Prague. 21/11/02. In what must be regarded as a striking revelation given recent public rows, the two world leaders weren’t ashamed to demonstrate their feelings toward each other publicly during yesterday’s NATO summit in Praque. The only remaining question is what George W whispered in Gerhard’s ear. I suppose it was something like “And they all believed we were actually fighting. We should do that more often! See ya later…”
Am I giving Schröder too much credit?
The reelected German SPD-led government is having a hard time these days. An opposition spokesperson yesterday stated that it was now offically allowed to call Hans Eichel, the finance minister, a liar (for he said he did not know about the looming deficit before the election) and it will be next to impossible to find a paper not bashing the government for its troubled first weeks. The Economist is no exception here.
While almost everybody (except for the powerful service union leader Bsirske, who publicly stated this weekend that he has yet to see the crisis) agrees that Germany is badly in need of some deregulation, especially concerning the labour market, things are a lot harder to do than to talk about. Especially given the troubled economy which will make it much more difficult for the government to produce visible results after much needed structural reforms.
To reform the labour markets is one important step. But it is a politically troublesome one if it only means to cut welfare without more people actually getting jobs because of lacking demand.
And it is a politically even more troublesome step if the powerful unions, as always pursuing their insider-ousider game, are cashing in their price for supporting the chancellor when his campaign looked the bleakest last summer.
So what is the government doing? It is proposing a problematic incoherent austerity package in combination with redistributive measures which the unions approve of but which are increasingly despised of by a growing majority of people.
However, I believe, the chancellor thinks he can play a game because most of those laws have to be approved by the upper chamber of the Bundestag, the Bundesrat, in which the conservative opposition (CDU) currently holds a majority. So he proposes legislation to service the unions knowing it does not pose a great risk supposing the opposition will block it anyway.
After that he will be able to tell the unions to keep quiet whilst actually going to reform things.
Am I giving Schröder too much credit? There’s one big problem with such a strategy: It depends on the key players to silently cooperate. If the CDU actually lets some the “union-reforms” get through the upper chamber in the hopes that the following implementation will anger a significant amount of previous Schröder voters it won’t work. And if Schröder can’t credibly blame the opposition for blocking the union-proposals, he will not be able to escape the unions’ embrace.
It’s a risky strategy and, of course, I don’t know if it’s actually what is happening. But it does make strategic sense to me. The SPD has probably already lost the two upcoming regional elections because of the revelation of the ever increasing deficit just after the general elections (which the government is only partly to blame for). Should that also be the perception of the government and the opposition leaders, the silent cooperation may have already begun.
We’ll see.
Suicide terrorism. It’s all about grapes.
This is one of the best scientific insights I have read about this year. And if it weren’t for all the innocent victims of suicide terrorists, it would be really funny, in some sense.
Well, I suppose that most of us have heard about the infamous parts of the Koran in which those dying in Jihad are promised that they would instantly go to Paradise where they would then be pampered by 70 big eyed (eternal!) virgins (“huris”) to which they will be married. Given the rigid religious and sexual customs and otherwise poor living conditions in a lot of muslim countries these days, I suppose that the suggestion of such a sensual adventure in heaven will indeed have a certain seductive power for mostly uneducated and indoctrinated youngsters. The fact that the Koran is taken literally by most Muslims does add even more salience. That’s all common knowledge. Well…
Today, I read a review in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of a new book by a German Islam researcher called Christoph Luxenberg (pseudonym, to avoid a Fatwa) who suggests some linguistic interpretations: His book is called “The syro-aramaean interpretation of Koran. A contribution to the decryption of the language of the Koran“.
The reviwer, Wolfgang G. Lerch, suggests that Luxenberg indeed succeeded to make new sense of a lot of Sures by starting from the syro-aramaean etymological roots of Arabic, which, according to the article, was not a fully developed language at the time the Koran was written.
Translations are always a great way to get rid of meaning. As long as everyone is willing to accept that fact and tries to mitigate the consequences by analysing the0 context the problem can possibly be alleviated. But for a lot of Muslims in many islamist countries, and especially their more knowledgeable leaders, interpreting the Koran is religiously inacceptable (as it would likely begin to 0undermine conservative leadership structures and their justification.) The problem is, that we all have to bear the consequences of their unwillingness.
Since, as Mr Luxenberg shows, if correct, it’s not all about girls, but all about grapes. In syro-aramaean “hur” means “white grapes”. And following the syro-aramaean interpretation, the Koran says that in Paradise there’s a lot of them. Good food for hungry dead warriors. But over time, the syro-aramaean roots appear to have been forgotten about (or that was politically engineered), and thus the virgin “huris” became the uncontested way to read the Koran.
Too bad for all of us, for I don’t think there would be as many eager young guys with an overload of testosterone blowing themselves up for grapes. I am very interested in the islamic public’s reception of this interpretation.
See? Again stuck in the middle.
Dimplomacy is a difficult art of communication. History is full of examples of unskilled German diplomacy. Looking at Europe’s history I sometimes think Germany should join France and let the Quai d’Orsay handle things for us… As for examples, here’s one more:
While the US administration is still sulking following Gerhard Schroeder’s campaign promise that Germany would not participate in a military action against Iraq (note: apart from all the stuff the pacifist public won’t be able to see and possibly more after the Weapon inspectors will have been thrown out early next year and Germany will be the chair of the UN Security Council from Febuary 2003 on when the war resolution will likely be voted on.), Osama bin Laden (or what/whoever is threatening the Western World and Russia using this name) is threatening Germany for its cooperation with the US.
So after praising the terrorist attacks on civilians in Tunisia, Karachi, Bali and Moscow he asks – “What are your governments intentions in allying themselves against the Muslims with this bunch of criminals in the White House? Don’t your governments know that these criminals in the White House are the biggest slaughterers of these times? [..] I’m explicitly naming Great Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia.” (retranslated from German – source). Stuck in the middle.
OK, I know that the recent row with the US administration was not about cooperation in the war against terror but about different approaches in strategic foreign policy. I also know that being on Osama’s list is a consequence of Germany (now) being an integral part of the west and not a consequence of any specific kind of anti-terrorist cooperation. The list therefore is also a confirmation that the main German policy goal since WW2, integration in the west, has been successful.
So we’re possibly good at structure. But definitely bad at diplomacy ;-).
Un-f***ing-believable
Brad Delong quotes a very interesting paragraph in his Blog. It goes as follows:
DAVID BROOKS, ATLANTIC MONTHLY – During the most recent presidential election a Time magazine-CNN poll asked voters whether they were in the top 1 percent of income earners. Nineteen percent reported that they were, and another 20 percent said that they expected to be there one day
If correct, this number shows a) that Americans are ignorant to a scary extent about their relative economic situation as well as about the absolute levels and distribution of income and wealth in their society; and b) that material affluence (or the social standing associated with a high income) and “winning” have become important the US to an extent people either choose to lie about their relative financial statusnot to they choose not to know about not being part of the top 1%.
I think comparing these percetual numbers with the real income distribution will lead to intreresting insights regarding the “rational” political behavior of those electing and those elected. Likewise international comparisons would be interesting – in this country everybody tries to calculate himself poorer than factually correct.
Very interesting. Clearly more thinking is needed in this respect.
Stuck in the middle.
It’s a shame so few people outside the busines community have heard of Michael Porter and his concept of strategic analysis of business environments.
Last year, around this time, Germany was in shock. Not because of some strange election outcome or because I had moved back here but because of the poor results German students had obtained in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. After the initial shock had faded a little, the results again surged to public prominence as one of the crucial issues in the elections last September. So after the elections are finally over, one would hope some people would start to concentrate on facts rather than on words. But the OECD is reckless.
Today it published yet another report thus time bashing the German educational landscape for its alleged financial inadequacy and inefficiency. Browsing through the executive summary of the results (in German), I had to realise that the report appears to based to a large extent on the older PISA data. The information concerning the comparatively small amount of money spent on tertiary education is also hardly new.
So why this entry? And why would I mention a professor of business strategy while talking about educational policy, a field in which, certainly in the German case, decision making can, if at all, be described as a garbage can process.
Well, it’s because this new report compelled me to share my understanding of the PISA results and because Prof. Porter has come up the concept of U-curve rentabiliy on investment. He is, of course, referring to a U-shaped relation between two generic business strategies that could lead to a favorable strategic position in the competitive environment and their return on investment – leadership in either cost and volume or in quality and price. Companies which are not successful in pursuing either of these strategies are, according to M. Porter, stuck in the middle and will have to accept a lower return on investment.
Now I know that it might seem a little far-fetched to some, but I contend that Germany is currently stuck in the middle. Not because the German polity can not decide between mass market or quality production, of course. But I believe firmly that many of the current problems in Germany have arisen because of a failure two choose between two, equally successful, but socially opposed ways of organising the educational environment. I will describe those two alternatives as “Scandinavian” on the one hand, and “Japanese” on the other, the first being extremelly socially open, market oriented (please note that I use the term market here to denote the inclusion of transactions in the social division of labour) and one rather closed, hierarchical, family oriented. Again, both models seem to be successful. But those who can’t decide between them aren’t.
Now, looking at Germany, we see a somewhat divided country. The more “Scandinavian” oriented Northern regions and the more “Japanese”-style educational (and social) systems of the South. But in fact, both are in-between.
Well, as the divison of labour is increasing the I believe that this country’s long term shift to the Scandinavian model will continue. That theory however, does not bode well for Bavaria, which features the most Japanese-style educational system in Germany and is still the national number one. But it offers a ray of hope for those regions which currently fare less well but are already somewhat further “North”.
We’ll see.
Wittgenstein and statistics. The half truths that shape our perception of reality
Tomorrow, I am going to attend a conference about the way our perception of the world is also being framed by the stuff left out by the people putting together the news. If in any doubt about what I am talking about, remember “Wag The Dog“.
Tonight, while I was thinking about writing an entry commenting on Paul Krugman’s article “For Richer“, in which he is analysing the changing income distribution in the United States, I figured that he was actually revealing just one more instance of what tomorrow’s conference is going to deal with. I recommend to read the article, or even some of his sources.
And now I figure that this entry will be a lot longer than I intended, so I’m not gonna write it now, but tomorrow.
Perks.
Robert Mundell, winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Economics, apparently created a list of the ten most important perks of winning the Nobel Prize and presented it on the Letterman Show. You can find the list in Bradford DeLong’s Blog. It might be due to cultural reasons, but I can’t find a lot on this list funny. And there’s only two items worth all the long years of hard work which usually precede such an award –
- 3. Any meaningless crap I say, the next day it’s in the Wall Street Journal
- 10. Can end almost any argument by asking, “And did you ever win a Nobel Prize?”
Let’s be honest. Who would not want to be able to stir up the financial world if in need of cash or be able to end a discussion by intellectual superiority without having to prove it ever again…
I’m scared.
Is this world still a place worth living in? Will there be a time in which people will regard novels and films like “1984“, “Blade Runner“, or “Gattaca” as prophecies and praise their creators for their vision and their content for historical accuracy? I sure hope there won’t.
But let’s face it – digital and biological technology is not always a friend of someone already worried about the state and future of civil liberties on this planet. Today, wired news reports that a signal emitting implantable chip is now on sale in the US – as a security device.
We’re still living in a (sort of) free world. But the prospects of digital totalitarianism are getting better – vigilance is clearly needed these days.
The secret war. Frontline news.
This week, the Economist has published a little article about a new technology allowing the electronic recognition and identification of music. It’s well worth reading, although the article does not hint at the enormous importance of this technology (which is still being developed, to be clear about this).
You will probably remember that the music industry is currently involved in a severe battle concerning the perpetuation of non-digital age copyright structures into the digital age. I have already explained at lenghth in this “diary” why their success would be economically inefficient and socially problematic, to say the least.
What you haven’t heard a lot about in the last years is that the copyright battle is only one front of the war that is changing this world’s cultural landscape. And while you might think that the music recognition technology alluded to in article linked to above is only about a giving you a hand in remembering tunes you heard on the radio once or twice, its implications are much bigger. Think about it – most of the songs you hear on the radio today have been selected or produced by the oligopolic major labels for one reason or another. Given the enormous amount of music out there, we need some sort of screening as we do not have the time to listen to all of the material on the market – of which, in addition, we would not like a lot.
While screening the market is a necessary element in the “music value chain”, the gatekeeper function of the major record labels is somewhat problematic in a cultural sense. There’s a lot of music out there which you might like, but will never be able to hear because it lacks the commifying support of the record industry, aka marketing and distribution. Digital distribution has already reduced the importance of the latter element in that equation, but the first one is still the most important service provided by record labels. In fact, their basic role in the industry is that of a specialised venture capital provider – and given the traditional (non-digital) cost structure of marketing a new act and their average success/failure rates, the comparison does indeed make sense. As a consequence, our record stores are mirroring a “winner take all”-market, in which very few earn very much and most earn very little.
The internet, especially sites like, most prominently, mp3.com, now owned by the French media conglomerate Vivendi, have alredy reduced the salience of physical distribution for new acts. But even with advanced systems of collaborative filtering, comparing your personal taste to that of other users on the same system, a statistically significant amount of initial consumption is needed. So marketing is still an issue, although digital distribution has increased the options for a lot of musicians previously unable to earn a living by making music. However, for broad consumption, these days, they still need a bank.
But with advent of machine listening, as described above, things will probably change considerably. It is advancing a reduction in the expected value of a specific piece of music (now that value increases with the amount of marketing put behind an act) and thus creating a musical landscape less characterised by “winners who take all”. It is doing this by really cutting the middle man, the oligopolic gatekeeper’s and fund provider’s current commidification services, out of the connection between the artist and the consumer. Think of a big market place which artists can put their music on, and consumers can look for music they like, regardless of the support they have previously received from a label. The computer has a list of criteria to listen to, possibly including production quality, lyric content, and the like – I doubt, the support by record labels will be an important element of the song’s meta data.
No wonder the middle man is scared, don’t you think?