Opšti topik o EU (ex kriza Evrozone)

[MancMellow]

On je na vlasti

[Anduril]

Zanimljiv tekst o nedostacima danasnje politike u Evropi.

 

 

 

Machiavelli in Euroland PRINCETON – Niccolò Machiavelli is trending. More than 500 years after writing his famous treatise The Prince, Machiavelli has reemerged as one of Europe's most popular political thinkers. And, indeed, his book – one of the earliest political “how to" manuals – has some useful advice for economic policymakers at a time when they are facing extraordinarily confusing challenges.

Monetary authorities have turned to Machiavelli to help them understand European Central Bank President Mario Draghi's policy approach. France's new economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, is likely using Machiavelli's ideas – on which he wrote his master's thesis – to help shape his plan to modernize his country's economy. An influential Moscow think tank called Niccolo M. advises the Kremlin on policies like offensive military communication technologies and hybrid warfare.

But Machiavelli is poorly understood. The most notorious chapter of The Prince, Chapter XVIII, which explains the circumstances in which it is permissible – and even desirable – for rulers to break promises, appears to argue that the most successful rulers think “little about keeping faith" and know “how cunningly to manipulate men's minds." The chapter has been widely interpreted to mean that leaders should lie as often as possible.

Machiavelli's message, however, was more complex. With an expert analysis of the wider implications of deception and “spinning" the truth, he demonstrates that manipulation can work only if the ruler can convincingly pretend not to be engaging in it. In short, leaders must cultivate a reputation for being dependable and sincere – a lesson that Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly never took on board.

Democratic politics and modern policymaking are based on promises. Political parties and candidates use promises to woo voters, and then to win support for policies. People will not respond to implausible pledges, especially if the politicians making them seem unreliable.

A variation of this conundrum emerges in monetary policymaking. In the jargon of modern monetary technocrats, the issue is how to “anchor expectations." Forward guidance (a promise about future interest rates) is not effective when policymakers have to admit that circumstances may force them to change their minds – and their policies – without warning.

Machiavelli saw a need for the appearance of consistency, with officials projecting the virtues that would underpin that image, thereby creating a solid foundation for effective policies. “To those seeing and hearing him, the ruler should appear to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all humanity, and all religion. And there is nothing more necessary than to seem to possess this last quality." In other words, politicians should never seem – much less say – that they do not believe in anything.

Yet modern politics tends to begin with pragmatism and proceed to broken promises. Europe likes to style itself as a postmodern construct, but one of the features of postmodernism is the reduction of political life to the playing out of cosmetically charged narratives or the convening of constantly changing focus groups.

The malleability of postmodern politics stands in stark contrast to the resoluteness that prevailed under Winston Churchill, Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Alcide de Gasperi, and even Jacques Delors. The perception that fundamental convictions guided these leaders is what enabled them to engage in political trickery effectively.

Of course, the politics of conviction cannot thrive on words alone. The only way to be consistently and deeply Machiavellian is to take action to build and maintain the right reputation.

This lesson could be key for European leaders today, at a time when so many are groping for a sense of what being European really means. The notion that, at its core, Europe should be focused on something as mundane as tweaking fiscal rules seems disappointing, to say the least – especially as the continent confronts an intensifying humanitarian crisis, caused by the influx of refugees from war-ravaged countries like Libya and Syria.

With the Islamic State threatening to drive an ever-increasing number of such refugees to Europe, and the crisis in Ukraine likely to add to the human flood, Europeans are feeling pressure to think beyond the fiscal challenges they face. That pressure is all the more intense, given that the countries most affected by this humanitarian challenge – Greece, Italy, and Spain – also incurred the most damage from the financial crisis.

It is time for European leaders to step up, showing the kind of conviction that Machiavelli would have promoted, to end the humanitarian crisis. First, they must ease the suffering of refugees by including or integrating them in a constructive way. Such an effort would demand substantial financial injections into the countries on the front line of the crisis. If handled correctly, the refugees could become a badly needed source of dynamism for weak economies and a solution to the problem of population aging.

At the same time, Europe's leaders must work to curb the influx of refugees, by developing a political program to end the violence that is driving despairing people by the millions to their countries' borders. Europe cannot afford to be an island of relative stability in a sea of chaos.

Probably the best way to make Europe credible is to stake out a position that is genuinely bold, one that both advances its interests and upholds its deeper values. Machiavelli's metaphor for the mystery of effective political conduct provides a potent template. Europe needs to be both a fox and a lion.

[Prospero]

 

With an expert analysis of the wider implications of deception and “spinning" the truth, he demonstrates that manipulation can work only if the ruler can convincingly pretend not to be engaging in it. In short, leaders must cultivate a reputation for being dependable and sincere – a lesson that Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly never took on board.

 

ovo mi nije baš jasno.

 

nije li jedan od stubova popularnosti putina u rusiji to što ga kritična većina percipira kao ""dependable and sincere"? njegove velike pres konferencije od po 3 sata su školski primer direktnog prizemnog razgovora vladara sa plebsom i to vokabularom koji plebs razume a vladar ispada razuman, ljudski, uverljiv i pouzdan.

[Anduril]

Pa verovatno se misli vise na internacionalni nivo. U Rusiji to uopste nije vazno jer nema ko da postavlja nezgodna pitanja i objavljuje optuzbe sa dokazima.

[Prospero]

ja se tripujem da loše prevodim - 'never took on board' valjda znači da nikada nije prihvatio, primenio, štagod.

 

a ako je do internacionalnog nivoa - pitanje je zašto bi se putin trudio da ga vole van rusije. pa nisu valjda zapadna društva i zapadni mediji globalne moralne sudije za čiju se naklonost treba boriti. svakom svoje.

 

no dobro, to je jedan detalj, zanimljiv je tekst, pokreće bitna pitanja, nisam siguran da iko može dati zadovoljavajuće pozitivan odgovor. eu po strukturi, bilo da je shvatimo kao fiksni institucionalni okvir u datom trenutku ili kao fluidnu ever closer union nije baš mehanizam koji trpi makijavelističku figuru, pa ni pobrojane harizmatične demokrate. sistem traži bezličnog birokratu, nešto kao što posle tita nije smeo biti tito već plejada no-nejmova :D takav je u biti bio dogovor elita.

 

 

edit:

Europe cannot afford to be an island of relative stability in a sea of chaos.

 

meni je skoro palo napamet da će ubrzo evropa biti kao severna italija nakon razvoja atlantske trgovine - i dalje bogata i pristojna za život ali će se ključne stvari dešavati negde drugde.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Prospero

[MancMellow]

Erm, da, fali nam jedan bitan topić :)

[hazard]

meni je skoro palo napamet da će ubrzo evropa biti kao severna italija nakon razvoja atlantske trgovine - i dalje bogata i pristojna za život ali će se ključne stvari dešavati negde drugde.

 

Zasto je to lose?

 

Ako cela Evropa moze biti u globalnom smislu kao jedna velika Svajcarska, sta tome fali?

[Ariel]

mislim da severna italija tog perioda nije imala situaciju u kojoj godišnje dolaze stotine hiljada arapa i afrikanaca u potrazi za boljim životom. uz rizik da otkrivam toplu vodu na topiku, to je užasno značajno pitanje budućnosti evrope koje ovaj tekst pominje, a za koje se plašim da niko neće ponuditi zaista humano rešenje na dobrobit domorodaca i novopridošlih. siriza je tu dala do sada najbolji... spisak lepih želja.

[MancMellow]

 

well, that's a detail, interesting text, raises substantial questions, I'm not sure that anybody can give satisfactory positive response. eu in structure, whether we understand it as a fixed institutional framework at a given moment or as fluid ever closer union is not just a mechanism that suffers a Machiavellian figure, not even listed charismatic Democrats. System looks faceless bureaucrat, something like protection after he should be tito already constellation no-NEJM such was essentially an agreement elite. :D

 

has to change. to us is more or less clear to everyone, just no one knows how. but if it starts with a meaningful and controlled change will come to uncontrolled and probably less meaningful.

 

Ceo tekst na

 

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article138113428/Europa-zaudert-sich-zu-Tode.html

 

google translate, ali dobar

 

Europe hesitates to death

 

The European Union is in an economic crisis, it lacks political legitimacy, prevails at the border war. If they want to defend their freedom, they need above all courage.

 

Does anyone remember the German Presidency of the European Union? Just eight years ago, at her, but Europe has since changed completely. And not for the better. "We are united for the better," Angela Merkel said at the time. Before the Bundestag she demanded: "We must think of this Europe from the perspective of citizens!"

 

Such words sound hollow today in the ears of many European citizens. Whether rightly or wrongly: you have the feeling that Europe would think from the perspective of the banks and creditors.

 

Only when Europe was economically successful, Merkel said in February 2007 that the EU could assert their values ​​and remain "an area of ​​peace, freedom, security and prosperity." Today, Europe is, with few exceptions, a space of recession, deflation, insecurity and unemployment.

 

And freedom is at risk: In Hungary, the Prime Minister announced unchallenged, his country would an "illiberal democracy". In Greece threatens to a failure of the left-wing populist government takeover of an overtly fascist party.

 

In France, Marine Le Pen could succeed the hapless François Hollande. We are "united for the better"? Rather united in a permanent winter of discontent and resentment.

 

Vision of a federal Europe was buried

 

Under the chancellor Angela Merkel has been buried by implication also the vision of a federal Europe. "Germany begins to turn its back on the common continent," said DIW chief Marcel Fratzscher. As historian Herfried Münkler notes that the EU works today more like a confederation of states held together more bad than good by the large "power in the middle" wird.Bei presenting his eponymous new book answered the scholars on the question of whether you then not tailored to this vision institutions such as Parliament and the Commission, may should prefer to bury even the Euro: The questioner should not underestimate the value of camouflage please.

 

At the same time a workshop at the think tank "European Council on Foreign Relations" said the co-founder Mark Leonard of the "fragility" of Europe. Ten years ago, the British had given a book called "Why Europe is the future".

 

Europe's defense held enlargement?

 

The sphere of influence of this Europe should be from Georgia in Eastern Armenia, Turkey and Ukraine to Morocco. Well said Leonard, Europe must be defended rather than expanded. It was as if the Roman Empire completed the development of the conquerors Augustus to Hadrian's Wall farmer in ten short years.

 

Eurosceptics may rejoice; the British might find yourself with a "Do we have always said!" lean back. But to whom it comes to the "perspective of citizens" to go and the defense - and, indeed, expansion - the area of ​​freedom, security and prosperity that has to wonder if anyone is willing to draw conclusions from that "We are united for the better", not as debtors and creditors, teacher and student, paymaster, disciplinarian and chastened, but as citizens.

 

Since the reflection may help the greatest American president of the 20th century. Franklin D. Roosevelt took in 1933 at the height of the Depression, to the White House. He took over a nation that was economically on the ground, inwardly torn, isolated internationally and militarily insignificant.

 

Blow after at Roosevelt

 

Round ruled authoritarian regimes, from Moscow to Berlin and Rome to Tokyo; democracy, many thought - from the ocean aviator Charles Lindbergh to the influential Catholic politician Joseph Kennedy - would soon be "done". FDR himself demanded by Congress special powers, "as if we were at war."

At his death in April 1945, FDR left the US as the economic, military and moral superpower. He laid the foundation for the reforms, which he called "New Deal". Many of these measures were economically questionable to be counterproductive.

 

Some economists believe that only the upgrade and the war would have - brought America out of the Depression - as a kind of huge Keynesian economic stimulus. Might be. But if they had echoes of fascism as the National Industrial Recovery Act or in socialism as the Tennessee Valley Authority, a Roosevelt's reforms had in common: they were designed "from the perspective of citizens".

 

Roosevelt did not economic, but political. "It is reasonable to try something, and if it does not work, try something else from you," he said. His own class, the aristocracy of money the East Coast, he has ruined by taxes. But the citizens saw that the state took their needs seriously and did something about it. The only reason they were later prepared to follow the President in an unpopular war for democracy.          

The war threatens not only he is already there

We have no war paint on the wall. He is already taking on our eastern border. Has never been so clear that the survival of the European Union is indeed a matter of war and peace. The Greek exit from the euro as may be economically manageable for the monetary union; politically would be the "Grexit" with the subsequent collapse of the economy only the precursor to an exit of the country from the EU - and perhaps joining the "Eurasian Union".

 

The British vote for the exit, France could follow. Would open the way for China and its junior partner, Russia, the European countries against each other - and against America - play off.

 

If the area of ​​freedom will be defended, the EU needs to come up as loans and emergency meetings, mutual accusations and blackmail. The confidence of European citizens recover costs money, takes courage and a willingness necessary to raise the political vision of the economic reason. But where is a FDR, who rouses the continent out of its lethargy? Nowhere to be seen, and certainly not in Berlin.

Edited March 14, 2015 by MancMellow

[MancMellow]

Zasto je to lose?

 

Ako cela Evropa moze biti u globalnom smislu kao jedna velika Svajcarska, sta tome fali?

 

fali to što ne može. završiće ne kao svetska švajcarska, nego kao svetski balkan.

[MancMellow]

[hazard]

fali to što ne može. završiće ne kao svetska švajcarska, nego kao svetski balkan.

 

Zasto to mislis?

[Kampokei]

Ovi Ciudadanos nisu sasvim nova stranka, postoje jedno 7-8 godina, mozda i vise. Ali poceli su kao Ciutatans u Kataloniji, kao neki prospanski centar, mozda malo vise desno. Uvek bili vrlo kriticni prema katalonskom nacionalizmu, ali percepirani kao spanski nacionalisti i stoga uvek marginalni na izborima. Sokirah se sad kad videh dokle su dogurali, a mozda i ne bi trebalo, stari su to demagozi i mogu lepo da iskoriste ovu visedimenzionalnu krizu u kojoj se nalazi Spanija.

[MancMellow]

Zasto to mislis?

 

"Nuklearna Svajcarska". Sa 500-600 miliona ljudi :D

[Budja]

Inace, The Economist kaze da je mala Marina na 30% pred lokalne izbore u Francuskoj sledece nedelje. Lepo.

 

The Economist je zabrinut (ranije nije toliko bio, dovoljno je videti relativni optimizam pred izbore za evropski parlament), no vise zbog veza sa Putlerom.