Hot news! The wehrmacht failed to take Greece. Now Germany tries again, with a different method.

Summary:  Germany used it power over the European Monetary Union to institute a monetary policy that disproportionately benefited itself, to the disadvantage of the periphery nations.  Germany prospered, they lost competitiveness.  Now Germany acts to continue the game, attempting to force the losers to stay in the game.  Now it’s Greece’s turn to go under the hammer.  Will they comply or resist?

“Call for EU to control Greek budget“, Financial Times, 27 January 2012 — Opening:

The German government wants Greece to cede sovereignty over tax and spending  decisions to a eurozone “budget commissioner” to secure a second €130bn  bail-out, according to a copy of  the proposal obtained by the Financial Times.

In what would amount to an extraordinary extension of European Union control  over a member state, the new commissioner would have the power to veto budget  decisions taken by the Greek government if they were not in line with targets  set by international lenders. The new administrator, appointed by other eurozone  finance ministers, would take responsibility for overseeing “all major blocks of  expenditure” by the Greek government.

Here is the “proposal” obtained by the FT.  Only fools would accept this insulting and contemptuous offer.

Question time on the FM website (plus The Week in Review)

Ask any question about geopolitics, broadly defined. We — and others reading the FM website — will attempt to answer it in the comments.   All answers welcomed!  This will be the last of these.  The experiement started well, but the questions have tapered off in quality and quantity – and it requires a lot of work.

Contents

1. Questions received so far
2. Quote of the week, a judge speaks to us from his heart
3. To start the discussion: articles of interest this week
4. People are asking questions about COIN. It’s time to trot out the “no true Scotsman fallacy.”

(1)  Questions received so far

Click on the link to go directly to that thread.  Please use the REPLY button when replying to a previous comment, to keep threads together.

1. ___

(2)  Quote of the week, a judge speaks to us from his heart

While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it.

For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield inordinate power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins; the transition is seamless and overlapping.

In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s “open marketplace” of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian15 corporatists. Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.

— James C. Nelson, Juctice of the Montana Supreme Court, in his dissent in Western Tradition Partnership vs. Attorney General on Montana, paragraph 125 (source here)

(3)  To start the discussion:  articles of interest

We’ll start with some classics:

The key to building an effective military that we can afford: bring back the militia!

Summary:  Slowly realization spreads that we cannot afford our current military forces.  This forces us to consider new forms of organization.  In this, as in so many things, the Founders give us sound advice.  Militia can provide a key component of our military.

“Going Back to the Future – Militia Model Could Cut U.S. Expenditures“, Ron Fogleman, DefenseNews, 16 January 2012 — Excerpt:

Throughout my career, I spoke frequently about the kind of defense America deserved — that is, a modern, balanced and ready force. … In its current form, the force has become unaffordable. … The big question is, how does the department reduce its budget and continue to provide a modern, balanced and ready defense when more than half of the budget is committed to personnel costs?

The all-volunteer force has provided the nation with the most capable and experienced force in our history. We need to preserve that capability; however, we cannot afford the imbalance of resources stemming from the size and composition of the force.

The answer to that question is right before us: We should return to our historic roots as a militia nation. …  we should return to the constitutional construct for our military and the days when we maintained a smaller standing military and a robust militia. … This concept worked well for our country for the better part of two centuries. … The fiscal environment and emerging threats demand it. To do otherwise is to allow the budget to drive the future capability in a way that fails to meet the needs of the nation.

This is a great idea, one whose time may come soon.  What kind of military does America need in a world with many nuclear power and few conventional threats (no superpower actively threatening to start WWIII, as the Soviet Union threatening Europe)?  A world in which foreign armies are usually stalemated or even defeated by local forces, so that imperial adventures are dangerous and unprofitable (see here for details)? A world in which we face many enemies, but find a global program of bombing and assassination only generates still more enemies?  Where growth and militarization of police and security services threaten our liberties?

Imagine a military composed of special operations units (training/support for allies; raids),   navy & air force (transport, firepower), marines (light expeditionary forces), army (a small core of heavy land forces), and militia (several levels of trained citizen-soldiers).  The first four are well-understood.  Here is a sketch of how militia might work for us, from September 2005.

——

Summary:  Militia might be our most reliable defense against fourth generation warfare (4GW).  They have deep roots in western history, and many of these advantages can work for America today.  Militia also are problematic for several reasons.  These issues must be considered when designing their recruitment, training, and organization. 

Contents

1. Why militia?
2. Strategic Implications
3. The right tool for the right war
4. History of the Militia
5. An American militia for the 21st Century
6. Role of an American Militia
7. Who controls the Militia? What can Militia do for America?
8. What can Militia do for America?
9. Politics of Militia
10. Militia as a Dangerous Innovation
11. Militia as nucleus for vigilantes
12. Private Military Companies (aka mercenaries, in a new form for the age of 4GW)
13. Decline of the State
14. Conclusions
15. For more information

As a follow-up see Lawrence Korb of CAP and CDI advocates a militia, 4 June 2008.

(1)  Why militia?

{Click here to read this essay}

Are Europe’s rulers copying the policies of Herbert Hoover in 1929, or the French Monarchy in 1789?

Summary:  There are two paths for Europe. The path it is on, leading to a painful future and fundamental change.  And the other path, with unknown risks and pain — but offering the potential for a better future.  The path chosen by Europe’s leaders reveals much about them.  The outcome will reveal much about Europe’s peoples.

Two major reports this week describe the perilous condition of the world economy.  Both are well worth reading.  Both raise serious doubts about the path that Europe is traveling.

• “Global Recovery Stalls, Downside Risks Intensify“, World Economic Outlook Update of the IMF, 24 January 2012
•  ”The European Crisis  Deepens“, Peter Boone (associate at the London School of Economics) and Simon Johnson (ex-Chief Economist of the IMF, Prof Economics at MIT), Peterson Institute for  International Economics (PIIE), January 2012

The PIIE report goes into greater detail about treatment for Europe’s ills, giving the solutions recommended by our banking class — that dominate these discussions in the West.  Especially note two aspects, one recommended — and one omission.

(1)  Liquidate the people of the GIIPS and the institutions which serve them

The second ingredient is a far more aggressive program to reduce budget deficits and improve competitiveness in the periphery. These nations need to be highly competitive if they are to generate growth soon given the large risks overhanging their economies. This requires large wage cuts, public-sector spending cuts, changes in tax policy to attract investment and business, and stable politics.

… In a nation with a flexible exchange rate, adjustment is usually achieved with budget cuts and a sharp devaluation. Since euro area nations have forgone their right to devalue, they need to regain competitiveness through price and wage cuts, while even more sharply cutting budget spending. In essence, they need to increase volatility of their wages, prices, and budgets if they are prepared to forgo similar changes that could be achieved through the exchange rate.

The available evidence from the outcomes of the troika programs in Portugal, Ireland, and Greece, as well as the recently announced budget plans in Italy and Spain, suggests current policies will fail at this task.

… However, so far, there is little political will to take these necessary measures. Europe’s economy remains, therefore, in a dangerous state.

Boone and Johnson recommend very conservative policy changes.   Large cuts in wages,  Large cuts in public sector spending.  Changes tax policy to help the rich and businesses.  To be forced through by severe pressure from the nations of northern Europe and the institutions they control (eg, IMF and ECB).  Bismarck would consider these too far right-wing.

Bernard Finel examines American Delusions

Summary: Today guest author Bernard Finel discusses one of the major themes of the FM website:  our broken thinking (aka dysfunctional observation-orientation-decision-action loop).  This was originally posted at his website on 17 January 2012.

“American Delusions” by Bernard Finel

One of the biggest problems with our domestic political discourse is that much of the American body politic is operating under a set of persistent and destructive delusions.

Health Care

During the health care debate, of course, one of the major points of opposition to Obama’s health care reform was the argument that the United States has the “best healthcare system in the world.” Now, yes, we have the most expensive health care system in the world. If we spent as much on health care per capita as other developed countries, we’d be spending roughly $1 trillion a year LESS. Which would be fine if we were getting $1 trillion worth of better health care, but, ya know, we aren’t. We’re either in the middle or bottom-middle of the pack in terms of health care outcomes. But even if we were near the top of the pack, we are not getting anywhere near $1 trillion worth of extra value from our system. But see, the “best healthcare system” in the world delusion blinds us to the fact that we need real and deep structural reform in the healthcare sector.

Defense

Whenever we talk about defense spending, we get a similar delusion at work. This one is the insecurity delusion, where the United States, despite spending more on defense that the rest of the world combined, is somehow perceived to be walking a razor’s edge with regard to national survival.

American faux history: why did the South leave the Union?

Summary:  The history of the State-sponsored oppression of Black Americans (1776-1964) is the story about one of our two great national sins.  Rather than confess and repent, many Americans prefer to take refuge in lies (the other, our treatment of Native Americans, is resolved by amnesia).  However comforting, this both divides us and diminishes our ability to see ourselves clearly — both seriously weakening the Republic.  That may be the intent of those propagating these lies.  Here we confront one tiny facet:  why the South left the Union.  This is a follow-up to American faux history: could we have avoided the Civil War?

Not to know what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child.
— Cicero, Orator Ad M. Brutum (46 B.C.)

History does not belong to us, we belong to it.
— Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 276

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
— George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1: Reason in Common Sense (1905)

After their defeat the South created reasons for the war more appealing to a non-slaveowning society, such as over tariffs and economic factors.  This myth continues today, propagated by people using the Confederacy to score emotional and theoretical points advancing their political interests.

Before we delve into this, here’s a repeat of yesterday’s introduction:  the American civil war is one of the most intensely studied events in US history, so that a layperson can only touch a small part of it.  But some aspects of its history are so clear we need not read the whole to find the answer.  Such as a reliable guess as to why the South left the Union. As all parents know, “why” is the most difficult of questions.  We have no calculus of the mind.  No X-rays of the soul.

But we have a guide to the past, better than agressive guessing.  Contemporaneous speeches and letters speak to us about their reasons for fighting.  They describe slavery as the primary issue that impelled the South to leave the Union.  Economic systems have moral foundations, as explained by philosophers from Karl Marx to Barry Goldwater.  So slavery had deep roots in Southern society, making resolution difficult (as discussed in yesterday’s post).

Today we look at a four voices from the past, a tiny fragment of the vast record from that era.

(1)  The Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens on 21 March 1861 at Savannah, Georgia. Excerpt:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

American faux history: could we have avoided the Civil War?

Summary:  The campaign of Ron Paul reminds us of two of the three great lies that comprise such a large fraction of American history: slavery, stealing land from the Indians, and the role of government in US economic development.  These not only exacerbate divisions in our society but provide a weak foundation for us — preventing us from clearly understanding our past and charting a course for the future.  Here we take a brief look at slavery, part one.  Tomorrow see Why did the South leave the Union?

Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, {Lincoln} should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the Republic. It was that iron fist … Slavery has phased out in every other country of the world. The way I’m advising it should have been done is like the British Empire did, buy the slaves and release them. How much would that have cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean the hatred and all that existed.
— Ron Paul on MSNBC’s Meet the Press, 23 December 2007 (transcript here; Paul forgets that slavery was not phased out in Haiti}

The American civil war is one of the most intensily studied events in US history, so that a layperson can only touch a small part of it.  But some aspects of its history are so clear we need not read the whole to find the answer.  Such as a reliable guess as to whether we could have avoided the Civil War.

The easy answer is yes.  With perfect foresight anything becomes possible.  Would Russians have supported Lenin in 1918 if they knew what the future held for them?  Would foreknowledge of 1945 have changed the way Germans voted in 1932, when they gave the NAZIs a plurality?  Much of American revisionist history – mythology to support politics — assumes that people can in effect know the future.  With such perfect knowledge we could have avoided the civil war and won in Vietnam.  They believe counter-factuals should guide our actions, not actual history.

Unfortunately history operates differently, so the opeational answer is no.  The civil war had deep historical roots, so only massive tinkering with time could have prevented it.  Here we examine some of those factors.

Contents

1. Two reasons why the Civil War was the only path for America
2. Paying to buy the slaves
3. Would slavery have died out soon without the war?
4. What about the British colonies in the Caribbean?
5. For More Information

(1)  One reason why the Civil War was the only path for America

To see two reasons why the civil war as unavoidable, see “The Economics of Emancipation” by Claudia Dale Goldin (Prof Economics, Harvard), published in The Journal of Economic History, March 1973.  She looks at US the economics of slavery and emancipation in the US and other western hemisphere nations.  It’s a comprehensive rebuttal to the faux history so eagerly believed by American conservatives, such as Ron Paul.

Here we look at two aspects of Goldin’s paper, slaves as a capital asset and the determination of southern whites to avoid a multi-racial society.  This is only an excerpt from her well-researched article.

This paper illuminates one particular aspect of the theme of this session, property rights in man. It will deal with various emancipation plans: those actually enacted in various slave societies; those discussed by legislators who debated slave and antislave proposals; and those which, being purely fictional, have become part of counterfactual history.