Numbers You Don’t Need

While browsing through today’s WIRED newsletter, I found a link titled “Life on earth given 500 million years“.

Apparently, two American scientists have written a new book. Accordinly, their publishing house has decided to give them some PR backing by putting out strange press statements. I haven’t read the book but I am pretty sure the content is accurately summarised by the following statement by one of its authors, Mr Brownlee, an astrophysicist –

“The disappearance of our planet is still 7.5 billion years away, but people really should consider the fate of our world and have a realistic understanding of where we are going (emphasis added).”

As much as I subscribe to mr Brownlee’s statement in principle, I suspect he does not really grasp the importance people are rightly attributing to the earth’s eventual fate, in some 7.5 billion years, according to current estimates – nil. We know that the universe will eventually collapse or freeze and still have not stopped procreating. We also know that growth is theoretically impossible for the universe as a whole, as there is only a certain unchanging amount of energy (and thus matter, remember e=mc²). But we still have not stopped thinking about supporting the economy by buying a new car.

The more distant the future, the less important it is to us. For a simple reason – there is an increased likelihood we won’t actually see it. As John Maynard Keynes famously put it, “in the long run, we’re all dead”. Finance people, the world’s finest when it comes to quantifying things, have put this into an equation and the result was the “Net Present Value”.

We might care about what happens to our grand children, and possibly even their grandchildren. But there comes a point where the Net Present Value, or the perceived importance, of future events becomes zero – as long as Keynes’ assumption about our personal fate in the long run is universally agreed upon.

Should that change, I would be the first to reconsider my judgment on books like the one mentioned above, even despite the logical impossibility of immortality (the longer you live, the higher the chances to die of an unnatural cause; if you could theoretically live forever, the possibility of an unnatural death would logically become infinite; and yes, this “unnatural” death could then be caused by the earth being fried or a freezing universe).

Until then, however, people really should NOT consider the fate of earth in 7.5 billion years. Sure, it’s an interesting fact to know, but, honestly, more than anything, it’s a number you don’t need. What people really SHOULD consider is the fate of earth in, say, 50 years.

That’s obviously a very partial analysis, but it would be a far more relevant albeit far more complicated one. Which is surely why too few actually do attempt such an analysis. But it would certainly yield some numbers one could actually need.

US Politics

Wise Words.

Those of you, my gentle readers, who are frequent visitors will certainly have realised that the issue of the seeming “transatlantic rift” has received considerable attention in this blog. Now I just received an email from a very knowledgeable American friend telling me about his understanding thereof. And he comes up with a very good one-phrase summary of the issue, which I decided to share with you –

“I think the most accurate “truism” about transatlantic relations is that for Americans 9/11 changed the world, but for Europeans 9/11 changed America.”

Of course, the sentence contains a lot to argue with. But none the less, I think it does capture the current transatlantic climate as accurate as it is possible for a single sentence. Wise Words.

compulsory reading

Das Ewig Weibliche Zieht Uns Hinan

I have to say, Goethe does sound much better in German. The only useful English translation of this eternally famous quote from Goethe’s Faust I Google had knowledge of is – The Eternally Female Draws Us Onward.

As with most translations, the one at hand is far from perfect, but it does give you rough idea of what Goethe is talking about: the eternal attraction-repulsion trap that evolution had in mind to make life difficult for men and women alike. As he was very much a guy, Goethe’s poetry tends to concentrate on the dynamics of the male’s attraction to the female.

While it will be hard to refute the theory that most men are attracted to most women, and despite Goethe’s allusions to the destructive, seemingly magic force this attraction can sometimes set free, there are luckily not too many cultures remaining in which it is commonly held that female seductive prowess is indeed some sort of witchcraft drawing innocent males onward into doom. It’s luckily been a while since the last autodafé in my home town.

Afghanistan is one of the unfortunate places where this kind of thought is still prevalent – apparently prevalent to an extent I would not have thought possible until I read the following story in a book about the “New Great Game” recently published by Lutz Kleveman (in German).

You may have heard about the death of Marjan, the blind lion in Kabul’s zoo, in January last year. But Kleveman tells a far more interesting story concerning the death of a lioness, who had died a year earlier under tragic circumstances.

A visit in Kabul’s Zoo was usually one of the rare occasions for non-lethal entertainment in the No-Fun Islamic Republic’s capital. But things became lethal even there on a tragic day in 2000 when a little boy jumped over the lions’ cage’s fence to pet Marjan, the one-eyed lion. And he did. The lion did not move until the boy attempted to pet a female. It was then that Marjan tore the poor toddler apart. A true tragedy – which was not yet over.

The next day, the boy’s mourning older brother, a Taleban soldier, visited the lions to take revenge. Using a grenade he tore the lioness apart. When later asked why he did not kill Marjan, he replied that the male was not responsible for his brother’s death.

It was the female’s insidious seductive prowess that drew his brother onward into doom.

Economics, US Politics

Understanding The Bush Economic Stimulus Package. W’s getting scared.

I don’t know if I am understanding the package correctly. Most of those throwing their opinions in the ring certainly know American politics a lot better than I do.

Their predominant interpretation of the package is that it is not actually intended to stimulate the US economiy but to get Bush reelected in 2004 – that’s why he is handing out even more cash benefits to wealthy Americans not likely to increase their marginal consumption. The Economist tells us that

“[i]t certainly lays Mr Bush open to the familiar charge that he is favouring the better-off. One study has shown that the average annual benefit for people earning less than $10,000 a year would be $6, while that for those with million-dollar-plus incomes would be more than $45,000. Conventional economics suggests that the richer people are, the less propensity they have to spend each additional dollar of income. America might have a long-term need to boost savings rates, but that will not help stimulate the economy.”

Also check these two links [ 1 , 2 ] to Berkeley economics professor Brad DeLong’s blog, if you want.

It is probably right that Bush had his reelection prospects in mind when designing the tax-cut [ ok, he did not do it himself ;-) ]. But I believe, the package’s design also reveals something else: His team is already getting scared. They’re not too sure they’ll be able to supervise the already announced tax-breaks in 2006 to 2010. So he’s delivering to his constituency now as the promised tax-cuts could be repealed later on. Timing is the keyword here. W clearly remembers the fate of his dad back in 1991. He lost the Presidency to Clinton in 1992 because of the post Desert Storm economic slump. As another Iraq war does seem to become increasingly unavoidable from his team’s hawkish perspective, the US administration realises that it could cost W the presidency in 2004 should the possible war’s timing be unfortunate. If things go “well” (again, from a hawkish perspective), it could be over this summer and economic consequences could be bearable. This is the scenario most strategic planners in financial institutions apparently believe to be the most probable.

However, Murphy’s law looms large over all armed operations and things could very well turn out differently. And there are enough military people in W’s administration to remember good old Murphy. That’s why I think this tax break shows the Bush administration is starting to believe their man could lose in 2004. The big question will be – to whom?

Economics, intellectual property rights, music industry

The Future Of The Music Industry. It’s so simple.

Sometimes it really does take ages for people to understand things have changed (and sometimes I have to include myself here). The Music Business will be a wonderful case study to illustrated the argument – in ten years. Right now, the industry is still struggling to come to terms with its new economics.

Yesterday Wired News informed about a policy conference held by the Future of Music Coalition in Washington, DC this week. The predominant idea was apparently that everybody involved in the business – musicians, independent and major labels, politicians, consumer electroncis and computer manufacturers as well as consumers should try to seek a compromise regarding the alleged problem of unpaid digital downloads. Jenny Toomey, exectuive director of the organising committee summerised the general approach as follows – “I think we’re looking for a kinder, gentler, more equitable model where more people can make a living off of this stuff.”

Sweet. Lovely. But I don’t get just why so many people in the industry can’t seem to see the wood for trees. There’s no real need to sit down and hold hands for all these groups with seriously conflicting interests. This is one of the instances where the market is actually going to solve the problem (in the longer run).

Sitting down and holding hands will only serve the interests of those who are trying to extend the cash flows of times past into the digital age while they are transforming their business to become less dependent on record sales – there’s a reason why vertically integrated media conglomerates are flooding our screens with instant-star shows. Teenagers (still one of the industry’s most important target group) may buy (~15%) less records these days than they did before Napster, but now they watch more advertisments.

Information goods are tricky when it comes to economic analysis. This even more true in the case of music. As opposed to most other products, economics have a hard time telling us about “the optimal level” of music production and consumption. What’s even more important – most models don’t take the intrinsic musical motivation into account. Given that most people create music without ever even intending to make money with it, those models are not exactly representing reality.

The new digital distribution model allows to target smaller audiences and make more money than before – if you do it correctly. However, while a lot of musicians who have not been able to live off of their art in the past will increasingly be able to do so in the future, it will be much more difficult to get into the average Madonna income range by performing music. The current winner-take-all market structure will likely disappear.

I find it startling that artists like John Flansburgh of They Might Be Giants say that they would prefer the semiotic control of a major label’s product manager to the control exercised by an audience/market. Wired cites Flansburgh saying that “it’s ironic that we’ll miss the majors when they are gone.” Madonna might. You probably won’t.

While electronic markets for music are still in their infancy, things are already changing with the advent of useful machine listening software. Just think about a catalogue of all the music that matches your style preferences, whoever wrote it, whoever performed it.

According to the article, The Hooter’s Eric Bazilian stipulated that “[t]here’s an incredible amount of mediocrity,” due to the reduced costs to produce songs and put them on the web. That is very true. But there are also so many gifted, struggling musicians who never had a chance to create a market for their music because of the Major label’s gate keeper function. Now they are able to reach an audience and transform their cultural achievements into a product. I don’t understand why a musician would believe that it is a good thing to keep music from being published?

There will be new sources of information, like trustworthy journalists reviewing new songs, online fora. People providing valuable services, possibly for money. Or, as I believe, there will be quality settings in the machine listening software allowing the customer to get exactly the recording quality she wants.

Don’t tell me people would not want to pay for such a search engine which, in turn, would be able to pay for the creativity. Not the amount BMG pays Withney Houston, obviously.

But there will be a whole new middle class of artists. And they don’t need to sit down with anyone. They just let the technological development work in their favour. And in ten years, they will teach the music industry case study. If the latter should not be able to use its political clout to perpetuate its current powerful structure into the digital age.

almost a diary

Self Help Tip # 1.

I attended the first concert of a friend of a friend tonight. Just one man and his guitar. It was pretty much what you would expect from someone presenting his art on stage for the first time. So it’s not his performance I want to tell you about. Rather, I’d like to tell you about an idea conveyed in a little “self-help song” he sang.

So “When you’re weary, Feeling down, When tears are in your eyes” you might no longer need chemical bridges to cross your troubled waters from now on: Just imagine a sexual act performed by a well known politician of your choice.

While the therapy is certainly unusual and clearly involves some graphic indecent thoughts, I have to say, the song worked wonders for the audience – everybody was in stitches. But it is crucial to choose someone usually considered entirely asexual. Don’t pick George Clooney or Mira Sorvino and then complain to me the therapy did not work for you.

Maybe you should just give it try – next time you feel down, why not think of W in the Oval Office, playing with a Havanna. Or even better – think of him playing with little Talking President Dolls, just like Lord Dark Helmet did in Mel Brook’s Spaceballs.

compulsory reading, German Politics, US Politics, USA

Another Tale of Mars and Venus: The two Americas.

The Carnegie Endowment’s Robert Kagan’s quip that Americans are from Mars and Europeans from Venus – citing the famous “Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationships” to describe why American and Europe seem to be drifting apart in value terms has quickly become a household argument in published opinion. And for a reason: Last year’s US foreign policy as well as the European reaction has provided plenty of opportunity to interprete the US-European couple’s relationship as one in which one wants to make love and the other one war. Right or wrong, there seems to be a growing lack of understanding for the other one’s position on both sides of the pond.

In September last year, I already linked some documents providing some scientific context regarding the seemingly growing transatlantic rift. This week, the Economist provides us with the results of three recent studies – and tells Europe to think about American diversity. The article includes a very interesting diagram plotting some country’s relative positions in a multivariate value-space.

And in this diagram,

“America’s position is odd … On the quality-of-life axis, it is like Europe … But now look at America’s position on the traditional-secular axis. It is far more traditional than any west European country except Ireland. It is more traditional than any place at all in central or Eastern Europe”.

The reason for this strange position is, according to the economist, is,

“…to generalise wildly, that [the] average is made up of two Americas: one that is almost as secular as Europe (and tends to vote Democratic), and one that is more traditionalist than the average (and tends to vote Republican).”

I guess, a lot of people suspected this kind of division all along. But it’s always good to get some figures to back up the argument. And there’s one more thing that is strikingin this study – that all of Europe is indeed clustered in the same corner. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is something to the argument of common European values.

I will close with a brief note to my British friends: Have a loook at the British position on the value plot – you seem indeed to be a part of Europe – socially, you’re not even a bit of an “awkward partner”. Great news, no?

compulsory reading, German Politics

The Real Problem Of The German Social Democracy: Brackets

In an interview with Gerhard Schroeder, printed in this week’s issue of “Der Spiegel” (in German), the journalists interviewing the chancellor rightly alleged that people like them – those who hold a lot of human capital, who represent the backbone of our knowledge based economy but are unable to pick a regulatory regime like those predominantly owning financial capital – would be the ones to have to pick up the tap for continued non-growth in this country. The chancellor answered sarcastically that the thought of their deprived economic situation really shook to him to his core, that he was close to tears. I was just a joke, but I fear there was a little bit more to it. It was also an unconscious expression of the fundamental conflict within the German Social Democracy – brackets, more precisely, income brackets.

A few weeks ago, I had a discussion with my friend American friend Sonya about the difference between perceived and actual relative income positions. Our conversation was based on a CNN poll, according to which 20% of US citizens believe they belong to the top one percent income bracket. Another 19% think they will be there at some point in their life. In Europe, things are bit different. Over here, many people tend to believe they belong to a lower relative income bracket than they actually do.

In both cases, the consequences for the economic policies implemented are severe. In the US, economists like Princeton professor Paul Krugman have begun to talk about the construction of a Plutocracy. In Europe, overregulation and suffocating marginal tax rates strangle more and more economic activity – or drive it into illegality. While some in the US deplore the lack a European style welfare system, welfare systems have evidently contributed significantly to the distortion of incentive structures on this side of the pond. It was this simple observation that prompted former LSE director Tony Giddens to write his now largely discredited book about “The Third Way”, which helped the other Tony to rebrand the British Labour party back in the mid 1990s.

While there may not be just one Third Way, it seems almost self evident to me that any economy/society must get both elements, individual motivation as well as redistribution of income, at least roughly right. “New Labour” seems to have understood this, but a large number of German Social Democrats still seems to have a hard time grasping the point. While the chancellor spent the rest of the interview explaining just how he wants to get the incentives right, and while his little sarcastic remark may not even tell us about his personal attitude, it certainly captures the mood of a significant part of his party. All reform rethoric aside, it appears many Social Democrats still do not really regard the professional middle class (the group they called “Neue Mitte” in their 1998 election campaign), working in human capital intensive jobs as those who add the most value to our economy. Many economists as well as political scientists have written extensively about the societal consequences of changing patterns of economic activity, and most of arguments are necessarily a lot more complex than the simple one I am making here [ the following link leads to a particularly good paper by Fritz Scharpf, concerned with sectoral changes and welfare regimes in competition ]. Nonetheless, I believe this is the core of the SPD’s internal conflict – those within the party who have not already done so need to realign their perceived structure of income brackets.

In the US, when political Robin Hoods demand to take from the rich and give to the poor, they probably do not plan to take it predominantly from working professionals earning, say, 60,000 Dollars. When some German Social Democrats talk about taxing the rich, those earning 60,000 Euros should beware. Don’t get me wrong – I am by no means saying that there should be no significant tax progression up to 60,000 Euros – of course there should be. Someone earning this amount is evidently able to bear a much larger part of common good than a struggling single mother earning a mere 15,000. No doubt about that.

But I seriously believe that people in this country need to realize that the most important problem of our economy is not lack of capital or demand (well, there is a cyclical lack of demand on top of the structural problems) but a lack of both powerful intrinsic (like the American Dream as a social institution) and extrinsic (monetary compensation) incentive structures. Isn’t it telling that the largest group among German university graduates wants to join the public service where they expect job security and predictable income increases for their entire working life? An economy that is devoting more than 50% of its time and money to administrating itself is probably not a particularly creative or productive one. And creativity is just what is needed to pull ourselves out of the self-designed slump we’re in.

Isn’t it time to realize that supporting those who actually deliver this creativity with some extrinsic motivation will be great for the common good? Isn’t it time for still traditionalist Social Democrats to finally leave the remains of cherished working-class-struggle rhetoric and policies where they belong – in history books?

I think it is. And I really hope Schroeder does, too.

almost a diary, compulsory reading

Kraut-bashing. Some personal context.

Kraut-bashing is *so* passé. That is at least what the British comedian Frank Skinner tried to tell his countrymen when he publicized his support for the German team before last year’s World Cup final. His arguments have been summarised and endorsed by the BBC but as the article tells us, there was not just enthusiastic support for his stance. The Sun subsequently called Skinner “Franz” and digi-dressed him wearing lederhosen – they had gone Brazil nuts!

No one should have been surprised by this display of journalistic creativity. Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids as well as all other specimen of British quality publishing like to spice up dull English headlines with some Tscherman words from time to time. And it is certainly true that a vicious circle of linguistic militarism is fueled by them as well as by those English fans whose choice of words demonstrates that football can be so much more than just a game whenever a match between the old Germanic rivals looms on the playground. Their strange confusion of war and sports is very visible on the famous 1918-1945-1966-T-shirts.

But I suppose to some, T-Shirts and Blitzkrieg-laden headlines are only side effects, as Der Spiegel’s recent suspicion (link in German) that Germans have become “prisoners of history”, at least in Britain, shows. The magazine’s attention had been sparked by an article, published in the Guardian earlier last December, in which the new German ambassador to the United Kingdom, Thomas Matussek, lashed out against the country’s history curriculum –

“I want to see a more modern history curriculum in schools. I was very much surprised when I learned that at A-level one of the three most chosen subjects was the Nazis.”

– alleging that it contributed to an anti-German sentiment responsible not only for hunny headlines but also for physical and psychological violence committed against Germans in the United Kingdom.

“You see in the press headlines like ‘We want to beat you Fritz’. It ceases to be funny the moment when little kids get beaten up…”.

The ambassador’s remarks point to an incident in October last year, when two German schoolbays on an exchange programme were assaulted by a gang of British youth in Morden, south London. According to the Guardian, they were heckled as Nazis before one had his glasses broken and the other was shoved into a bush.

I am terribly sorry for the pupils’ experience. And I think it is entirely appropriate for a German ambassador to demand a more prominent place for the post ’45 “model Germany” in British textbooks. But I don’t believe that those studying the Nazi dictatorship for their A-level exams will become notorious Kraut-bashers – quite to the contrary.

In Britain – as everywhere else – physical violence against Germans for ascriptive reasons is de facto nonexistent and most instances of verbal Kraut-bashing are likely not of malevolent intent. They are simply an element of the usually acclaimed British humour Germans often have a hard time to find funny.

There are plenty of stories like the one a young German Navy officer told me last week. When he went to the UK on NATO business recently, he was greeted with a joyful “Heil Hitler” by his British comrades. However, the British soldiers lifting their right arms in all likelihood did not intend to imply he was actually a Nazi or even seriously insult him. In their eyes, it probably was a joke honouring the tradition of John Cleese’s famous “Don’t mention the war”-episode of Fawlty Towers.

Although the young officer was not amused about the incident, I would like to point out that, yes, even for a Kraut, Kraut-bashing sometimes can be fun. I know I may be generalising a bit here, but people have always made fun about alleged ascriptive characteristics of other people. But only very few are serious about them. Being able to tell the difference is what is important – for both parties involved. Quite a few usually well meaning people in the UK do not seem to understand that there are different kinds and styles of Kraut-bashing. And believe me, I know what I am talking about: I have been Kraut-bashed by Brits, too.

We all know that there are inappropriate derogatory terms for people of all ethnicities and nationalities in all languages. And we all know that the same derogatory words can have a very different, sometimes positive, meaning in a different context. It’s exactly the same with Kraut bashing. My British flatmates in Paris were allowed to Kraut-bash me. Just as I kept joking about the British “cuisine”, the Empire they lost and how their German would be much better now if the US had not saved their country’s ass twice.

The way we talk to a person only depends on the kind of relationship and our mutual respect. What may be in order for a friend is likely entirely inappropriate for a stranger. And I know how much being told you are what you want to be least does hurt, especially if you’re not expecting
it.

My stranger’s name was Julia. She was the friend of a friend of one of my flatmates and in Paris for a night in Summer 1998. So we all met in a bar somewhere in the Marais (for those who know Paris). I have to say that her first attack was as much a surprise for me as it was for my British friends.

I think you get a useful idea of Julia when I tell you that the only thing she wanted (or was able?) to talk about were her freshly pedicured toenails. But being the gentleman that I am I complimented her, just as expected. But her reply was as unexpected as inappropriate – she told me that she wasn’t interested in my bloody Nazi opinion anyway.

You probably remember – the first time does hurt. And it did. I was stunned. I did not know what to say. No one had ever silenced me by telling me I were a Nazi. And she was serious about it. Not knowing how to deal with the situation, I made the fatal mistake of actually trying to explain to her that I was no Nazi, which clearly provided sufficient incentive for her to keep bashing me until she was eventually silenced by my friends.

However much it hurt that day, I now think of the episode as a valuable experience. It helped me realise the difference between those who joke about beating “Fritz” [ or decapitate the Kaiser, for instance ;-) ] and those who actually do beat him. It also taught me how to deal with the very few Julias around.

And there are only very few Julias around. Thus, in my opinion, those trying construct a theory of German victimhood around incidents like the the teenage clash mentioned above or negligeable individual experiences like mine are creating an urban myth rather than a useful representation of reality. In a letter to the publisher, a German exchange student in North England told the magazine last week that she had spent a year in Britain and never experienced anything like the alleged British anti-German sentiment. She felt “stabbed in the heart” by the article, she said.

When I lived in London, I never experienced anything even slightly reminiscent of the Julia-episode. I walked past the “Bomber Harris” memorial almost every day and never cared about it until a British friend told me how embarassed he was when the Queen (of German descent…) unveiled a memorial for a person responsible for WW2 area bombing German cities in the early 1990s.

Another interesting encounter I had with respect to the anti-German sentiment in Britain was one with an older lady, who had clearly survived at least one, if not two world wars, and who explained to me that, yes, the British fought the Germans in two world wars but, after all, they’re decent people, as opposed to those frog-eating French.

While German tourists are still scared by the myth not to speak German in London Buses to avoid trouble, there are literally tens of thousands of Germans working in the City everyday. When you enter any of the fifty Starbucks outlets between Fleet Street and Monument tube station, chances are, you will hear almost as many German conversations as English ones.

The BBC is certainly right to admit that

“British hostility to Germany simply isn’t reciprocated – [and i]t could be that by using outdated stereotypes – the British are saying more about themselves than anyone else.”

But, in my experience, less and less people are seriously thinking in those stereotypes. Kraut-bashing may not be *so* passé yet, but it is definitely passé.

Last November, the American writer, Pulitzer price laureate, and Princeton University literature professor C.K. Williams made a very interesting argument in the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit (link in German, Archive.org) about how Germans have become a group no longer defined by what they actually are or what they actually do – but what they stand for. In his opinion, the eyes of the world see Germans, more than anything else, as a symbol of evil – they have become Ze Tschermans.

While my personal experience is largely different, Mr Williams is probably right to some extent – some Tschermans are still out there, on celluloid, in the history books and, most importantly, in the memories of those who suffered unspeakable horrors under the Nazi dictatorship. As long as we define ourselves as German, we have to accept the historic context which we have been handed – just like everybody else. While history does by no means excuse ascriptive prejudices, it can help explain their existence. Time may be a healer, but big wounds heal slowly.

Sometimes it is up to us to explain where we feel things are no longer funny. The young German officer clearly told his British comrades that he did not enjoy their joke. All people but the very few Julias around will not cross that line again.

And Sometimes we should just relax. Julia taught me to no longer care if some stupid person believes I am a Tscherman. Why should I? I know I am not. And those I care about do know that, too.

What else could be important?

almost a diary, compulsory reading

Does Dennis MacShane really want to decapitate Tony Blair?

The British Minister for Europe, Dennis MacShane, apparently tried to appeal to the British public by telling the FT earlier this week that

“… the German position [of enhancing the EU commission’s president powers as opposed to the Franco-British position of electing a president from within the European Council ] is for giving all power to a new kind of European kaiser, a Commission president who will tell all the other European institutions what to do. I had long discussion with Gerhard Schröder on this and I explained that 350 years ago we separated a king’s head from his body because we didn’t want to take orders from one individual.”

I am not too firm in English history but if I remember correctly, the story of the decapitation of Charles I is slightly more complicated than alleged by Mr MacShane. He died because he lost against Chromwell’s army in a religious power struggle. Decapitating a king may have been a fundamental democratic experience, but at least the immediate consequences were limited.

Shortly thereafter, Oliver Chromwell became Lord Protector. I am certainly not trying to reduce the English/British democratic/parliamentary innovations in any way – after all, I did have the opportunity to work for an MP in the mother of Parliaments myself.

But I do find it funny that a British minister talks about the veto-prone European decision process as some sort of absolutist government given that he is part of a governmental system which many scholars of British politics have (ironically, but with slight concern) called an “elected dictatorship” because of the centrality of Prime Ministerial power and the problematic legal doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty [ by the way – this evil fascist dictator test, apparently put online by an Oxford student, gives you the opportunity to test your Prime Ministerial potential.

Apparently, according to the test’s scoring guide,

I will be a corrupt, ruthless, but surprisingly effective figure on the world stage.

[ Not bad for this time of the day, I have to say ;-) ]

But anyway – the British must have learnt to take orders from one (elected) individual by now, for I don’t think Mr MacShane is actually after Tony’s head. He’s definitely even more dependent on his employer’s goodwill than most of his compatriots.