Monday, October 27, 2008

MUNICH AND IRAN.

TALK IS STRONG, NOT TALKING TO FASCISTS IS TOLERATING THEM AND THEIR DEEDS.

It goes without saying that one should talk to Iran. Opponents often brandish the talks of France and Great Britain with Hitler and Mussolini in Munich in 1938 as the epitome of the pitfall of talking. Such a naive, but traditional “wisdom” denotes a superficial knowledge of history, infused with erroneous data. Wisdom without knowledge, that’s hubris.

It is true that in Czechoslovakia, the Munich accords came to be known as a “dictate”, or a “betrayal” (it thoroughly violated the military defense treaty between France and Czechoslovakia). Although France had partially mobilized, it forced Czechoslovakia to surrender to Hitler its Sudetenland territory that were had a majority of Germans. (Czechoslovakia sticks smack inside the core of Germany.)

In truth, though, Munich was an indispensable preliminary to World War. If nothing else, it gave time for Britain to mass produce enough of a state of the art airforce. But it did much more. It provided the two large democracies with the casus belli they needed.

When at war, democracies, to stay in one piece, have to have the People use its power, in agreement with itself. That means the war has to be perceived as just by the People. The Romans, under the republic, called that a “Casus Belli”, and paid careful attention to having one always, before going to war. The reason that France and Britain were able to declare war to Hitler while occupying the high moral ground, was precisely because they had talked to him first.

For years prior, Hitler had been good at dividing his opponents. In 1934, he made a pact with Poland, and one with Britain in 1935 (which violated the Versailles Treaty). By 1937 the business opportunities presented by Hitler had incited the USA to pass laws dealing with the democratic French republic as an enemy belligerent of some sort (because France was exhibiting no obvious signs of affection towards Hitler, contrarily to the USA).

As France and Britain talked to Hitler in Munich, they consolidated the British conversion to an alliance with France against Hitler. The talks also forced Hitler to formally engage himself to some agreements. At this point, Hitler was stuck, it was the end of his malevolent dance. Either he respected the accords, and he lost prestige, and that is grave in a regime that rests on terror. Or then he violated the accords, for the whole world to see, and Britain and France had their Casus Belli. Whereas most of the German establishment was satisfied by the Munich agreement, Hitler saw that he had been entrapped, and he was furious.

As it was, Poland, observing that Britain was following France, taking a firm stance, got encouraged to make a formal military assistance treaty with the French republic, and Britain was in the fine print in the appendix.

Next, of course, Hitler, observing that he was in the process of being surrounded by France and Poland, while Britain was scrambling to build a modern air force, had to strike. So he attacked Poland, after rushing a love pact with his pal Stalin. Britain and France declared war, 45 French divisions attacked the Siegfried Line (”Westwall”), and while Poland fought to death, American capitalists of the Wall Street type, rushed anti knock additives Hitler desperately needed for his air force. But I digress.

The point is this: Hitler was entrapped by talk. No talk, no entrapment. If one had kept ignoring Hitler, as the US government was doing, Hitler would have got his world war when he wanted, when he was going to be ready, in 1945, with huge quantities of new weapons that were on the drawing boards. In 1939, he was not ready, not at all. There is force in speech, power in thought. Before acting, think, and then talk.

If nobody had talked to Hitler, the survivors would be living under the Great Nazi World Reich. Only those who have no brains, and no morals, fear speech. Winking at destiny does not make for a better world. Only expression can bend destiny, and that starts with speech.

So indeed, seen from the purely military point of view, the USA should talk to Iran.

Patrice Ayme

Patriceayme.wordpress.com

(Published in International Herald Tribune, October 27, 2008.)

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

TAX MORE, WASTE NOT.

To reduce the United States of America's considerable waste of energy, the most efficient way is to augment the price of energy enough so that everybody notice, and modify their behavior accordingly. That can be achieved with much higher taxes on fuel and electricity. Those of modest means that are adversely affected should be compensated, by direct payment from the State, as they are in France. It would help with the United States' deficit too, instead of borrowing ever more Chinese money.

Taxes on energy are about eleven (11) times higher in France than in the USA (and at similar levels in all the advanced countries of Europe, including big oil exporters such as Norway and Britain). It is unfortunate that many Americans who profess to reduce U.S. energy usage do not dare to mention heavy taxation of energy, the only method that is sure to work, to reduce American energy waste. France per capita Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions are less than a third of that of the USA. (And the French rose their taxes on energy even higher a few weeks ago!)

Trying to change society without changing taxes is like trying to change the world, by chanting forlornly to the raging ocean. Beautiful, romantic, but useless, and pathetic.

Patrice Ayme,
Patriceayme.wordpress.com

P/S: Other measures could and should be taken to help develop a greener economy [Congress gave a low interest loan of 25 billions dollars to car makers for greener cars (the problem with these sorts of gifts to the corporate USA is that corruption tends to swallow all the billions); see T. Friedman for still more ideas: NYT, October 21, 2008]. But the point I made here is that taxing energy heavily should be the first thing to do, because it creates an arena for a greener free market. Free markets are free, but only within the arenas the law gives them. Heavy taxation means green liberation.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

THAT SUCKING SOUND...

It used to be that the greatest jobs in the USA were to be an engineer, a scientist, a doctor, a teacher, a judge, even a --- blue collar worker. Those jobs were the pillars of the economy. They were well paid and respected. In 1941, the USA was a nation of engineers, and it's how W.W.II was won, so well, and so quickly.

In recent decades, though, the money manipulators sucked all the money, leaving not enough for even the most meritorious and necessary professions to attract the next generations. This is no exaggeration: Wall Street bonuses (just Wall Street), were more than 100 billion Dollars in 2007 (about 4% of the U.S. government budget). So the country has decayed. Worse: this U.S. plutocracy allied and entangled itself with the most terrible elements overseas (the Saud and bin Laden families are examples, just for Saudi Arabia). Plutocracy became a world network, and globalization without regulation its preferred weapon.

To reestablish a balance, the money manipulators (Roosevelt's "banksters") should be condemned to regurgitate their ill gotten gains, indeed. The last thing to do is to send more money to the money manipulators: that is not what the People want, and, besides, more of the same will not solve the crisis. The entire world plutocratic system should be dismantled, because it's antinomic to democracy. By definition, it's either moneypower (plutocracy) or peoplepower (democracy). One cannot have both. in 1941, the USA was a democracy. Maybe it can become one again, for real. The increasing refusal of people to pay exaggerated mortgages as their wages sink is actually a revolt of the People against banks. It looks like a financial crisis, but maybe it is actually a very healthy rebellion of the People against over-exploitation by money manipulators who violated the law for so long, they don't care if they do, because they are persuaded that they could get away with anything.

Patrice Ayme
Patriceayme.wordpress.com

Saturday, October 18, 2008

NEW TAXES FOR THE NEW WORLD.

(New York Times EDITORS' SELECTIONS. October 17, 2008 11:38 am.)

HOW TO REORIENT THE ECONOMY OF THE USA TOWARDS A BETTER BALANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSUMPTION. THE ADDED VALUE TAX.

All the economic policy of the USA has been to make bubbles, like a child in a bath. Maybe one should get out of the bath, and have an industrial policy instead.

One of the very reason for the U.S. slump is its increasing dearth of appropriate infrastructure. Obsolete infrastructure creates waste, diverting economic activity to entropy. A simple example are bad roads. Their potholes force people to drive trucks with huge wheels as if on a safari, and that in turn brings fuel waste, etc. Similarly people take planes to go anywhere in the USA, even on relatively short distance. In Europe, whenever the flight is less than 4 hours, (electric) trains win. They are much more efficient (the latest go at 360 kilometers per hour). Ibidem for housing, which is very thermally inefficient in the USA, resulting in energy spending that prevents home owners to have capital for better insulation.

Another reason for the U.S. slump is the relocalization of U.S. industry to China and similar places. That was encouraged because it allowed the reigning plutocracy to increase its profit margins. Because U.S. infrastructure will be presumably built in the USA and not in China, infrastructure should help to increase U.S. activity.

The population should be also encouraged to stop buying too much fluffy stuff built overseas, or plain wasteful stuff, without of course rising trade barriers. Another good thing would be to fight tax evasion. It would be of course great to fight deficits by rising revenue. There is one common solution to all this. The ADDED VALUE TAX. It makes tax invasion, and tax write-offs for the rich, impossible, per its very structure.

OK, The AVT was invented in France in 1954, but the USA is turning these days to the solutions that France used in her past crises. The AVT is imposed as part of European Union membership.

The AVT can be regulated according to economic needs: although colossal on luxury products in France, it's only around 5% on infrastructure work. And of course 0% on basic necessities. The AVT is the largest fiscal source in France. By the way, in case you did not notice, well regulated France is the least affected of the large economies by the financial crisis, although she took the fastest and deepest countermeasures.

It goes without saying that, to incite Joe the Plumber to not buy a Porsche with his $250,000 income, and buy his fuel from Arabia, one should augment energy taxes (in France, compensatory payments are made for low income people on overall energy spending, than more than compensate for the tax).

After trying to turn the U.S. economy to China, in the last decade, it may be wiser for the USA to remember its European roots, and get enlightened a bit.

Patrice Ayme

Patriceayme.wordpress.com
— Patrice Ayme, Hautes Alpes

RecommendedRecommended by 44 Readers

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

AFGHANISTAN: THE AUDACITY OF DOPE.

NATO IN DENIAL AND WHY.

Afghans cannot just be told that, if they behave, they will not be killed by NATO. And that's called civilization, and it's much better than the Qur'an. Be the poorest people on earth, or so, Afghans, but be quiet, and we will search your houses, and bomb your villages, when our sensors tell us to. If some men and some guns are among the dead, we will call that a justified strike. That's the entire NATO program. It sounds straight out of the "Terminator" movie, with NATO troops playing terminators, with their flying robots overhead.

To persist in this course of action is to humiliate the Afghans, and to throw the gauntlet at them. Realized civilian help spending by NATO has been closer to 1% of the budget for NATO bombing and killing, rather than to all past promises. Besides, the Afghan army has been left tiny, because NATO does not trust it, and is afraid to train enemies, rather than true allies. Joining impudence to insult, NATO then complains the Afghans are not doing enough.

Many countries of NATO are becoming aware of the audacious hopelessness of NATO's message and practice. The Canadians will pull their soldiers out within two years (and they have fought courageously, with the greatest proportional deaths, more than 50% higher than the U.S. in relative numbers). If Canada leaves, it's very unlikely that Europe will stay, and the USA will be left to bomb, and kill, and die, alone. (The U.S. contingent is about half of NATO in Afgahnistan.)

The only hope for NATO is to act as tribal chief, and friend of all in Afghanistan. As a friend, it has only one material thing to offer, short term. The legalization of the "booming" poppy trade should be used as a carrot to turn around sympathetic tribal leaders (in the areas to the south, precisely where the insurrection is the worst). There are no ethical, political and economic objections to this.

An interesting question is why does NATO persist in a policy that has failed for seven years already, and that is bound to fail? Why is it the gift that keeps on giving? Hubris is part of the answer. It goes like this: we can win this, we are better men, we just did not try hard enough. Hubris is a drug. Or more exactly, it acts just like one, because it infuses the brain with very similar chemicals. So NATO strategists may look sober, but, in truth, they are just as high as if they had abused of the poppy fields themselves.

True, if non military means of helping were used massively, the war could be won. But they won't be deployed as they ought to. Why? Because there is no constituency to send massive civilian help to a country of 35 million people, when entire urban zones, in the USA , or in France, are in need of drastic help, and when so many young Brits of Muslim descent dream of Jihad. There is a constituency, though, for developping, testing, and deploying new weapons. Great progress was made because of flying lethal robots in Iraq, militarily speaking. That's encouraging in many ways: at last one thing the USA does really well.

Thus it may be viewed in some circles as rather helpful that bin Laden is so hard to catch. Better, one could extend the war to Pakistan's mountainous terrain. Nothing like a war that last forever. As Orwell pointed out in "1984", nothing like the war that keeps on giving, to support the class that keeps on leading.
.
Patrice Ayme
Patriceayme.wordpress.com