Japan’s long suicide continues. The Japanese stock index, the Nikkei fell 3.6% today.
The ‘strong words’ from the Finance Minister had less than no effect. Did any one really think words were going to be sufficient any more? All they achieved was to show the other market players that the bank and the government are holding nothing. Not even a pair.
As I have said before Japan could be the wild card in all this. They and we have got used to Japan’s constant state of deflation, borrowing and printing. But that is only because until now they have been buying up their own debt and because up till the last two years they have been doing so against the background of a global inflationary bubble.
Both of those conditions have reversed now. At some point very soon, Japan will have to sell its debt on the open Bond market. At which point the true jeopardy they are in will become apparent. I truly believe it Japan could move from comfort to crisis very quickly indeed.
You can’t double and triple your debt costs without the Bond Market taking fright.
So far we have China not in control of its banking bubble which is, as far as I can see, getting worse. They are running low on real capital. Their holdings of each other’s bonds is a fiction whose day is running out. And if bank/property stays out of control then inflation will continue to rise as well. We have America not in control of its debt level nor its housing implosion. And in Europe we have a deflationary spiral of rising sovereign debts and shrinking economies from Hungary and Greece, to Ireland and Spain.
Summer’s over boys.
Re the American Revolution: I understand your personal views to rather left of center, while the libertarian movement, for which I myself have some sympathy, is rather the opposite in promoting "laissez-faire" capitalism. There are however some shared views in that the bail-outs were wrong in saving the speculators from their loss and transfering it to the public purse. Do you see any uniting forces to stop further such folly and obtain whatever claw-back that may be possible? Do you see any such alliances possible in the UK, in Europe?
Ah! I forgot George Soros!
Dear Mr Eirik,
That is precisely what I hope. I personally would be quite proud to call you my ally and I yours. We are all under attck. All our livelihoods, freedoms and families. We should be able to trust each other and set aside our philosophical differences.
I have a close friend whom I met in university. He was then and is now a Reaganite Republican. I, as you noted, am far from that. But I always respected my friend and his position because he knew WHY he believed what he belived. And he cared to understand why I believe what I believe. We were able to discuss our differences and understand them. There was no animosity even though I would go on marches against things he felt were fine.
This is how it should be.
You and I and the others who come here, have a common danger and cause. It transcends party politics, national and linguisitic boundaries and while the crisis lasts, even the philosphical differences.
I personally believe we need to invent a new politics, based on a new convictions of what people are like, and how they can act and live together.
It has to be radical and honest. I believe it has to reject the narrow, self centered logic of Homo Economicus. I believe we need a proper humility before the facts of our situation, our obligations toward each other and respect not only for each other but for ourselves as well.
I do not want a Bill of Rights. I dislike rights. I prefer obligations. In place of my right to free expression. I prefer that my freedom is enshrined and protected by your obligation to let me speakl and be heard. While I have the same obligation towards you.
Rights have become an acid we use to burn away the social fabric which used to link us. I don't like them for this reason. Obligations by their very nature bind.
I feel a bond with you and the others who come here. I do not have to agree with everything you think for that bond to be there. To my mind that is as it has to be.
Nice comment Golem. I agree with you wholeheartedly about difference and the need to develop empathy with those who hold different worldviews.
The last part you mention too is quite pertinent to this weekend's events in DC:
"Rights have become an acid we use to burn away the social fabric which used to link us. I don't like them for this reason. Obligations by their very nature bind"
Glenn Beck is a prime example of someone who uses such an acidic approach to social community. I think your point about obligations is a sensible suggestion for the future.
Thank you Dylan,
I think it is quite feasable to writer a Bill of Obligations which would sound like the US Bill of Rights, do the same job and, though I am not a lawyer, be enforceable in law in a similar way.
Would people who come here like to try and see if we can together come up with a workable Bill of Obligations?
What a difference a single word makes. Obligation removes the selfishness so endemic to our present world.
It would a very interesting exercise to attempt a 'Bill of Obligations'. Already my engineering mind is making shrill pleas regarding the impossibility of tackling 'cultural differences', 'spirituality' and 'good versus evil' – but I always did think too logically.
Perhaps the first thing to do would be to establish the scope of the bill. Is this for all humankind?
i would be willing to help think through ideas about a workable bill of obligations.
I agree with richGB about the importance of the word obligation too.
From my point of view the scope of the bill should be for all of humankind. This no doubt raises infinite problems, but then again maybe it makes things a lot more simple. ive always been suspicious of the way categories of race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion, nationhood, sexuality and a lot more, while needed in terms of political solidarity for those without power, actually exploit the masses and drive us away from such things as community and obligations to each other.
However, such short-hand, such language, not only makes it easier to talk about the world but it also stresses our differences, and specifically the cultural differences between us. It makes us aware of being different from one another, while hiding the obvious fact of our common humanity – that we are more alike than we are different.
Hi Golem,
Nice idea! My first thought would be to change the name – most people would not understand the term bill of obligations – it actually sounds like some financial product!
One route would be to take an exiting bill of rights and then invert it. "You have the right to remain silent" becomes, "everyone is obliged to let others remain silent".
You end up with basically the same thing, but expressed in a way that is socially cohesive – perhaps? After all, some 'rights' seem to assume that people exist in isolation.
"For all humankind"
What about the animals (except dogs and cats)
What about life on other planets!
Altruism?
Rob,
Think you're probably right about the name. Cleo has just sent me this.
http://conservativelawyers.com/Bill%20of%20Rights%20and%20Obligations06.pdf
Intersting read. Good to know others have already thought of it and started doing the hard work.
Sorry I don't know how you manage to embed a hyperlink in one of these comments. Could you tell me for future reference?
The HTML way is like this
<a href="http://conservativelawyers.com/Bill%20of%20Rights%20and%20Obligations06.pdf">Link Text</a>
This page explains it
The a tag stands for anchor. This has an attribute which is the URL that the link is anchored too. HREF probably stands for hyperlink reference.
Here is some simple HTML for bloggers.
The Obligations article was very interesting and I hope that the Coalition will do something with it.
It may only be possible to operate a Bill of Obligations within small groups of people. A separate part/version of the bill could declare how groups behave to each other, super-groups to super-groups, etcetera, until a hierarchy is built, culminating with international relationships.
Large groups of humans always break in to factions. Even the clergy argue amongst themselves! So, perhaps the bill is most detailed at its lowest level of implementation.