Help Kevin Myers Leave Ireland

In a recent article in the Independent, Kevin Myers expressed a wish to leave Ireland and go and live "somewhere civilised". A Facebook Group has been created for people who would like to support him in this, and even contribute to paying his air fare out of the country.

If you would like to join the group and help Kevin Myers fulfill his dream of leaving Ireland, please click below.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=373581257868

Finally

Seanie has been arrested.

There was a documentary recently where a typically obnoxious reporter hunted down Sean Fitzpatrick on the street and started hounding him with questions. Fitzpatrick did his best to scurry away from her. “Are you sorry for what you did?” she shouted at him. “Of course we are sorry” replied Fitzpatrick. He sounded like he meant it. To date, he has been co-operating fully with the authorities during all investigations, unlike some of the other senior banking figures.

As I watched him slink away from the reporter, down the steps into the basement of some building, a pathetic figure, I felt a pang of … of … well … I felt a pang of pity for him.

The Philosopher’s Ten Commandments

1. Do not fear Death. Do not hate Death. To hate death is to hate life, since one entails the other.

2. Pursue all things in moderation, save wisdom. Follow the Golden Mean.

3. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

4. Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead.

5. Seize the day. Enjoy what you can, endure what you must.

6. Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand.

7. Know Thyself. The proper study of mankind is man.

8. Know what things are in your power, and what things are not in your power.

9. Question Everything. Know what you know, and know what you do not know

10. Make your quest for knowledge both a means to an end, and an end in itself.

Notes: Broadly speaking, the first five commandments deal with the moral virtues, while the second five deal with the intellectual virtues. According to Aristotle, if someone possesses both moral and intellectual virtue, they possess complete expertise in the art of living, in both a practical sense and a theoretical sense. Commandment Number 1 relates to courage and is based on the Epicurean teaching about death. Overcoming the fear of death is the key to living courageously. Commandment Number 2 is based on Plato’s teaching about the virtue of moderation. Number 3 is the Golden Rule, the essence of morality and justice, found in all societies. Number 4 is from Oscar Wilde. It deals with love, compassion and charity – which is the one great virtue missing from the traditional Greek list of the four cardinal virtues. Number 5 is a combination of an Ancient Roman axiom, and a quote from Goethe, dealing with prudence or wisdom – completing the list of the cardinal virtues. This quote from Goethe combines what is best in Stoicism (“endure what you must”) with what is best in Epicureanism (“enjoy what you can”). Commandment number 6 is from Spinoza – and deals with the power of knowledge to reduce suffering. Number 7 is from Socrates. Number 8 is from the great Stoic philosopher Epictetus. Number 9 is from the Socratic: “I know only that I know nothing”. The 10th commandment is an exhortation to be curious at all times, since, according to the philosopher Hobbes: “Desire to know why, and how - curiosity, which is a lust of the mind - exceedeth the short vehemence of any carnal pleasure.” Commandments 9 and 10 complement each other – the wise man is neither an extreme skeptic, nor an extreme dogmatist – he pusues the Golden Mean in all things.

Continental philosophy versus Analytical philosophy

A READER WRITES: “As you doubtless know, there are two main schools of philosophy in the contemporary Western world. The first is Analytic Philosophy, which predominates in the English speaking world, and which often focuses on logic and science. The second is Continental Philosophy, which dominates on mainland Europe, and which is associated with postmodernism and existentialism, and which may be said to be more artistic in outlook. Which school do you favour?”

BB SAYS: I favour neither. A plague on both their houses. My philosophical hero is Socrates, and my guess is he would not have had much time for either Analytical philosophy or Continental philosophy.

From a Socratic point of view, today’s Analytic philosophers are analogous to the Presocratics of Ancient Greece, and today’s Continental philosophers are analogous to the Sophists of Ancient Greece. Socrates is famous for attacking both the Presocratics and the Sophists. If Socrates was around today, I think he would be hostile to both Analytic Philosophers and Continental Philosophers.

Socrates attacked the Presocratics for not putting human beings at the centre of their investigations. For Socrates, the proper study of mankind is man. The Presocratics, by focusing on questions of science, logic, maths and metaphysics, forgot that wisdom consists not in that kind of knowledge, but rather in knowledge of how to live well. In this respect, they were like many contemporary Analytic Philosophers, with their emphasis on logic and science. For example, logic might be a means to the end of attaining wisdom, but by focusing too much on it, a certain type of philosopher is in danger of forgetting the ultimate end towards which he properly must strive. That is true of the Presocratics, and it is also true of today’s Analytical philosophers.

The objections that Socrates directed towards the Presocratics could plausibly be directed at many of today’s Analytical Philosophers and Scientists.

Socrates attacked the Sophists for a different reason. The sophists, like today’s Continentals and postmodernists, were experts in using fancy words in order to impress audiences. They could use clever arguments to confuse people - or to entertain people in order to get attention for themselves, and to attain fame, notoriety and money. But really they were not interested in truth. The Presocratics, for all their faults, were at least genuinely interested in truth. The sophists, on the other hand, had a tendency to indulge in super-sophisticated discourse, the purpose of which was more often to try and impress or confuse, rather than to attain truth.

The objections that Socrates directed towards the Sophists could plausibly be directed at many of today’s Continental philosophers and postmodernists.

Socrates, and those who follow him, represent the true spirit of philosophy. Socrates combined what is best in Continental Philosophy (the openness, and the focus on the human condition, the artistry) with what is best in Analytic Philosophy (the clarity of language and the love of truth, reason and rationality).

So both Continental philosophy and Analytical philosophy are corruptions of true philosophy. At their best (Heidegger in Continental Philosophy and Wittgenstein in Analytic Philosophy) they can teach us useful things and they can approach genuine philosophy. But overall, they have lost sight of the Socratic inheritance. Heidegger is great because he transcends the limitations of the Continental school, and Wittgenstein is great because he transcends the limitations of the Analytic school.