Written by Romeo Anghelache no comments
Free-market is a non-theory, liberal capitalism is a huge cheat scheme, Adam Smith was wrong from the very start, "property" in all the capitalist-praising texts does not refer to your property, the individualism refers to a consuming/slaving slot, not to a being, and any currently "developed country" is not really developed, in comparison with socialism.
The above is not a poetic figure of speech, the details come in these few lines:
free market is never a realistic approximation of an economy, market never comes empty: it's filled from the beginning and you, the gullible, are most of the times cornered by it;
liberal capitalism seems to work (for a minority) until it fails them, then you, the majority, pay, to make up for the difference: the free-market promoting US, bailed-out its own banks with non-market public money when push came to shove; the liberal global trading rules are becoming tariffs if they don't serve the bullshitters.
the self-interest of all living humans cannot create an invisible hand as in
They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution
of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into
equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without know-
ing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the
Anyone with a Physics 101, or some bits of neocortex, would discover immediately that the first thing someone self-centred, with a random economic advantage, would do is to continue growing that advantage as far as possible, meaning that the resulting society is a pyramid, with a few ultra-rich on top, and all the rest forced to work for them just for own survival. If that's too abstract to you, here's an example: A self-centred idiot in the market finds a 100 bill in a corner, next thing he does: pays two muscles to "lobby" some other participant to give up its products or its bought merchandise. Then he sells the stuff and pays some more muscles and does it all over again. Next year, he's writing the law of the markets where he's the chief. Until his self-centred idiot neighbour kills him and proclaims himself chief/lawyer of the market. History shows that these guys only stop when they are divinity, that is, never alive. History also shows that this is obviously outdated for countries which practised socialism.
all the capitalist systems insist on "the property", the problem is that only the socialist countries managed to make their citizens property owners: don't believe me? check the statistics of the EU countries in terms of house ownership, you'll be surprised to find that all the previously socialist countries have a larger proportion of house owners than all the capitalist ones. And here property means truly owning it, not having a mortgage to pay.
So, in capitalism, it's not your property the economists and politicians are talking about.
no so-called capitalist "developed country" can or could afford free education and free healthcare. Socialist countries could. If you disagree, call your senator/president/prime-minister to prove it! I lived in a socialist country and I know it did.
So, to trash with capitalism and free-marketers and liberal economists: I certainly don't care to see them advising country policies for the next eon.
So, if we let a capitalist system evolve, it destroys the host society: it becomes a tribe with few rich and in power, and the rest of the population as a decorum fussing for the enjoyment of those few.
A capitalist EU does not have a future, the Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union reads:
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the
rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.
These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination,
tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.
Let's focus on "freedom": if one has to wake everyday up to work only to survive, that's not at all freedom, it's exactly the opposite.
We can give some true, verifiable, non-bullshitting content to the word freedom: every person alive receives from society an Unconditional Basic Income, to ensure that freedom is not a word for suckers and really lets people live in dignity and all the rest above = anyone's personal wealth is limited from below.
Let's focus on "democracy": it doesn't mean only that anyone has a voting stamp, it means that each voting stamp is equal in weight with any other. Problem is, a person 1.000 times richer than you gets more ways into the political power than you do, gets a weightier voting stamp than you, then the rule of law becomes more and more his rule of law.
It follows that the personal wealth should be limited from above, and I suggest anchoring this limit to a statistical fact about the society you live in: let each personal wealth be limited to an amount equal to a lifetime of average wages. A technical formula no political group can abuse because it includes all the negotiated economical life of, say, the past year. Make an arithmetical exercise and multiply the monthly_average_wage_in_your_country (400-3000) with a_lifetime (130 years*12months~1500): that's the personal wealth limit.
No society is stable or peaceful if the personal wealth is not limited both from above *and* below. This window of wealth is the one that affords the rest: equality, human dignity and the rule of law; it's an engineering truth history will test always.
Outside this personal window of wealth we, or EU, or US, or any other country, do not have any future.
Call it socialism, if you like, but briefly it's this: a country can have a future only if its citizens have comparable political power, that is, their personal wealth is limited both from above and below, and its society provides free education and free healthcare to each citizen. Anything else and your life is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
...it is our sorting of the world that brings thieving into being, and that in insisting on that sorting we affirm a particular image of the artistic self. It is a self, for one thing, distinct from the "others" whose material it uses, and that distinction creates, I think, what Rimbaud calls "the false meaning of the Ego".
My advocacy for various things will startle some readers, since people often think professors should stay in their ivory towers and “be above it all” (or at least “out of it”). But I think, to the contrary, that professors have an obligation to speak what they believe to be the truth, especially when they see important social values such as freedom and equality under attack. This is the big reason for tenure. It pays a free society in the long run to safeguard teachers so they can say whatever they think is true without fear of losing their jobs. It’s an implicit part of our role to profess the truth, as best we know it. That’s why we’re called profess-ors.
from Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians (2006), one of the few books worth reading if you're interested in the strong links between politics, religion and psychology, or if you simply have the right to vote and want to keep it. Also, it's freely accessible. Check it out before your next discussion about god or democracy with your friends.
Here's how to ensure a stupid and mecanic administration in the European Union:
First, organize a complex activity of exams, then forget about those who pass them.
Second, write the staff regulations, which are reasonable in size but contain idiotic provisions, like:
- split the contract and temporary agents into groups, each group with several steps
- then put them into probationary periods at half of the duration of their contracts, so if you get a contract for 1 year, you have a probationary period of 6 to 9 months (depends on the group you belong to)
this provision ensures that if you get hired you are kept on your toes, you will wear a tie and a uniform, and think conformist: any (maybe rightful sometimes) conflict has a chance to end your job.
a probationary period of 6 months for a contract of 3 years sounds reasonable; a probationary period of 9 months for a contract of 2 years is a statement that you will have nothing to say and have nothing better to do but to move from an agency to another unless you're prepared to kiss some strategic ass.
and what is the meaning of a probationary period for somebody who has 16 years work experience in chunks of 3 to 10 years?
- then, another idiocy: "produces the appropriate character references as to his suitability for the performance of his duties"; which confirms that the probationary period is there to make your personality and brain smooth.
- then require that the applicant fills a form describing his entire life; the form being different from European Agency to European Agency, BUT written in Microsoft Word of course;
- then charge an Agency with defining a standard form for applications in the entire EU administration, then forget about it; each with his own;
- then, at the interview, bring a commission of people in ties and uniforms, applying a machine test with childish, kindergarten-like, questions to the poor applicant in front of them, who managed to fly or travel over a few countries to reach that place;
- then, for the technical people, offer them contracts of two years renewable, but for those who got MBAs in humanities, give them 5 year contracts, 'coz, I assume, it's harder to check if what they're doing is right;
- then, along with the application form that is supposed to describe your life, force the applicant to fill some other three forms for reimbursement of travel to the interview: and guess how two of them are named "Legal entity" and "Financial entity";
- name the payment for your contracted service: "Emoluments". so that it sounds UN-like. hearing people asking each other: did you get your emolument this month?
- those application forms, I have the feeling that they're completed for a machine; is there a person who reads them up in the end? what's wrong with a structured CV in their stead? I can imagine some serious-looking drones fluffing around stacks of paper and administering databases containing just a job application, ridiculous, wouldn't you agree?
Idiots. There's so much more to write but I don't have the nerves to continue.
What stupid bureaucratic drones designed this system so as to break the patience and determination of any life form with a mind of its own?
I suggest an EU commission be formed, with four persons not wearing a tie. These should be sent in U.S. for a year, to apply for a job continuously, and learn how this should be done in a straightforward way, then get those people to write a goddamn simple and effective methodology for recruiting people in the EU administration.
I had two interviews by now with two EU agencies, guys, once I saw you "at work", I had strong doubts that if I would have been offered the job I would have accepted it. Fortunately, i was spared the dilemma, I didn't get an offer.
I've just located another opening, 9 month probationary, 2 years contract. I will skip this one, and the rest of them with these conditions. I am not a lifeless billiard ball to be bounced around by mindless drones.