The Thought Office

On Open Relationships

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:06:00 +0100

Be with the one you love, sleep with the one’s you don’t?

Teenage dinner-table talk is an often tawdry affair. The few kernels of wisdom that do stem from the usual debates of the relative hotness of supermodels and abilities of sports teams are usually to do with methods through which one can measure the relative hotness of supermodels and abilities of sports teams. However, a recent argument with friends brought up the rather interesting and always contentious issue of monogamy, and its place in society.

The trigger factor was Will Smith. The respect he had gained among my peers for his diligent work ethic and general open-minded, can-do attitude, and most importantly for being the Fresh Prince, suffered a critical blow when some particularly thorough YouTube investigating uncovered an interview in which the successful actor admitted that he and his wife, Jada Pinkett-Smith, enjoy an “open marriage”.

The Happy Couple? (Image from www.usmagazine.com)

Of course, for a people ingrained so fundamentally with the concept of monogamy, the natural reaction is one of disdain. What an awful example they set for society, many argue, by openly endorsing promiscuity. What a cheapening of the sacred institution of marriage. How could someone cheat on Will Smith? These are the issues our society cannot wrap our heads around.

But this is unconvincing. There is an indubitable value in commitment. A family which stays faithful to each other is a stable one. But this is not a question of being faithful, or being a cheater. This is not a question of infidelity. While adultery is defined as the sexual act with someone outside of marriage, the other vital component of this, and probably the more important one, is the deceit. The term “cheating” arises from the fact that you are cheating your spouse out of what they signed up for. If you vowed to remain faithful in the most literal, physical sense of the term, then an act of infidelity need only consist of sleeping around to warrant the cheating charge.

But couples such as the Smiths made no such vows. In their own words, they made the promise that “you will never hear that I did something after the fact.” Can one really criticise their arrangement as immoral, when both have agreed to it explicitly, and adhere to it rigidly? We can of course never know whether or not they stick to it, or how mutual the agreement is, but theoretically, if these two conditions were met, what possible moral qualm could one have with two people starting a family on the basis that they will not avoid what is natural to them, but will not “cheat” each other out of what they have promised?

‘Tll Death Do Us Part (Image from www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk)

One of these possible moral qualms, raised in the very argument that prompted this post, was that it weakened the bond shared between man and wife. By sharing their bed with other people, they thus cheapen their own union, spreading their affection over a wider plane, and making it thinner at any given point as a result.

But this is a misguided oversimplification of the issue. The decision to make open one’s relationship is not a cause of a weak relationship, but rather a symptom of it. In fact, even the term “weak” is a crude and ill-fitting one. A married couple, or any number of parties in any sort of relationship, decide that they want to become “open” because there is something missing from what they have at the moment. There is some element, be it excitement, sexual fantasy or just curiosity, that they do not have with their current partner, and do not want to forgo for the sake of dogmatic social doctrine.

At this point, the criticism levied appears a sound one: if one does not get the physical and emotional satisfaction one needs from a relationship with another partner, why don’t they just find the right person? Would it be so hard to wait for someone who meets every criteria before starting a family and living the rest of your lives? Well, yes, actually.

In an ideal world, we could have all we want from one person. We could all be entirely fulfilled, in every conceivable sense of the word, in a single, traditional relationship. This would certainly allow us to bypass the rather tricky mess of co-ordinating “open relationships”. What level of commitment is allowed? Where are the lines drawn? It’s all an endless grey area, as most of life is, and humans seem programmed to avoid thinking too much, which is what allows to accept so easily the conventional wisdom that tells us there is something inherently immoral in infidelity. The problem, however, is that we do not live in this ideal world.

The Long-Haul (Image from www.formerdays.com)

That is not to make the ridiculous argument that such relationships do not exist. There are those, many undoubtedly, who are fulfilled as much as they can conceive is possible by their own relationship with a single partner, and see absolutely no reason for people to play around with the accepted convention of monogamy. It is usually these people who are so quick to criticise relationships such as that of the Smiths, which play so daringly with the boundaries of what is and isn’t ‘the way things are done’.

The mistake comes in adding some intrinsic value to commitment and monogamy. It is happiness that is of intrinsic value, something which philosophers have tried in vain to dispute, because it is just so patently the case. If happiness is what we strive for, then the value of such concepts as rigid commitment is purely instrumental: it is valuable insofar as it leads people towards happiness, or gives them a better shot at it. And for some people, this is the case. It serves no good for two people with particularly jealous dispositions to engage in a relationship that involves them being with other people; they’ll be much happier remaining faithful to their partners, and should be given every right to do so. But for those who are adept at separating sex and love, the physical and the emotional, and are dissatisfied by the concept of forgoing new experiences, there is no logical reason for these people to be denied experimentation, or indeed for them to deny it from themselves.

Obviously, it’s complicated. Many couples who think they can handle the idea of an open relationship will be sorely mistaken. But how are they to find out if it suits them without trying it first? The scientific method of hypothesising, observing and amending seems here to be quite apposite. And conversely, many couples, who pretend to be satisfied with what they have, repress these desires because of their taboo nature, which is unhealthy for the self and the relationship. Such couples end up committing emotional infidelity in lieu of the forbidden physical one, which has a far more destabilising effect on the family.

The social stigmas we attach to these experimental methods of figuring out the veritable chaos of love and human interaction are illogical, unhelpful and are ultimately in contradiction with the development of a more civilised, sincere society.

The Great Recession and the United Kingdom

Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:35:00 +0100

The ‘Great Recession’ of 2008 (though in recent years it appears to be looking more and more like a depression) was labelled the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Five years on from its breaking in 2007, the majority of the Western World’s economies remain sluggish and still exhibit the post-crash behaviour which, by this point in time, should have been left behind. Amongst the worst hit of all non-Eurozone nations was the UK, who, despite seeing huge budget deficits exceeding 10% of GDP, still failed to avert a massive contraction of 4%. After half a decade, a change in government, and a change in policy from deficit spending to austerity, growth remains meek and the tunnel of economic malaise seems like it has no end for these islands.

Why the crash?

The Global Financial Crisis was fundamentally the consequence of a build up of extremely excessive levels of private debt. To put it very simply, the debt, which during the 2000s was largely in the form of mortgages, reached the point whereby repayment was impossible, and the mass defaults which followed led to a complete collapse in confidence, bank failures, and even a bank run on Northern Rock in 2007.

Following from this explanation, it is conclusive that the nations with the highest level of private debt as a proportion of GDP would be the ones suffering the most severe recessions, and the graph above comparing the UK, the US and Australia reveals somewhat unpleasant facts about the UK economy. The sheer size of the debt overhang in Britain uncovers the underlying structural problem with the economy which, if left uncorrected, will reduce the chances of a recovery to nil.

Why the debt?

Numerous alleged “experts” making frequent appearances on News programmes have delivered the same answer one after the other on this matter: “The British government and households borrowed far too much during the Labour years and they will have to tighten their belts if we are to see a recovery.” Well fortunately for the households of the UK, the evidence says something rather different.

It’s not the households, but the financial sector who have been addicted to their own credit cards since the mid-1990s in order to fund speculative purchases, and their debt has fuelled the skyrocketing house prices over the past two decades. Both financial sector debt and house prices saw their respective takeoffs in 1995 - this is no coincidence. This debt explosion in finance came as a result of excessive deregulation (which has lifted any restrictions of leverage), government/monetary policy (which has been geared toward stimulating financial markets through the use of cheap credit) and, more recently, fraudulent activity regarding financial products and market manipulation.

Our road to recovery

Bringing an economic recovery follows a very similar procedure to curing a sick patient; getting rid of the disease and using pain killers to soften the blow of the treatment. We have already identified the disease hurting the UK economy as excessive levels of private debt and speculative finance - the deleveraging of the former is currently depressing economic activity and the latter has been diverting resources away from productive activity and towards speculation. In order to bring the recovery, it would be extremely useful for the government to introduce debt relief programmes for households suffering excessive mortgage debt. Secondly a reinstatement of secure regulation of the financial sector will ensure that financial institutions use their capital to stimulate the economy by investment rather than drain it through excessive speculation. Thirdly, the government and Bank of England have to allow financial markets (especially the housing market) to correct themselves rather than consistently intervening to prop them up. Since the 1980s, every attempt from these institutions to save financial markets have led only to the creation of bubbles, most predominantly the stock market bubble of the late 1980s and the housing bubble of the 1990s/2000s. The seeds of the recovery can only be sown if the financial markets are left to adjust to the levels where they ought to be. After measures such as these have been taken, the debt levels and the size of the financial sector will both shrink sizeable essentially ridding these islands of their economic disease.

However, this process would cause significant short-term damage to the British economy purely because debt financed consumption and speculative bubbles have been the source of (unsustainable) UK growth for the last three decades. Removing both of these ingredients will therefore remove growth and cause unemployment, and the economy will not be able to re-expand until sufficient resources have been reallocated away from the financial sector and into the real economy - a process which could take a number of years. The government has the responsibility to soften the blow by issuing the economy a pain killer, and that pain killer is controlled deficit spending, that is, running deficits large enough to bring a small amount of growth, but not too excessive to cause UK government debt levels to skyrocket.

UK Economy Predictions

Given the current policy response to the crisis of expansionary monetary policy mixed with fiscal austerity, three key scenarios emerge on the possible futures of the UK economy. All three relate strongly to the level of private debt to GDP - the index which is perhaps most key to determining our economic future. The graph below illustrates the trends in debt which come with each prediction.

Scenario One - Inflating Another Debt Bubble - As mentioned previously, the UK economy’s source of growth since the 1980s has been debt financed asset-price bubbles. The late 1980s boom was caused by the stock market bubble, the late-1990s boom was caused by the dot-com bubble, and the early-2000s boom was caused by the housing bubble. The Bank of England’s low interest rate policy (which could last a matter of another 3-5 years and maybe longer) has done much to finance speculative borrowing by investment banks and hedge funds alike - an activity which should have ended with the financial crisis. It is possible that the sustaining of a low base rate could lead to the creation of a new bubble in the late 2010s. Should this occur, the level of private debt to GDP will increase over the next decade and we will enter another unsustainable debt-financed boom just like the one we have just come out of. This will cause an economic recovery in the short run, but ultimately sow the seeds of another crash, even greater than the 2008-financial crisis and the long run consequences make this a very undesirable outcome.

Scenario Two - Japanese Style ‘Lost Decades’ - This is perhaps the most likely outcome. The enormous level of private debt in the UK will have be deleveraged until it reaches about 100-200% of GDP before the economy starts a sustainable recovery. That figure currently stands as 450% (graph below) and is expected to be removed at a rate of approximately 20% a year, meaning it will take about 15 years to reduce the debt level down to 150% of GDP. This scenario essentially means private debt reduces at a slow, constant rate and as long as there is significant deleveraging, there will be a sluggish economy meaning growth will remain low (-1% to 1%) for a matter of one to two decades. This scenario ultimately sees the UK economy following similar trends to what was seen in Japan during the 1990s.

Scenario Three - Financial Collapse - Given the sheer size of debt which is held by the British Banks at the moments, the financial system in this country is still incredibly unstable as much of this debt is un-repayable. Should a large number of defaults happen in a short period of time- something which is not impossible - Cypriot-style bank runs could easily follow and this will need colossal intervention from the Bank of England to stop. The situation is certainly not helped by the very weak regulation in London’s financial services industry which has led to much debt re-hypothecation (where a creditor uses his debtor’s assets as collateral for a loan). In this scenario, the significant level of defaults and bank failures will cause private debt to GDP levels to reduce at a fast rate in a short time space.

Even if the debt levels in this country are as high as they are, it is definitely not impossible to overcome them without having to undergo decades of pain. Take Iceland, for example, which had private debt to GDP levels which reached near 900% of GDP - easily outstripping the UK. Iceland had a financial crisis far worse than the UK’s, however the policy responses over there were to let financial markets crash and save the real economy instead, whilst relieving much of the un-repayable debt which Icelanders possessed. After undergoing a year of 6-7% contraction, the Icelandic economy was free of the parasitic speculative financial sector which brought it to its knees and the economy started growing after only two years. We chose to bail out the financial sector and take resources from the real economy - our recession is still adamant and heading towards turning into lost decades. Iceland has show us that a private debt crisis can be dealt with in a short space of time by enacting the right policies and the UK can follow the same path to a quick recovery should it do so.

The Audacity of Pope (Francis)

Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:30:00 +0000

A critical look at Francis’ stances

And the winner is… (Image from Wikipedia)

Out with the old, and in with the slightly less but still pretty old. The conclave of cardinals, in all its divine, geriatric wisdom, has elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina to the Papacy, possibly after the human resources department at the Holy See gave a talk on ethnic diversity.

Though often cynical of religious folk, particular those dressed in funny hats (so all of them), the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI invoked in me a tentative yet stubborn hope. There is a strong argument to be made for the fact that the Pope is the most powerful man in the world: he wields an influence that defies jurisdiction. With ethical issues such as gay marriage, euthanasia and religious freedom very much at the fore of public debate, a new pontiff, with a fresh outlook on these controversial topics and their relationship with the Catholic Church, would have been a mighty triumph on the side of progress and liberalisation.

The Unlucky Runners-Up (Image from European Daily)

And perhaps my hopes have not gone entirely disappointed. Pope Francis’ PR team deserve credit for painting him as a ‘people’s Pope’. Not only was there a certain self-deprecation in his inaugural address, but we are told he forsook the bishop’s palace in favour of a flat, and rode the bus everyday to work during his tenure as a cardinal in Argentina. Indeed, the Catholic Church has come under much fire of late for excessive splendour (the Vatican is estimated to be sitting on a fortune of over $2billion in art, artefacts and architecture), and a pontiff who eschews majesty for modesty is a welcome change.

However, this gives more hope to those afraid of the Church’s dwindling popularity than it does to those of us frustrated with the lack of progress made in the many ethical debates that society faces. Many seem to have been distracted by Pope Francis’ admittedly admirable ‘Church for the poor’ proclamations, and have ignored the fact that his stance in regards to these issues are, in essence, conservative.

Granted, he has not echoed Benedict’s worryingly laughable proposition that prophylactics increase the occurrence of AIDS in Africa. But looking at his previous work, it would be unsurprising if he thought it himself.

Preaching from the Pulpit (Image from Aibdescalzo)

In 2007, Bergoglio issued a joint declaration of the bishops of Latin Africa known as the Aparecida Document, wherein the stance of Latin African Catholicism on abortion, euthanasia, contraceptives and gay marriage were made disturbingly clear. According to the document, abortion and euthanasia are ploys by the devil and his Satanic instruments to establish a “culture of death” among us. This dogmatic placing of life, irrespective of the unbearable suffering it may entail, on a holy pedestal, is an obstacle which rational argument finds it ever-difficult to overcome.

More concerning still, in a time when equal-marriage bills are finally being thrown around Parliament in both England and France, Pope Francis terms same-sex marriage “the devil’s work”, even going as far as to call the bill that the Argentine government tried to pass on the matter an “anthropological throwback”. Exciting success is being made in the name of equality, but a Pope placing close to brimstone-and-fire than love and compassion on the spiritual spectrum will hardly be conducive to progress.

Unfortunately, solutions to this problem are relatively scarce. Pope Francis holds a rejuvenation of the Catholic Church as the primary goal of his papacy, but this only needs to be in one area of the Church for him to appease his global flock, and his ‘Pope of the people’ antics have already cemented his position on what best to improve about the Church’s image. It follows that he is unlikely to alter his demonstrably conservative stance on same-sex marriage, euthanasia or any other ethical debate: he simply doesn’t need to.

The Original Francis (Image from Anaflora)

Saint Francis of Assisi, after whom the Pope has titled himself, wrote a prayer, in which he put, at once simple and entirely comprehensive, the following: “Where there is hatred, let me sow love…where there is discord, harmony…where there is despair, hope”.

I’m a non-believer myself, but it’s hard to fault the values Assisi preached, and it is regrettable that Pope Francis, who, though not an accomplished theologian of the likes of his predecessor, is an undoubtedly learned man, did not do enough research on his namesake before his cardinalship in Argentina to have adopted Assisi’s compassion into his own religious teaching.

The Pope cannot be elected out of office, nor is a papal coup particularly likely (though, note to self, it would be a fantastic premise for a movie). One can only hope, then, that being arguably the most powerful and influential man in the world will bring out in him a more considered religious outlook, or at the very least bring these outdated dogmas into such fierce scrutiny as to force a re-evaluation of them. It is optimistic, certainly.

But “where there is despair, hope”.

The Rising Sun

Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:58:55 +0000

Can Shinzo Abe wrest Japan from its economic malaise?

Image: fineartamerica

A decade ago, Japanese firms such as Sharp, Sony and Panasonic dominated the consumer electronics market producing everything from cutting-edge televisions to high-tech phones. These days, corporate Japan is far from rude health. Sony recorded a mammoth loss of $5.8 billion for the 2011 financial year. Panasonic and Nintendo have also performed miserably. And Sharp forecasts a loss of $4.7 billion in the financial year ending 31^st March 2013. To plug the gaping black hole in its finances, Sharp has gone cap in hand to Samsung (a bitter rival) and Hon Hai (the Taiwanese manufacturer of iPhones and iPads).

The misfortunes of Japan’s corporate behemoths illustrate the wider decline in the Japanese economy. Over the last two decades, the economy has been dogged by deflation. Falling prices have discouraged consumer spending as households hold off for even lower prices. This has sparked a vicious cycle of falling profits and further price cuts. As a result, the economy has bumped along the bottom for much of the last twenty years. In 2012, the country entered its fifth recession in the last fifteen years. More recently, Japan was devastated by a tsunami and a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in March 2011.

Times a-Changin’

Image: Guardian

Japan, however, may be about to turn the corner. The new Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, aims to reignite the economy with “Three Arrows”: fiscal stimulus, aggressive monetary policy and structural reforms. It seems investors have already brought out the bubbly; the Nikkei has soared by 30% over the last three months.

But can Mr. Abe deliver? Previous governments have tried to reignite the economy to no avail. Often, leaders have failed to keep their party together in the face of tough political and economic decisions. As a consequence, the country has seen seven different prime ministers in the last eight years.

Image: Guardian

However, Mr. Abe’s first three months in power have seen him gain considerable momentum. The prime minister enjoys high approval ratings and the excitement in financial markets suggests investors and businesses are also upbeat. Better still, his coalition holds a two-thirds majority in the lower house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament). This provides the firepower to push through promised reforms. So, can the new government capitalise on this momentum and breathe life back into the Japanese economy?

Three Arrows

Mr. Abe’s has already fired his first arrow: fiscal stimulus. The government has proposed a massive $100 billion spending program on infrastructure which could add roughly 2% to GDP and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Following weak growth in 2012, there is a strong case for stimulus to wrest the country from its economic malaise.

Image: Bloomberg

The prime minister has also progressed on the second pillar of his vision. His pressure on the Bank of Japan has driven the central bank to double its inflation target to 2%. Moreover, the new governor of the Bank of Japan, Haruhiko Kuroda, has made clear his desire for bolder monetary policy to achieve the new inflation target within two years. This should end the deflationary cycle that has gnawed away at the Japanese economy.

Most importantly, Mr. Abe has drawn his third arrow, structural reform. The government aims to join discussions for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a free trade agreement amongst 11 countries including the USA, Chile and Singapore. In the face of weak domestic demand and declines in existing export markets, the TPP will provide a real shot in the arm for the Japanese economy. Firms would gain easier access to 500 million more customers, providing fantastic opportunities for expansion. Significantly, the TPP will allow Japanese businesses to find a foothold in fast-growing emerging markets such as Malaysia, Vietnam and Mexico. Entry to the partnership will also require a raft of structural reforms in key sectors such as energy.

The Problems

Critics would shout from the rooftops that Japan has tried deficit spending before with little to show for. Between 1992 and 2000, the country saw ten stimulus packages worth a grand total of 100 trillion yen, but growth has been underwhelming at best. To make matters worse, borrowing more would add to the government’s already staggering debt burden, equivalent to 237% of GDP. This would lead to larger interest payments in the future, taking money away from other areas such as healthcare and pensions.

Image: WSJ

Mr. Abe also faces an uphill struggle against Japan’s powerful farming lobby if the country is to enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Japan’s agricultural industry has been protected from foreign competition by eye-watering import duties: foreign beef faces a tariff of 38.5% and the import tariff on wheat comes to 252%.

This time it’s different

Image: Kantei

The critics do have a strong case. Unlike previous efforts, though, government spending will be mirrored by equally loose monetary policy. This should ensure the latest stimulus package achieves more bang for its buck. Moreover, despite protests from farmers, a free trade agreement remains popular amongst the rest of Japan. Surveys by Asahi, Yomiuri and Mainichi newspapers found roughly two-thirds of voters backed the proposals for the TPP. Mr. Abe may be able to sweeten the deal for farmers by keeping some level of protection in the short-term.

Whilst Japan’s problems cannot be fixed overnight, the new government has made valuable steps in the right direction. Combining deficit spending and bolder monetary policy will pull the economy out of the doldrums and boost confidence. Structural reforms will also provide a competitiveness shock.

The biggest impact of a Japanese revival may actually be seen beyond its shores. Eurozone leaders will look on keenly to see if Mr. Abe’s “Three Arrows” hit the target. So far, the single currency has preferred austerity to spending. But deep spending cuts and tax rises have damaged hopes of a European recovery. A resurgent Japan may show Europe’s leaders a way out of the mess.

On "Antithiesm"

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:32:00 +0000

The debate about the existence of God and lack thereof recently came back to the forefront of academic debate with the ironically titled “Four Horsemen of New Athiesm”, consisting of scientists Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, philosopher Daniel Dennett and all-round two-cent-giver, the late Christopher Hitchens.

What’s so “new” about this atheism, I hear imaginary readers ask. Well rather than just criticising belief in religion, these horsemen admonished its influence and role in society; Hitchens, perhaps the most charismatic and easily the least prudent of the four (in fact, probably the best evidence to support the view that, in the public sphere, prudence and charisma are inversely proportional) was particularly “antithiestic”.

So I thought, after Hitchens’ untimely, but, given the fact that he was almost never seen without a cigarette or a glass of Scotch, hardly surprising death at the hands of oesophageal cancer, the remaining three could do with a new frontman and, though I possess neither the charisma nor the hepatic fortitude of my predecessor, I’ll give it the good old college try anyway.

A recent debate that pitted Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry against Ann Widdecombe and John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, discussed this very topic under the title “The Catholic Church is a force for moral good in the world”.

While the title does lend itself rather neatly to a discussion of the moral and immoral actions of the Vatican and its minions (meant entirely pejoratively), what was a little lacking in the debate was a far more pertinent and fundamental argument. The influence that belief in God and, more importantly in organised religion, has on the thinking of people. Fry and Hitchens pointed to bishops discouraging the use of condoms in AIDS ridden parts of Africa (or, as other people refer to them, Africa) and the Crusades, while Widdecome and Onaiyekan countered with Christian charities such as the Salvation Army, and to be honest, there was little to suggest the scale was significantly tipping either way. Religious people do bad things, but they also do good things. The question isn’t really whether they do more of one than the other, but how likely it is that religion will send them in either direction.

It is certainly true that religion has led to some rather abominable assertions - the condom issue is a particularly heinous one, but the criticism of homosexuality, the suppression of free speech, and the oppression of women are not to be omitted from the blasphemous melting point.

Religion however, political theorists such as Rousseau and Burke were keen to stress, has a tempering influence on immorality - man is better persuaded not to murder when the punishment is not merely a pesky stained conscious, but eternal damnation. But perhaps this in itself illustrates the problem - the effect of religion is that man is all too easily persuaded about pretty much anything.

Bill Maher once described it as the “suspension of critical thought”, and this deftly summarises the negative impact religion has on society, and the basis for all antitheist arguments. Whether homosexuality is immoral or not is perhaps a matter of subjectivity (it isn’t really though, some people are gay, get over it), but the point is that the debate has to be had rationally, otherwise it’s hardly a debate at all. If one does not critically analyse one’s own views on any particular issue, and rejects any rational critique of these views by anyone else as offensive, then one becomes susceptible to the trap of believing in the ludicrous. And one of the fundamental principles religion teaches is to not question its doctrines, its dogmas. And sometimes, these dogmas are ludicrous.

What is perhaps the best testament to this fact is that, for the most part, religious people agree. The majority of Muslims, at least in Western societies, do not adhere to the Quran’s rules of death for apostasy (Bukhari 52:260, from the Hadith), and few Christians disqualify the castrated or testicularly-challenged from Church (Deutoronomy 23:1). In these situations, they recognise that their religion is simply incorrect about these issues, so the same should go for the more contentious aspects of religious doctrine; those concerning homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion and all other manner of ethical issues. However, in these cases, when ethicists come in their droves to criticise dogmatic religious stances on such issues, the believers can rebuke all criticism with the simple assertion that their God has bid it, and His will be done. The problem with theism is clear: oftentimes, His will needs to tempered by some good old-fashioned logic and common sense. Unfortunately, religion (and a distinction between religion and religious people here is absolutely essential) does not allow for this.

Perhaps it is now the case that religion prompts in the masses a great sense of charitably that is of course infinitely beneficial, but the point is that it could tomorrow persuade populations that blind people shouldn’t be allowed in restaurants. If one does not have logic to rely on as an anchor that stops religion’s moral boat from swaying too far away in the directions of ludicrousness, one simply cannot be sure.

It is for this reason that this irrelevant opinionist is siding with the secularists and antithiests on this one.

On "Athiesm as a matter of faith"

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:28:00 +0000

“The Big Questions” is admittedly not the best place to go to watch intelligent theological debate. Asking resident layman Joe from Sussex “Is there life after death?” or “Is there a God?” is hardly going to produce any answer of worth. Not that I have anything against Sussex. Nor Joe. It’s all love, Joe.

But I was particularly disappointed when I came across an episode in which a pastor screamed at an atheist scientist: ”you are exercising faith”. The scientist attempted to defend his position, only to be interrupted by the self-same pastor with the well-thought rebuke: “Be honest, you are exercising faith”. Suffice to say, persistence does not supersede logic; had the scientist been given the chance to respond, “oh you’ve got me, I thought I could pretend atheism was not a matter of faith, and I would’ve gotten away with it to if it hadn’t been for that meddling pastor” would have been fairly unlikely.

Here’s how I assume he would have responded:

Faith is belief without evidence. Believing that Jesus trumped the laws of physics to walk across water is faith. Believing Elvis Presley is still alive is faith. Believing that Guns ‘N Roses really did spend 14 years making the at-best underwhelming Chinese Democracy is faith.

Deciding that, until concrete evidence to the contrary is presented, there is no solid argument for the existence of an anthropomorphic, human-sympathetic and intrinsically moral God (in short, theism), however, is not. It is in fact the opposite of faith. It is a belief system (or lack-of-belief system, you pedantic bastards) that refuses to believe in anything for which there is no sufficient evidence.

Perhaps a quote from Bill O’Reilly, one of America’s best loved TV personalities and general wise-men will help elucidate the situation. (For those from whom biting sarcasm has thus far been cloaked by masterful subtlety, I am indeed speaking ironically):

“I can’t prove to you that Jesus is God, so that truth is mine, and mine alone. But you can’t prove to me that Jesus is not.” O’Reilly implies that this means atheism takes more of a ‘leap of faith’ than theism.

But the same can be said about any belief, no matter how preposterous it is, because, in reality, it is impossible to prove that anything doesn’t exist; how could one even go about trying to do that? At best, one could find a list of conditions that must be met for something to exist, as we have done for the “life on other planets” debate, but if we found that life somewhere where those conditions weren’t met, all we would know is that our original set of criteria were flawed. If a theory is formed, and then a piece of evidence is found that disregards that theory, it is the theory that is disregarded, not the evidence. So when someone argues that something does not exist, they really argue that there is no evidence to prove that that something exists for now so its existence is highly improbable.

Similarly, consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion that set religious folk in outrage: you cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but you equally cannot prove that, somewhere in the stratosphere, undetectable to the human senses, there does not float a huge ball of spaghetti. Does that make Pastafarian-scepticism more of a leap of faith than acceptance of it? No, of course it doesn’t.

To say that atheism is a matter of faith is to claim that one needs to totally disprove something in order to believe that it is probably not true, even when there is little evidence to prove it is true. If one were to propose that Elvis Presley had risen from the dead, no one would be expected to provide evidence that there was no living Elvis Presley anywhere in the world to justify their stance that Elvis Presley probably isn’t anywhere in the world, except in his grave. In fact, the analogy is even more fitting because there are in fact occasional reported sightings of the King by those fans who just won’t let the mid-20^th Century go, just like believers and non-believers alike report being visited by the arch-angel Gabriel, or Jesus himself, all the time. The former does not stop non-Elvis-Presley-is-still-alive-ites escaping the ridicule that faces Elvis-Presley-is-still-alive-ites, so why should the latter mean that one has to disprove the existence of a God to be an atheist, and that one must accept that atheism is just another form of belief?

Essentially, atheism takes account of the scientific evidence that seems to suggest that an explanation of the nature of the universe does not require the inclusion of a theistic God. It follows that it is reasonable to believe there is probably no such God, at least until other evidence gives you good reason to amend such a belief. There is nothing wrong with believing that everything that science explains has been caused by an eternal, omnipotent being, as long as, in doing so, the believer accepts that this is a leap of faith: believing without evidence. Atheism is not faith: it disbelieves because there is no evidence.

Were the London riots good for the economy?

Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:17:00 +0100

As Tottenham High Street stood ablaze on that Sunday night in August, silhouettes flitted in and out of shattered shop fronts. Dozens of flat-screen televisions, laptops and games consoles were hauled from a demolished Currys. A nearby JD Sports was overrun by teenagers grabbing as many Nikes as they could. Looters had gutted an Orange store, picking up every Samsung Tablet, iPhone and Blackberry. Across the road, a jewellery shop had been uprooted with shattered glass strewn across the floor. No bookstores were harmed.

There were similar scenes across London. Pockets of violence had erupted from Croydon to Brixton to Enfield. On following nights, the violence spread across the country to include major cities such as Liverpool and Birmingham. Obviously, three nights of brick-throwing, shop-smashing and petrol bombs leave a considerable mark. The scale of damage was overwhelming: according to the Local Data Company, over one in ten retail and leisure businesses across the UK were affected to some degree by the riots. Tesco reported that 26 stores “suffered varying degrees of damage” whilst Sainsbury’s said 16 of its shops were severely affected. JD Sport lost £700,000 worth of stock across 16 outlets. Overall, the Association of British Insurers estimated that the cost of the damage may by north of £200 million. Most shops affected by the riots remained closed in the following days whilst other businesses in troubled areas decided to lock up early in order to send employees home safely. Moreover, customers were deterred by the fear of mugging and assault, especially in the evenings. Lost sales for retailers amounted to £80 million as vital trading hours were forgone. In a dismal economic climate, the riots could hardly have come at a worse time.

The riots also sparked fears over tourism and investment in the longer term. Images from the riots had been beamed across the world, undermining the country’s status as a safe and stable democracy. Even a small dent to tourism could deal a large blow to the UK economy: if only 1% of visitors cancel a trip to the UK, the tourism industry could face £520 million in lost revenues. Moreover, burned shopping centres and char-grilled high streets aren’t the most appealing neighbourhoods to those in search of prime real estate. The riots have definitely tarred London’s image as a safe haven for global investors. In the immediate aftermath, investors become especially wary of secondary locations – properties outside of central London. This worsened the outlook for Britain’s ailing high streets which were already plagued by empty shops and grappling with a difficult trading environment.

However, urban brands are built up over many years and it’s become clear that the riots have had only a limited impact on foreigners and the appetite for UK properties. Tour operators reported only 330 cancellations immediately following the riots in August. In fact, the UK received 30.8 million visits in 2011 according to statistics from VisitBritain, Britain’s national tourist agency. This was nearly one million more than a year earlier. This exceeded the increase of 300,000 visitors that the agency had expectedindicating the riots left most tourists unperturbed. The limited impact on tourism shouldn’t be surprising. Whilst the unrest was widespread, it largely focused on the less glamorous locations in the city away from the usual tourist hotspots. The property market demonstrated a similar resilience. The strong trading figures posted by Savills, a real estate adviser, for 2011 suggest that London has kept its image as a safe haven. Group revenue increased by 7% to £721.1 million and UK residential transaction profits rose by 11%, driven by strength in London. Furthermore, international retailers keen to get a toehold on major thoroughfares such as Oxford Street and Covent Garden have sent rents through the roof in central London. The capital seems to be back to business as usual.

Whilst the long term impacts of the riots have not materialised, we still can’t brush last summer’s riots beneath the carpet. In fact, a lot more than a dustpan and brush will be needed to clean up the rubble. Although listed companies should recover quickly, the majority of damage was inflicted on independent businesses which will struggle to stump the bill to reopen their doors. And whilst central London has recovered from the riots, communities on the fringes of the city will still suffer. However, in the midst of the reparations and rebuilding of lives, the riots have offered valuable lessons and opportunities for the UK economy to plough forward.

Firstly, the riots may have improved the UK’s international standings. Violence isn’t uncommon in major cities. According to the European Tour Operators Association “riots occur nearly everywhere,” from Los Angeles to Paris to Moscow. As a result, how a city or nation responds to unrest is far more important the fact that violence flared in the first place. So, although the Metropolitan police were overwhelmed during the first few nights of violence, they soon changed tactics and beefed up their presence on the ground – bringing in 16,000 police officers – to successfully contain the riots. Some courts worked around the clock to process all the arrests and charges. Moreover, the tough sentences meted out to looters have made clear the zero tolerance towards rioters last summer. Over 4000 people have now been arrested, of which roughly 2600 have been charged. And following on from last summer, the Met are training more officers in order to deal with riots. As a result, people may feel more confident about security and the protection of property rights in the future, encouraging more investment into the UK economy.

Secondly, the riots have brought the development of the UK’s poorer communities back onto the political agenda. The violence and unrest was as much a surprise to Britons as it was to the world. It seems the UK was far from the safe, stable and harmonious society it billed itself as. The riots began in some of the most deprived parts of London such as Hackney, Haringey and Lewisham. Those three boroughs also present some of the worst employment prospects in the UK. In Hackney, there are over 22 claimants per job vacancy. The situation is even worse in Haringey with almost 29 people chasing each vacancy. The education system in many Inner London boroughs has failed to provide students with the basic skills to succeed in the workplace. Primary schools in Haringey are the worst in Inner London and the standards in English and Maths have been falling. Whilst the criminal activity of looters is inexcusable, it’s clear that inadequate schooling, lack of opportunities and poor job prospects played a part in fomenting unrest.

Recognising the need to rebuild town centres and kickstart economic growth, Mayor Boris Johnson has committed £177 million to regenerate the capital. This includes the £70 million Regeneration Fund that will target the areas worst affected by last summer’s riots. More significantly, Michael Gove has mounted an attack on the last decade of education policy in light of the riots. The Education Minister has argued that a thicket of bureaucracy undermines teachers. Moreover, many teachers are ill-equipped and ill-prepared to teach in deprived areas. Academy status would provide teachers with greater control over their school, leaving them better set to educate their students.

However, Academy status is only one policy lever. The government will have to act on many more fronts in order to develop inner city communities. Many young people feel that they don’t have a stake in society and their voice falls on deaf ears. Although the conclusion from the Guardian’s interviews with 270 rioters should be taken with a pinch of salt, it’s clear that there are sketchy relations between the police and inner city communities. Some people believe that the police abuse their power in how they deal with ethnic minorities, use stop-and-searches and carry out raids. Last summer’s riots sprung from the peaceful protests against the Met’s shooting of Mark Duggan on 4 August 2011.

It’s unfortunate that inner city boroughs only gained attention after the violence of last August. But without the riots, the issues may have continued to be swept under the carpet. The success of Plan B’s latest album, Ill Manors, which deals with social alienation and the frustration of a generation of inner city youths, highlights the profound impacts of the London riots. Now, policy makers must grapple with some difficult questions. Redeveloping inner city locales will significantly benefit the UK economy. Educational reforms will take aim at the abysmal standards of numeracy and literacy whilst also dealing with the staggering situation of youth unemployment. A better educated and more hopeful workforce will attract capital to areas of the UK in dire need of investment. This is particularly relevant in the throes of a double-dip recession. Investment away from the City may also help rebalance the UK economy towards manufacturing – important if we’re not to leave all our eggs in one basket. Although the riots dealt a significant blow in the short-run, its long run implications will have a far more beneficial impact on the UK economy.

Biennio Rosso: Part of the ‘Propaganda Jigsaw’

Wed, 02 May 2012 21:55:03 +0100

Biennio Rosso (“Two Red Years”) showed the influence of socialism within Italy. Between the years 1919 and 1920 intense communistic activity occurred and within this time communism could well have taken hold. However the fear of communism was wide spread throughout Italy and the fascist response was both violent and thorough.

In 1917 the Russian revolution occurred and the fall of a large empire such as the Russian empire led to widespread fear of Bolshevist revolution throughout Europe. The revolution destabilised Russia and the uprising of the lower classes worried many of the elite in other countries. Italy did not want communism control and as such Mussolini could utilise Biennio Rosso as an example of the growing socialist threat. Indeed the leading political party was the PSI and despite this not matching the Bolshevism in Russia many feared similar consequences of political ideologies that were aligned on the same wing of orientation.

The Italians therefore feared a less radical form of communism than the Bolshevist ideals in Russia but many viewed socialism in a negative light and wanted to avoid it. As such Biennio Rosso worried many and the large number of strikes that took place between 1919-1920 supports the idea that a socialist revolution in Italy could well have taken place. However the fear established after the Russian revolution did lead to perhaps more opposition to the socialists. This does not diminish the support that the push for a socialist revolution received. In fact in 1920 the socialist movement reached its peak when half a million workers decided to run the factories by themselves. This also highlights the origin of support for the socialists and shows that the working class had a large influence throughout Italy when banded together under one move for change.

The period of time in which Biennio Rosso occurred and some historians argue that socialist revolution could have happened. However, the negotiation with Giolitti and the unemployment that existed weakened the foundations of socialism and the workers gradually withdrew becoming more disillusioned with Biennio Rosso after the promise of reform and improvements did come to fruition. The workers which supported the socialists subsequently sort alternatives to express their desire for political change and this was exploited by Mussolini who offered the change that appealed to the working classes.

Furthermore Mussolini exploited Biennio Rosso to suggest that he had saved Italy from Bolshevism and the propaganda which he produced surrounding this idea subsequently gained support from the elite who despised socialism. However the irony associated with this is the fact that Fascism entailed many similar ideas to socialism and it was these ideas which allowed Fascism to gain support from the working class. Biennio Rosso had also lost large amounts of support by the time that Fascism grew stronger and it is therefore debateable whether Mussolini did quell the socialist uprising.

It is also important to note that Socialism could well have come to power before considering that the PSI and the PPI had a majority in the 1919 elections and could have theoretically formed an alliance which ended the Liberal control. The coalition however did not occur however and the result was another weak liberal government which relied on an agreement between various parties to maintain power. This means that the socialists could not come to power and implement any ideas and the support they received subsequently declined thereafter. Despite this however in 1921 the communist party (PCI) did receive a few seats which could show a small lasting effect of Biennio Rosso.

Finally though the possibility of a socialist revolution allowed Mussolini to present an image of himself as the man who could save Italy and of course this allowed him to receive large scale support. Biennio Rosso can therefore also be seen as the final piece in Mussolini’s propaganda jigsaw which permitted him to gain power as a well supported ‘saviour’ of Italy. In addition it marked the end of Italian socialism and stopped any possibility of Bolshevism occurring within Italy. This did not mark the end of socialist ideas however as principles such as the ’8-hour’ working day existed in the fascist manifesto and Mussolini himself had begun as a supporter of socialism.

Maostalgia

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:22:00 +0100

A statue of Mao Zedong dominates the hustle and bustle of Tianfu Square in Sichuan, China. Amongst the buzz, a camera is whipped out and a group of Chinese tourists clamour over each other for the best spot next to the Chairman. But a peculiar irony pervades the scene: Gucci-clad, sporting Lacoste shirts and armed with the latest smartphones, this vignette of modern-day middle-class China seems far away from the vision of Mao.

Communist-hardliners and middle class tourists make for awkward bedfellows. Mao sought collective ownership, outlawed private property, shoehorned farmers into communal outfits, burnt thousands of books, halted migration and installed officials to reach into every nook and cranny of life. China’s modern middle class, however, own homes, choose their own professions, enrol in top universities, migrate from inland to the perkier coast and enjoy anonymity and privacy online.

But Mao is back in vogue: the airwaves in Chongqing are laced with the wisdom of the Great Helmsman; “Red” has been weaved into the names of hundreds of schools, hospitals and offices; and nothing seems to pluck at the heartstrings of the Middle Kingdom more than a cheerful dose of Red Songs.

So, why does the romanticism about Mao continue? That is the question Niall Ferguson grapples with in the second instalment of his new documentary series on the Middle Kingdom.

First, Ferguson focuses on Mao’s successes. When the communist party assumed control in 1949, Mao closed the chapter on a China ravaged by civil war, crippled by Japanese occupation and on the brink of starvation. He unified the populace around grand projects and set about rebuilding the greatness of China.

However, Mao simply led the nation from chaos to catastrophe. The party implemented the Great Leap Forward - a process of rapid industrialisation and collectivisation, aiming to transform China from an expanse of farmland into a modern communist society. The policy ended in 35 million deaths, many due to severe famines. “Gargantuan Fall Backward” seems a better fit, as Ferguson quipped.

Mao’s follow up, the Cultural Revolution, was even bolder. Large swathes of the Party elite were purged. Historical relics, cultural sites and religious shrines were destroyed. Youths were mobilised in the Red Guard. Families were torn apart as young urbanites were forced into rural agricultural work. And intellectuals were demonised and harassed.

Mao’s reign was disastrous. Misty-eyed sentimentalism can go far – but it would be impossible to scrub away the memory of a decade of bloody upheaval. So the Chairman’s popularity must have another source. Perhaps the fondness stems not from what Mao did but what he made possible.

The Great Helmsman revamped the old civil service: party cadre swept into every city, town and village across China. Membership of the Chinese Communist Party exploded and Mao soon wielded an army of administrators, supervisors and local champions. The Cultural Revolution excited a generation of the disillusioned youths, immersing them in the political scene.

Mao had built an unstoppable machine with the capacity to ignite panic or prosperity. Under the aegis of Mao, this system crippled China. When Deng Xiaoping took over the reins in 1978, he proved the right pair of hands to unleash the machine’s full potential. Deng fused Mao’s state goliath with a capitalist profit motive. The fairytale which follows is well known: China has grown from the doldrums of poverty into a global powerhouse.

Memories may fade but legacies endure. The last 30 years have been a slow catharsis for the Great Helmsman. It seems the turmoil under Mao has been overwhelmed by the prosperity he made possible. And while China’s economy continues to awe and inspire, the fond nostalgia for Mao doesn’t seem likely to depart any time soon.

China's Harmonious Society

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:30:00 +0000

Niall Ferguson’s new documentary series charting the rise of China welcomes viewers to the nuances of a system which has delivered unprecedented growth over three decades, pulled millions from abject poverty and poses as a counterpoint to the West’s liberal capitalism. In the first instalment, Ferguson casts his gaze upon China’s social philosophy and sets about trying to answer some interesting questions: How has China managed to prevent the intricate patchwork of society fraying? Why does the authoritarian vein runs so deep in the nation’s cultural cosmos? How will China’s leaders continue to rein in dissent in the future?

For the first question, the narrator turns to the great Chinese thinker, Confucius, who concerned himself with the development of people and society. Confucius argued for a “harmonious society” which would cultivate altruism, righteousness and humanism – qualities he deemed crucial to self-improvement. This vision has been the cornerstone of China’s modern pursuit of economic development.

But why is social stability so important? When trust trumps suspicion, people of different factions are more likely to engage in cooperation, forge trade links, share knowledge and work towards mutual benefit, not mutual destruction. Stability suggests a unity around common goals. Resultantly, politicians can corral society into forgoing immediate consumption for investment and the prospect of higher living standards later. Finally, in a modern state, a calm and reliable environment encourages foreign firms to set up shop in China. This opens the door for China to enter new industries.

When Rio Tinto invests in a new mine in Eastern China, Chinese workers are taught the most efficient mining processes, are exposed to the best management practices, and develop links with financial colossals such as Goldman Sachs or J.P. Morgan. Local mining firms gain these insights when Chinese workers leave the foreign venture. Foreign investment induces this transfer of knowledge, raising the standards of home-grown businesses.

So, how do the Chinese pursue stability? Ferguson suggests that the authoritarian flavour to China’s politics has long been a pillar of social stability. The narrator looks back to over two millennia ago, during the Warring States Period, when China was carved up between many kings and warlords. Qin Shi Huang, who succeeded in unifying China in 221 BC, consolidated power by centralising decision-making and maintaining an iron grip on the activities of the underlying states. The Qin Dynasty, and those which followed, then oversaw a period of sustained economic prosperity. But the power scuffles continued, punctuating China’s history with spats of bloodied violence.

In a country periodically blighted by social unrest – the White Lotus Rebellion, the Taiping Rebellion and the Tiananmen Square Protests – leaders are well aware of the restlessness swelling beneath the surface. To that end, officials have enshrined social stability above individual freedom. China now boasts a population of over 1.3 billion people and 56 officially-recognised ethnic groups with innumerable subdivisions as well as countless unrecognised groups. More so than ever, China’s leaders pine for social harmony as they manage the precarious balancing act of economic growth and social development.

The supply of social housing has underpinned a host of policies aimed at reducing urban poverty and tempering activism. China has tapped into its massive supply of labour by increasing migration from the agriculture heartlands to the booming manufacture sites on the coast. Importantly, this migration is temporary; itinerant workers are expected to return home regularly. This halts the accumulation of shanty towns which may otherwise fan the flames of unrest. And where homelessness has concentrated, authorities have financed huge renovation schemes.

However, rougher seas lay ahead. In a recent article, The Economist highlighted that the number of protests in China, and their scale, has been growing. Moreover, China’s leaders are less adept at tackling the burgeoning technology-savvy population, who are increasingly turning to the internet to voice their concerns. The number of users at Weibo, China’s answer to Twitter, has exploded to 250 million. In the absence of a free press, the internet has become the prime source of news. Whereas the state could successfully keep a lid on social unrest in the past, word now spreads like wildfire on social networks; “local protests or scandals to which few would once have paid attention are now avidly discussed by weibo users”. As news of protests becomes more widespread, more people are likely to down tools and raise their placards, knowing that thousands of others share their worries.

Some voices are tentatively calling for greater individual freedoms. In a new book, Zhang Musheng - a retired official - has pushed the idea of slivers of political reform to “defuse mounting economic, social and political strains.”

Beijing is at a difficult junction: a large reshuffling of the party elite is pencilled in for later this year. China’s new leaders will be keen to address the resentment towards widening income inequality. However, anonymity makes supervising the internet an entirely different beast to the press. Netizens are largely free to bellow without fear of reprisals. Though, new legislation may force users signing up to online services to use their real name. But these measures won’t hinder the internet as the major vehicle for news.

The Party cannot fall on its old vices of manipulating the media. In fact, the changing circumstances may force officials to focus on real development - tackling the cause of unrest and not the news of unrest. Part-and-parcel of this will be greater political freedoms. China’s new leaders will face a fresh canvas. It will take great vision and courage to land that first radical stroke.

We need to talk about Greece

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:48:00 +0000

The last few weeks have captured the maelstrom of European politics: brinkmanship from Greek politicians wrangling over another debt deal, a liberal flair from Mario Monti as he tries to rekindle the Italian economy and a clarion call from the Germans for greater “fiscal integration”.

The outrageous vetoes from China and Russia on Syria also served to remind Europe that it must meet its international obligations. Most notably, encouraging the continued democratisation of Arab states.

After the cacophony of the last month, perhaps we should take a step back and take stock of some of the finer details. Here, we will be analysing the latest Greek bailout.

(source)

At present, Greece’s debt is equal to 160% of GDP. That’s a pretty a hefty sum. But that shouldn’t come as a surprise to most homeowners – mortgages are usually multiples of household income. In the UK, the average house-price-to-income ratio for the last 30 years is 4. In Japan, debt-to-GDP is a whopping 225%, but poses less threat than in Greece. So why is Greece’s debt stirring such a raucous?

The problem isn’t so much the level, but the cost of “servicing” the debt. This is the annual cost of paying interest on outstanding debt. Mortgages may be well over 100% of household income but homeowners will also know that mortgages are the cheapest form of borrowing. In Greece, the interest rate on the government’s debt has reached frightening heights. This eats into the government’s finances. Moreover, there is an opportunity cost as money is diverted away from social infrastructure, such as education, towards paying off Greece’s lenders.

Greece’s situation is unsustainable. Athens has previously gone, cap in hand, to the rest of the EU when it could not meet its repayments. That was Greece’s first bailout in April 2010. Two years on, Europe is thrashing out the details of a third bailout.

Along with the tranche of funds from the Troika of the European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund, the Greek economy has been forced to swallow tough austerity measures. This has sparked the fierce riots running through the veins of Greece.

Finally, the latest deal would see private creditors accept a cut in their holding of Greek government bonds, reducing the absolute level of debt. Though, the current round of cuts runs deeper than before. Investors will lose 70% on the value of their bonds.

Lucas Papedemos has cut a calm, calculated and - most importantly - reliable figure at the helm of Greece. However, his technocratic government was established only temporarily after the erratic departure of the previous Prime Minister, George Papandreou.

The centre-right New Democracy party are likely to take power in the upcoming election. Their effusive leader, Antonis Samaras, will not shy away from some hardball with Europe. Whereas the technocratic government was an outfit for Brussels to quickly administer austerity, any elected leadership will have to answer to the people. However, the New Democracy party have promised to continue the reform program if they win. But the Greek people’s tolerance has long been passed.

Last year had been dominated by the fiscal hawks, who immediately took an axe to government finances in response to the debt crisis. However, the worsening situations in Portugal, Spain and Greece have rebuffed the conservatives. The IMF, too, have changed tact. To escape the crisis, policy makers must be pragmatic. Measures that encourage growth will be crucial.

After the nadir of 2011, the scene seems ripe for further tragedy: a struggling economy, the disillusioned youth, the burning silhouette of Athens and a lack of political backbone. But after the elections, the Greek people will once again take charge of the script for their crisis-worn nation. Hopefully, the writers aren’t on strike.

Why we ████ ██ █████

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:22:00 +0000

The internet is undoubtably a valuable resource. It promotes global transactions across nations whom otherwise would be completely unable to trade, it allows us to keep up to date with all of the latest news and media. But most crucially it allows services such as Tumblr, Flickr and Youtube to thrive.

Over the past 5 years, the internet has had a growth spurt in that both the quality and quantity of content has increased. In August 2011, there were at least 6 billion photos on flickr, with that number expected to rise. Since its creation in 2005, Youtube has accrued over 500 million users, each of whom create content for the website. In 60 days more content is uploaded to Youtube than in 60 years of American television.

These websites do not just allow creativity to prosper, it provides a community whereby people can create engaging content as a hobby, side interest or viable job. Nowadays many up-and-coming musicians use Youtube as their ‘record’ label. It is far easier to create music, engage an audience and receive feedback via Youtube than with a record label. This has inspired many indie record labels such as DFTBA which was awarded ‘Online record label of the year’ by Mashable.com for 2011. The most prominent artist they feature is Alex Day, a musician based solely on Youtube who recently acheived number 4 in the UK christmas charts AHEAD of Coldplay. There was no mainstream record label, no advertising or any external financial input, only his 500,000 viewers on Youtube buying and sharing his song.

The internet however is not without its problems. The power of the internet is vast but has also led to piracy. As internet bandwidth speeds increase, the ease with which a file can be transferred is staggering. Unfortunately the fine line between sharing and illegally spreading has also become blurred. What two friends consider sharing is what a corporation considers theft. The regular sharing of files is considered as lost revenue for the music and film industry. Although it is near-impossible to accurately measure the total costs of piracy, it is estimated to be in the billions.

Essentially this is what drives Stop Online Piracy Act. The companies who were losing money decided to band together and fight piracy, but in the most pathetic and futile way possible: giving the American government power over the internet. The companies supporting the bill includes some of the biggest media groups in the USA: the Motion picture association of America, Sony music Entertainment and the NFL. A more comprehensive list can be found here. Instead of working towards a new age of media they have decided to remain in the stone age.

Irrespective of the elephant in the room of giving a country who will allow Sarah Palin a chance at a presidential role the power to decide what ‘is a detriment to the intellectual property of America’, many companies have wrongly sought to fight what could be a new method of sales.

Since 2010 the Indian Premier League has allowed full matches to be streamed live on Youtube. As the online service is available worldwide, viewing figures for the IPL have soared. Accordingly, revenues for both Youtube and the IPL have increased: advertising companies are willing to pay large sums to tap into the large audiences the IPL matches draw to Youtube.

Equally, unknown artists could use the internet to share and distribute their breakthrough single to reach out to more people. If people like the song, they can then purchase future albums in support of the artist. Consequently this promotes higher quality music because if the breakthrough single is poor then the artist fades away into anonymity, whereas good music will ensure future sales.

Despite all the negative media attention, SOPA is not completely ridiculous. There are sections which do deserve to be implemented such as those which remove websites which sell fake drugs, and websites whose sole purpose is to release malware. However the proposition to remove access to a website or shut the website down entirely based on the subjective view of copyright violation from an American perspective cannot pass.

To put it simply with SOPA in force, I would not be able to use the photo at the top and I would not be allowed to provide the links I have. But lastly and most crucially, I would not have this website on which to post this piece.

Tunisia, one year on

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:33:23 +0000

The fervent excitement as Tunisians approached the ballot boxes last October was explosive. The elections heralded the start of a democratic Tunisia after President Ben Ali stood down on 14 January 2011. Many onlookers hoped that those scenes would be repeated across the Arab world in the coming months.

To some extent they were correct: neighbouring Egypt toppled President Hosni Mubarak in a similar fashion; a deal was brokered late last year for President Saleh to step down in Yemen; and Gaddafi’s regime fell after NATO intervention in the Libyan Civil War.

However, having thrown off the shackles of authoritarian rule, it was hoped that economic liberalisation and prosperity would swiftly follow. But, as the Economist reports, “some analysts reckon that Tunisia’s unemployment rate, now around 16%, will rise to 19% by the end of this year”.

This is hardly what protestors had envisaged. The revolution had sprung from the long running economic malaise in Arab nations: food inflation was running into double digits, unemployment was rising and corruption was rife. Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation, which sparked the revolution, was in response to local officials and police who harassed him, confiscated his produce and made it near-impossible to earn a decent living for his young family. This episode highlighted how the state’s iron grip on the economy was leading to unfair treatment, escalating inequality and fewer liberties.

If conditions do not improve soon, many Tunisians may become disillusioned with their country’s trajectory towards democratic capitalism. In fact, the common euphoria may dissolve into sectarian strife if politicians prove incompetent in stimulating jobs or distributing the fruits of growth equitably.

The Path to Prosperity

Yet, Tunisia - more so than most other Arab nations - is well placed to enter a phase of solid growth. Faced with a debt crisis in the 1980s, the government worked on a massive overhaul of the economy: tariffs were torn down, competitive forces were promoted and the state pruned its expenditure in order to rein back a crippling debt-to-GDP figure. And in the nineties, Tunisia engaged into trade agreements with the EU to encourage greater cross-border trade.

All this meant that Tunisia ranked 40^th in the 2011-2012 global competitiveness report from the World Economic Forum – above European nations such as Italy (43^rd) and Portugal (45^th), and well ahead of neighbouring Egypt (94^th).

Before the crisis, the country benefitted greatly from a thriving tourist industry focused on golden beaches and a rich cultural heritage. In fact, tourism represents a sizable chunk of the economy at about 6%. Income from tourism had reportedly declined by 38.5% as foreigners avoided the protests and unrest that continued throughout 2011.

The newly elected Ennahda party has tried to act on this: they organised a forum with industry leaders in order to find areas for development. However, the government should more importantly aim to assure foreigners that they are committed to continuing Tunisia’s secular tradition. Much of Tunisia’s tourism originates from Europe, hence maintaining western values is fundamental to ensuring this sector’s continued success and the jobs which it creates.

The Media have grossly hyped up the fears of edgy Islamist parties sweeping to power in many Arab states. Leaders know that the dynamic and highly-mobile youths who drove the protests would be unlikely to abandon the freedoms they had built up over the last twenty years of secular rule.

Instead, Ennahda is rightly looking towards cracking down on corruption and improving internal security. As the BBC reports, voters were not attracted to the party’s religious credentials but the fact that it represented “the most credible repudiation of the corruption and venality of the old dictatorship”.

The State and the Economy

During the last few decades, many Arab nations adopted some flavour of state capitalism, but not the sort that had spurred on China or other success stories. Arab governments have proven incompetent at the helm of the economy through the introduction of suffocating regulations and repeated attempts and failures to pick national champions. Corruption and inequality was rife; under Hosni Mubarak, large firms in Egypt were seen as ‘dens of patronage’ – those in favour of the regime would be parachuted into top executive roles.

Therefore, reforming the state as to firmly uphold the law and allow private sector competition will be crucial to Ennahda as they reset the social contract between the Tunisian people and government.

So, once again Tunisia will be in the spotlight. Just as Tunisians led a region through political revolution, hopefully it can blaze a path of economic success for others to follow too.

Vickers Banking Report Announced

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:14:00 +0000

Vickers Banking Report Announced

In 2008, the UK government spent $2.4 trillion in other words 94.4% of GDP on bailing out banks as a result of the credit crisis. What was the cause of this according to the government? Not enough regulation on banks resulting in its eventual collapse. Today the Vickers report announced reforms increasing regulation on banks by “ring-fencing” retail banking from investment banking, ultimately hoping for a banking crisis like that of 2008 not to happen again.

Furthermore the banking report proposed a major strategy to change the Royal Bank of Scotland, a bank that required major funds from the government in 2008 ( the UK government owns 84% of RBS stock). The Vickers report proposed to reduce the size of RBS investment banking sector making it more focused on UK companies rather than abroad, after all it is for the common interest of the government.

The cost of these reforms is growth and profit for banks. Mr. Osborne himself said the changes would cost the industry £3.5bn and £8bn a year, at worst even £9.5bn a year. Are these reductions in our most significant industry necessary, especially in these times of stagnant economic growth? Not necessarily. The banking reforms will hopefully improve public confidence in the banking industry as the money of individuals and businesses can now be safer knowing that their money is no longer as vulnerable to the risks of investment in these times of economic uncertainty. The reduced risk of another banking collapse also far outweighs this cost to the finance industry; it will prevent further possible bailouts that have plunged the UK debt to what it is today.

But is it enough?

Lydia Prieg, finance researcher at the New Economics Foundation, said the reforms would not protect the taxpayer from any future banking crisis saying:

“Even an outright separation between retail and investment banking, which is not what we are getting, would leave individual banks with asset ratios equal to approximately 100% of the UK’s GDP, ie that are too big to fail.”

The ownership of banks is great and the Vickers banking report alone will not be able to make a secure banking system quite yet.

In addition, what banks need is more competition in the retail sector, only then can the country see that banks are shifting away from the risky, gambling associated sector that is investment towards the safer and sustainable retail banking. There will still be scepticism among consumers; a lot of work is still need to be done.

Overall, the Vickers banking report is still just one step towards the secure banking system that the government aims to achieve. For consumers it is a huge step has been taken in terms of confidence and security. For the banking industry, the future is dim and profits are now being recalculated; bank stocks fell by 0.5% after the announcement of the report.

Obama, the Euro Crisis and Re-Election

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:41:00 +0000

From the op-eds of the Financial Times, Edward Luce smartly summed up the significance of the Euro fiasco to the Obama administration: “if Europe fails to stave off collapse, Mr Obama’s re-election prospects will be downgraded to junk”.

But why is Europe so significant to the USA? The euro area’s share of America’s overseas sales has declined to 13% from 19% back in the 90s. Moreover, having recently entered talks to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership along with Japan and other south-eastern Asian economies, the USA’s trade will focus far less on Europe in the medium to long term.

So if Europe is not significant in terms of trade, what about the continent’s hold on US banks? Early in November, Fitch, a ratings agency, reported that the US banks’ holding of precarious European debt posed a “serious risk”.

In the case of a default, Obama would be sprung into a very difficult situation: the Occupy Wall Street movement has made it clear that the public are loathe to bailing out another reckless bank but the president would undoubtedly remember the calamity after the fall of the Lehman Brothers in 2008.

It is unfortunate - especially so for a president who had embodied so much hope in 2008 - but activists from both the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements pine for a style of American leadership that is no longer possible.

The Washington Consensus no longer holds much sway in the international community - especially when the country is barely limping along with a staggering 8.6% unemployment rate. The US can no longer spend its way out of troubled times. And the US cannot control the Euro crisis just as it will struggle to contain China in the coming decade.

Even if Europe’s leaders manage to navigate through the murky depths of the crisis, unless there is a strong showing from the White House in the proceedings, disgruntled american voters are very likely to plump for whoever may receive the Republican nomination next November.

Education, Education, Education

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:34:32 +0000

In the UK, where tuition fees have risen dramatically from around £3000 to £9000, resentment for the coalition has grown similarly. But can the state afford to keep subsidising the cost of degree-level education? Why does the state even become involved? And could the private sector offer any alternatives?

Bulging Government Debts

Western governments expanded their spending in the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2007-08, taking up the slack from weak consumer demand. However, the economic climate remains precarious. And the big stimulus packages which leaders had bet on now leave them grossly over-stretched.

At this time, most policy makers would have expected to be well into a healthy recovery. This would raise tax receipts, bringing governments’ balance sheets back into order. Unfortunately, we are still stuck in these economic doldrums with anaemic growth across the developed world and the continuing euro saga. All of this has highlighted how governments are spending well beyond their means at a significant cost to future growth prospects.

George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer in the UK, has reduced government investment into tertiary education, leading to higher tuition fees. This has caused considerable angst amongst students, leading to the severe riots earlier in the year.

The problems with high tuition fees

Higher fees means those from poorer backgrounds are less able to benefit from a university education. Moreover, those who do go on to study at university-level will be shackled to a massive debt burden for a significant proportion of their adult lives.

Especially after the housing bust, prospective home owners will be asked to place a much greater down payment. With such large student debts, many young people will struggle to find good mortgage terms and subsequently get their foot on the housing ladder. As a result, some economic commentators have raised concerns that in the medium-term, people will be less affluent than the previous generation - breaking what many people see as the nation’s social contract.

Hiking tuition fees will exacerbate the rich-poor divide. Students from wealthier households would be able to afford the greater cost of university and benefit from the higher salary later. This contrasts to poorer students who, deterred from higher education due to the enormous costs, would earn far lower salaries than their more affluent counterparts.

Let the private sector step in

The main reason that governments become involved in improving the education of their citizens is that more knowledgeable, evaluative and critical individuals offer positive externalities - that is, benefits to wider society along with the individual who receives higher-education. More educated individuals earn more, providing larger tax receipts which governments can use to improve social infrastructure; graduates are also meant to be an innovative bunch, hopefully providing new goods and services that improve our quality of life.

Although the government may cut spending on education, that doesn’t mean that the provision of education at a higher level will fall. I propose that the private sector step in to sponsor individuals. Firms would be willing to support students if they assume a job at the company after their education or training.

This would allow poorer, but still able, students to benefit from degree-level education. Moreover, it would allow the supply of graduates to better meet the demand of businesses, providing a more productive labour force. Especially now when there is a massive shortfall in the supply of graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics degree, private firms would offer sponsorships drawing capable students to courses which are in actual demand.

Allowing the private sector to assume some of the roles of the state in providing education resources is certainly an untested policy area in recent years. Perhaps now, when governments are on the brink of bankruptcy, encouraging such schemes - which would ease the pressure on the state - has very little to lose.

Where next for Libya?

Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:52:45 +0100

17 February 2011. After revolutionist movements in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya enters its movement starting a civil war that would either progress or destroy the country. 20 October 2011. Gaddafi killed as he tries to escape from Sirte sparking mass jubilation and celebration.

His death serves as a symbol to show that any remnants of the old regime are gone and do not belong in the modern world. With Gaddafi’s death, his supporters should diminish, left with nothing to fight for. Had he remained alive, it would have resulted in a sense of incompleteness. A part of the old regime would still remain. However the death of the dictator is nowhere near the end.

Whilst Gaddafi himself may be gone there are still small groups of his supporters scattered around. It will be important to integrate these people into the new society to avoid further tension and possible cause for future conflict. Power will need to be shifted away from guns and towards elected officials. In the formidable circumstances Libya has performed admirably in establishing a National Transitional Council (NTC).

However there will be concerns about the NTC following the execution of Gaddafi and one of his sons. In a country which wants to be founded on rights and justice, the decision to kill Gaddafi in the manner they did only brings them down to his level. The inability to carry out justice or to take a trial to show the world that Libya is moving forward will be a concern particularly in the west. It is quite likely that seeing his empire destroyed would be a far greater punishment than death to Gaddafi.

Despite the euphoria of freedom, the country is still in a strenuous position. The wreckage will need to be cleared and the economy will need to be addressed. The foreign labour and investment is unlikely to return for a few years. Currently, there is also significant economic uncertainty within the Libyan population. The instability is likely to inhibit growth.

Most of the work has only just begun. A new democratic government needs to be instated and the politicians need to gain the trust of the public. The NTC hopes to establish a government by 2012.

The uprising may have taken a mere 7 months to complete but the revolution will take years. It is important for Libya to leave the memories of Gaddafi behind and move forward into democracy as fluently as possible.

But since no-one knows how long it will take to address each of these major problems, one question remains: Where next for Libya?

Egypt's path to democracy

Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:08:00 +0100

The success so far of the Arab Springs has been inspirational - it has shown the power of ordinary citizens to seriously influence the politics of their countries. However, the real crux of the matter is whether or not these countries can convert the success of having deposed dictators into a path to real democracy. And only after this can the Arab Spring be called a triumph.

Though, the Egyptian army’s questionable approach to preparing for elections and the drafting of a new constitution has raised some serious concerns. If we take a look back to when the army previously took hold in the 1950s, they promised a quick return to democratic rule. But the following decades were far from that.

Protesters have been it clear that they still reserve a deep cynicism towards the army. This has been worsened by that fact that many military figures who were involved in the decades of autocrat rule under Hosni Mubarak have largely escaped convictions. Moreover, the continuation of emergency law has made it extremely difficult for civilians to use the justice system against some of the atrocities of the army both past and present.

However, these qualms aren’t so warranted when we consider that the conditions of the 1950s were very different to the present; no longer is the West willing to accept autocrats for increased influence in the Middle East. Instead, the continuous pressure from developed nations on repressive states means that a democratic outcome becomes far more realistic.

That isn’t to say the Egyptian army are completely correct. Egypt and Tunisia are the models on which the wider Arab Spring is based, and therefore the army’s sluggishness may lead to a lack of belief that protests have been successful. However the West should not get too involved. The most important feature of egypt’s transition was that it was completely engineered from within the country, and that is what inspires most other protestors in other nations. So once again, the focus returns to the Egyptian people who must continue to show their hunger for change.

Poverty in the USA

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:57:02 +0100

The shocking data published by the US Census Bureau on 13th September 2011 revealed that 15.1% of the population were under the poverty threshold in 2010. This has only added to the angst felt by President Obama as he struggles on several fronts to steady his ailing campaign for re-election. However, when the Eurozone is teetering on collapse, the Republicans remain recklessly obdurate on the deficit, and economic growth falters, we all expect the figure to force some hard rhetoric before being swiftly swept under the carpet.

Perhaps it isn’t an immediate concern, but such a high level of poverty is unacceptable - especially in a “developed” nation such as the USA. Setting aside the moral arguments to act against poverty, it is in all Americans’ best interests economically to reduce the figure. A greater poverty rate suggests more Ameirans are claiming benefits. And as we all know after weeks of furious debates between the Republicans and Democrats, Washington is spending well beyond its means. Therefore spending cuts or tax hikes are likely to ensue in order to correct the balance, leading to a lowering of all individuals’ living standards.

Beyond the government, poverty is damaging to the long-term productivity of the economy. Poor health and sub-standard education are usually part and parcel of poverty because households are unable to afford healthy foodstuffs, or move to areas with better quality schooling. Consequently, the quality of labour falls as individuals have less “human capital” and suffer from illness more often. And since the poverty rate is so high, this loss of productivity represents a large proportion of the future workforce.

The simplest solution to many of President Obama’s problems is sustainable job creation. This involves attracting investment based on the USA’s long-term advantages rather than temporary or near-sighted factors such as low interest rates or subsidies. Acting on poverty now will help towards making the USA’s labour force more desirable to businesses and investors. Besides, reducing poverty is a must if the government are to make spending more sustainable in the future as this would reduce stress on Medicaid and incease revenues.

Although Obama has recently unveiled his new plan to stimulate job-creation, it suffers from being overtly short-sighted. Just like Obama’s previous stimulus package, I don’t believe that the new plan will produce enough jobs to justify it’s massive bill. Instead, if Obama was to channel spending towards reducing the poverty level by improving the quality of schooling in deprived areas, funding training for the long-term unemployed, encouraging healthy living and providing some childcare support so that households can increase their earning potential.

Moreover, the total benefit of improving the supply-side of the economy will far exceed the initial government investment as there is no lack of possiblie funding. Internationally, venture capital firms have raised enormous sums and are looking to invest in countries with a positive long-term outlook. My proposed plan would reduce some uncertainty surrounding taxes as a large factor of increasing spending currently, Medicaid, would be restrained and revenues would rise due to greater earnings. Moreover, the USA’s workforce remains more highly skilled than in emerging economies. In addition to its (comparative) political stability, the new American model would prove particularly potent.

10 Years on from 9/11/2001

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:20:00 +0100

One of the most famous and deadly terrorist attacks on the western world, the fall of the Twin Towers has been viewed as one of the most important and widely discussed event since the turn of the millennium.

The consequences of the attacks have been far reaching and serious. It was the trigger of the United State’s declaration of war against the Islamist extremist group Al Qaeda in the Middle East. That war has also been the catalyst for the July 2005 London Underground bombings as well as the November 2003 Istanbul attacks. Indeed, the world has suffered as a result of the 9/11 attacks. The chain of events lead all the way to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda earlier in the year, in May, with the US and the UK being the main front against the still ongoing war against the terrorist group.

There have of course, been many conspiracy theories about the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that they were in fact planned by the US Government and had been deliberately planned to justify war against the Middle East, where there a rich abundance of crude oil. Some also believe that the US Government had knowledge of these attacks but deliberately failed to take action and prevent the disaster.

And it was some disaster, on the last count, nearly over 2,800 people died as 4 United Airplanes were hijacked by Al Qaeda terrorists. The first of which crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at approximately 8:44 in the morning, and the North Tower burns for over 100 minutes before collapsing at approximately 10:28. The second airplane crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03, burning for nearly an hour before collapsing at 9:59. The third airplane hit the Pentagon at 9:37, burning a portion of the complex. Each attack brought severe loss of life, not least the civilians aboard each of the airplanes, and while the 4th airplane brought no further attacks, it crashed and all passengers were killed.

The immediate aftermath on the US was profound. The US Economy went into shutdown, with the stock exchange closing for 6 days, with the estimated cost set at $3.3 trillion, with an economic loss of $105 billion. The world mourned as New York began to recover from the massive attacks, as deaths were not limited to Americans alone. To date, people from 115 countries died at from the attacks at the, World Trade Center, and this includes the passengers that were killed on the hijacked airplanes.

Of course, the most obvious damage is all too clear to see when one looks at the World Trade Center. Rebuilding will take many years, and while the US continues its war against terrorism, people will look back and see that this event was the cause of it all as well as the start of the chain of events that has led to more terrorism and more deaths.