jeudi 25 février 2010

The Greek euro Crisis ...?

The problem evoked by the Greek financial crisis is not due to differences in the structure of economies ... the same differences exist within the United States, and for example within the UK ,as any comparison between Vermont, New Mexico, and Manhattan; or betweenn the Highlands of Scotland, Cardif, and Central London will reveal, Contrasts in the structure of regional ecoomies is inevitable unless you are considering a national economy as small as that of Monacco or Luxembourg.

The crisis is not therefore caused by diversity alone, rather the difficultes result from the absence of a single monetary authority. In the construction of European Institutions to control the euro, european politicians, once again, sought compromise rather than coherence. They avoided the issures surrounding the creation and administration of a Eropean Monetary Authority with the centralized powers required to perfom its assigned tasks and objectives. Consequently, they failed to create the decision-making structures capable of compelling states to respect normal budget and banking rules ...i.e. you don't borrow or spend more than you can afford.

The difficulties faced by governments and nations that fail to respect this elementary rule will, as in before theexistence of the euro, face grave political and economic consequences. Even with an inadequate instiutional structure, the euro will reduce some of the risks that national currencies experienced in the long years of serial attacks on the exchange rates of relatvely isolated national currencies,

The real hope is tha the Greek euro crisis, and the menace of subsequent speculation or difficulties with the economies of larger countries, will force european politicians to create institutions with the required strength to insist that national govenments, and entire nations, repect the immutable fact that no slight of hand will permit nations or govenments to consume more, in the long run, than they produce.

Pessimists should note that in every crisis Europe is left with the choice between disaster and facing up to unpleasant facts. Increasingly there is the need to coordinate and enforce common policies in the intrests of all. The progress of european institutions over the last half century have illustrated this in extremis growth of institutions and the delegation of power by national actors to central authorities time and time again . Indeed, whenever the politicians have been confronted by their inability to influence threatening world, or even european events, they have fondit necessary to combine and act together.

The only real question is how far things have to deteriorate before stumbling, short-sighted, national politicians, and their electorates face up to the inevitable consequences of limited means. In the present crisis, however little some european decision-makers may like the european solutions available, the political and economic costs of failing to extend mutual assistance and the imperative need to make the irresponsible toe the monetary and fiscal line, are too great for the euro and its monetary institutions to be allowed to fail.

Finally, and long past the most appropriate time, Europe will be forced to make the necessary choices to save the euro. Speulators beware! The euro is condemned to survive, and to be strengthened.

mercredi 17 février 2010

The Impact of Social Media









One of the difficulties individuals will experience as a consequence of an enhanced ability of individuals and organtions to communicate directly in Social Media is that misinformation, deliberate and unintended, will only be restrained by an informed public capable of rejecting falsehood and illusion. The danger is that stand alone individuals are incapable of resisting the pressures of conformity, fashion, and recieved views.

Social networks offer great potential for connecting individuals with common interests. But it is not clear that they will contribute to the quaity of the information communicated. Twitter has already been accused of facilitating the exchange of vast quantities of trivial non-consequential messages. The profiles shown on social networks may be, or become, similarly loaded with illusions and trivia. And the popularity of one network over another may not in itself be an indication of quality.

The majority is rarely a good guide to media quaity or veracity. The speedy spread of false rumours, calimony and propaganda go hand in hand with the rejection of science based knowledge, the propogation of fanaticism, and religious bigotry. The risk is that the expression of these weaknesses in human nature will overtake the virtues in the absence of editorial boards and trained experts reviewing the quality of the information posted. Yet the importance of a social networks for circumventing illegitimate authority can also be considered, in the right circumstances, as its greatest strength, as for example in Iran or when used by socially valuable whistle blowers.

There is, however, a need to recognise that social networds and the games evironments combined with the use of avatars increasingly permit individuals to create a virtrual identity and experience a virtual reality that has little to do with their real pesonalities, their work, or their real life. Social websites provide another, and possibly more intense
way foir individuals to avoid facing up to the social and economic consequences of thier own choices.
One thing is certain, henceforth we operate in a stucturally different social environment. Communication across the planet, open access to vast quantities of information, much of it hopelessly useless, uninformed, and manipulative are changing the nature of the world we see and experience. Our perceptions of the world are changed by the nature of the media available, and we are confronting a jugernaut of exposure to self-described individuals. Self-serving individual or brand descripotions may or may not improve the human being and/or his society. That is, in itself an interesting question.

Unless individuals can be induced to be sufficiently informed, skeptical, and cynical, their viewa, tastes, and the expression of their personalities will be unduely influenced by self proclaimed prophets and those who seek not to inform but to manipulate.

Unfortunately individuals, advertisers, and propagandists have one thing in common. They seek the means and information that Social Networks offer to enhace their ability to influence others. They are rarely interested in propagating the whole truth, rather they seek to manipulate. And Social Networks may well, on balance, strengthen the hand of the ill-informed and manipulative rather than the considered expert or honest. Nor is it clear that Social Media favour rational argumenr over emotive prejudice. Social Media are shaping our experice and perception of self and our percieved environment, whether for good or ill remains to be seen. Our only protection against the effects of Social Media is an enquiring mind backed by scientific skepticism. Fortunately the rise of Social Media has also led to the diminished influence of some of the worst sources of misinformation, just as it has also strengthened others. let us be optimistic. The struggle with and within Social Media is is a prolongation of the age old struggle between good and evil, education and ignorance, rationality and prejudice.

Posted by Rustylink

samedi 13 février 2010

Orrwellian Future?

Orwell underestimated the extent to which individuals could be subverted and moulded rather than just simply imposed upon. The new digital technologies can be uised for heightened direct control of an individual's access to information and an enhanced ability for authority to supervise and observe 'deviant' behavior. They potentially, if control is centralised, be used to manage both current news and recorded historiory.

Yet at the same time the ability to indulge in 'pirate transfers' of files and data in easily hidden, transmitted, and transported forms ... ranging from CDs, the Internet itself (even if in a doded form_, to flash memory and various hard disks are decisively sabotaging the ability of authority to control the storage and distribution of 'subversive' (perhaps accurate) information.

In the Orwellian world of the future there was no hope for purveyors of subversive information. Today the balance may be swaying but the ability of the individual to store and transmit huge quantities of data with his own private resources weighs largely in favor of a more open society prevailing.

Each individual is potentially an uncontrolled data node. The ease of recording the present and transmitting it to the future for comparison makes much of the news management of '1984' implausible or impossible.

Digital communications may yet prove able to assist those who wish to save us from our own worst authoritarian/Orwellian tendencies.

mercredi 3 février 2010

Greece out performs Britain and the United States

The Economist reports as a proportion of GDP Britain and the United States have budget deficits larger than Greece. Makes you think; particularly if you also note the deprecation in the value of the dollar and sterling in terms of the euro. Indeed, taking account relative euro exchange stability, in comparison Greece's performance almost looks as if it deserves praise !!

Digital Piracy: A crime?

The definition of piracy has evolved as information technologies impact the established order of society. Let me explain. The act of copying a recording is construed as a crime by the holders of copyright music only when they ar threatened by the ability of the individual consumer to make perfect copies of recordings. When only imperfect copies were possible, usig analogue techniques, copying was not regarded by holders of copyright as a crime ... i.e. it was not considered damaging to theiri interests.

Now that perfect digital copying has been generalized, and only at that point in the evolution of copying technology, the action of copying has been regarded by some as immoral or as a crime... more specifically regarded as a criime by the holders of copyright. But, unsurprisingly, not so regarded by the happy copiers and distributers of copied materials. The definition of crime is a refection, therefore, of the vested interests being defended. The act of digital copying and distribution, particularly when possible at a low cost, and only then, becomes a crime. Why?

Evidently, we one need to examine the morality of the action of copying. Does the use of a cheap more perfect method of copying render the activity immoral or was it in fact always immoral An alternative is argue that the context rather than the action of copying determines the morality of the action of copying. Of course another solution is to argue that the definition of crime has noting whatever to do with morality. and that the evolving legal definition of 'crime' reflects the relative power in society of the various organized groups, organizations, and individuals involved. Thus the definition of crime necessarily evolves as a function of the shifting balance of legal power in a society ... a balance in turn influenced by the availability and take up of new technologies.

Thus crime definition evolves as a function of the take up of new technologies and the consequent evolution of social structures and attitudes. The roots of the definition of crime stemming from a complex relationship between historically acquired positions of legal, financial and cultural power on the one hand and the evolution a differential rates of asopting and making efffective use of new technologies.

If we avoid using the emotionally provocative terms 'crime' or 'moral' and concentrate on the most economically productive use of copyright material that can be distributed by electronic means. Even today, intellectual effort is not necessarily rewarded financially as any player of chess can testify. He has no legal right to control the distribution of the game he created in collaboration with his opponent. Yet if he had used the same time to create a song .... his rewards might have been considerable.

The point is: piracy of chess creations has long been habitual, while it is a new experience for music files, CDs and DVDs to be commonly pirated. The former is at present legal, the later is illegal. The classification is purely arbitrary, and is the result of subjective judgement by society.

Nevertheless, attitudes are changing. Given the additional human satisfaction that can be realized by the free distribution of digitalized materials it is by no means certain that society will continue to allow increasingly redundant commercial structures to obstruct the free distribution of digital files. Such files include those involving recorded music, films and video materials, and written texts such as books or the future equivalent of news media. Alternative means of financing the produces of such material will have to be found. Certainly, many individuals write or play for pleasure, satisfaction or status. Others may find financial reward from advertisers and sponsors seeking prestige or purveying advertising and public relations materials.

In short, given the economic advantages that can now be obtained from freely copying digital media,we will have to find another economic models for sourcing and digital books, music and video materials. The sooner acceptance of the reality and the advantages of digital piracy are recognized, the sooner the world's poor will have the same access as the rich to the pleasures and advantages of free access to digitally distributed material. There is no human satisfaction to be found in the creation and enforcing of 'legal rights'. Indeed from an economic perspective the charges inflicted on consumers of digital media constitute an unnecessary burden, restriction and cost.

US attitudes and the Morality of Iranian Nuclear Activities

Iran is deliberately taunting the United States and other defenders of the status quo. But, those determining United States policies in the Middle East should note that Iranians are not illegally occupying and settling territory in defiance of UN resolutions. In the recent past Iran was invaded by Iraq. In contrast Israel invaded the Lebanon and inflicted disproportionate violence on GAZA . So why should Iran's possession of a nuclear potential be regarded as a uniquely dangerous threat? Undoubtedly Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would be inconvenient for all who are interested in Iran remaining relatively weak.

Potentially, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would also initiate an arms race and destabilize a region important for western interests. Nevertheless, it is difficult to argue that Iran's possession would be uniquely immoral or more dangerous than Israel's has been. Nor in this case can it be argued that possession of nuclear weapons in the hands of a democracy confer any moral advantage.

There not much to choose between the morality of an apartheid regime and a religious oligarchy. As for wiping the map clean, what is the effect of Israel inflicting settlement,and other associated policies, on Palestinians in parts of East Jerusalem and the west Bank. The real threat to peace and stability in the region is Israel's illegal occupation policies and inflexibility, facilitated by American support and subsidies, and Arab reactions rather than Iranian nuclear activities.