Recent comments by Alexandros Liakopoulos

• Gun Control After Newtown

  While US Global Politics are Guns Oriented, can the US government afford to lose all the well-trained-on-guns criminals that serve as US soldiers abroad in order to counterbalance their criminal sentence? This is the question!
  
  Not to be misunderstood by anyone: I do not imply all US soldiers are criminals in the US; just saying a proportion of them are, while the very large proportion also come from poor neighbors and ghettos , where "gun-training" is an everyday-life activity. According to US "Deep State", this is a vital asset in producing "fighters of the democracy". Can they afford to lose that asset? Most probably they can, now that War goes remote.
  
  The analysis of prof Sachs is very interesting, but one should also deal with the impact of US society's gun-culture to the rest of the world, while US politics (reflecting politicians' culture) do affect the rest of the world by "gun power" de facto. That would also give an extra argument to people arguing against US gun-madness. "Treating" US society against this very "bad habit" is of vital importance to everyone on the planet: the sooner it is done, the sooner the US and the rest of the world will stop facing the kind of tragedy of mass murders of any kind, wherever they may occur on the planet and whoever may be responsible. Taking guns out of our everyday life, may take guns out of everyday politics at the world level and war at of the question. At least, this is a hope we should all fight for if we plan to create a better world to live in, instead of taking apart the one we have, as we do today!
  
  

• Models Behaving Badly

  Excellent analysis, Professor Skidelsky! However, I cannot miss to pinpoint one question: what is out of the scope of economic forecasters due to their neoliberal training, which subjects micro to macro economics and forgets the fact the very nature of the science is all about POLITICAL ECONOMY and not about "economics" in the first place, is it also outside of the scope of political (strategic) forecasters?
  
  In other words, economic forecasters cannot predict and cannot provide any vital solutions in the medium and macro terms; they can only prescribe "bandages" in the "bullet trauma" the world economy is suffering, due to their training, which excludes them from being able to "see the big picture" by design. Their training as "economists" and not as "political economy scientists" forces them to deal with thousands of small burning trees while the whole forest is on fire.
  
  However, this situation is predictable for a strategic analyst and forecaster. Therefor, within the Cold Economic War Era we are currently undergoing at the world level, economists' assumptions, analysis and ongoing work can very well be predicted, "channeled" and "handled" according to the specific interests of the Very Serious Power(s), which cover the medium and long terms while dealing with the short term subjects.
  
  What economists' cannot do, the Very Serious Power(s) can do. After all, the US government acts on a "50 years forward orientation" since 1997 and the speech of the CIA director at the time. Therefor, economists' incapacity to deal with the crisis, which you highlight so excellent, could also serve as a policy instrument, "designed" to provide an excellent excuse to the Very Serious House for boosting its own agenda and change the World Order in a US Pantocracy Model.
  
  People behave in a certain matter when "crisis" changes everything; economists are also expected to act and think in the way they are trained; whoever knows which way they are trained, also knows what to expect; if expectations can be incorporated in a wider (and deeper in time) plan. Being so, should we blame the economists for behaving according to their (bad - one sided - anti-scientific) training, or should we blame those people abusing this very well known characteristic of world economists to cover their own involvement for "shooting world economy with a bullet" in the first place?
  
  Year 2012: Six years after the collapse of Mac n Mae and 4 years after Lehman - which "triggered" every single "focal financial crisis" on the planet - we all talk about "Greece's financial problems", "South's financial problems", "the Divided States of Europe's financial problems", "China's slowdown", "Japan's recession", etc. We also talk about "US financial cliff" and not "crisis", as also other "little agendas". However, what we miss to talk about is Capitalism as we knew it exists no more, it collapsed and ended!
  
  We live after the end of the previous world order, in between with the next one. Global Regulations from US government cover the vacuum of power after every "too-big-to-fail" (state or company) does fail and looks for "protection"; Old World Order gives its space to a New One, step-by-step and "tower-after-tower" (of Power). "Game theories" apply better in such Eras, in such Historic Times as the current years. However, "game theories" are hardly in the courses of the economists'. On the other hand, they serve as an everyday tool for political analysts.
  
  Today, Geography and Politics revenge Economy and prove that Power and money are two distinctive things: while money do serve as a means of Power, real Power can destroy money all together and - by doing so - it can absorb the territory, the legal frameworks, even the political systems of every "falling" entity. This is both foreseeable and very well known, especially among Very Serious Power(s), House(s), People and Institution(s). Even more, this is also "treat-able", which is a much more SERIOUS (seriousness and "dangerous-ness on world politics are mostly the same thing) "aspect of the world politics of today.
  
  Economists' Inability to forecast is very well-forecasted, nowadays! Actually, "everyone's else" inability to forecast is expected, as people tend to make assumptions and form their expectations according to information provided. Whoever controls the information flows, also control "others' ability to foresee independently". And this is the exact problem of our world, while it collapses step-by-step, "according to plan", exactly as predicted!

• A Europe of Solidarity, Not Only Discipline

  What is really amazing is that mr Soros is completely right. He is so right, one could accuse him of witchcrafting some hundreds of years ago. But, in the Age of the Knowledge which comes along with the Information Age (or at least, should come along), we know better than this. We know, for example, that nothing happens without a reason, both in nature, and in human societies. Reasons vary from time to time, but they are never missed, they can always be detected.
  Nowadays, Europe is "advancing backwards", forgetting everyday even more what unite - or united? - its member states, reminding and remembering on its own everything that does takes it appart: nationalisms, hegemonisms, seperationisms, nazism, far-right populism and extremism, economic occupation of countries, institutional legitimacy breakdown because of the widening of democratic deficit of the EU and - far more alarming - of the national governments.
  
  Therefore, George Soros is exactly on the point, highlighting the concrete challenges EU is facing, under this unpromising international context, which gets even more difficult to handle within a "shock-therapy", designed to boost even further the social gap, which is imposed to a day-by-day bigger and bigger European territory. However, the current situation did not came out of the blue.
  
  EU crisis was "triggered" through Greece, while George Soros was coming and going to the "Maximou House", the Greek Premier's Home-Office. His efforts to "save" Greece, under his cooperation with PM George Papandreou and the Goldman Sacks's high profile Team that visited the country twice three years ago, with Mr Roubini also playing a vital role as Mr Papandreou's adviser, initiated the hard - but so expected, for anyone who knows how Germany reacts whenever she feels a threat in its "vital space" (periphery) - response of Germany, to the "attack" of the markets to the South. Mr Soros IS "the markets" or at least is directly connected with them, in some sense. Therefore, while he was one of the main "initiators" of the "chain reaction" that led to the current state of things in the EU, he offers his insightful thinking to describe nothing more than his (and whose else's, I wonder?) original plan, which more or less gets along with the New Orientation towards the EU of the White House.
  And while "the plan goes as planned" and the South gets ripped of its very soul - not to mention its wealth, liberties, rights and democracies - Mr Soros appears as a filanthropist saviour of the poor, the disadvantaged, the migrants, etc. He does the same thing all around the globe, buying his legitimacy to speak and to "play (hard)ball", wherever his "organisations" appear. "Green development", renewable energie systems and civil society organisations are working, financed and develop their projects in parallel, under "his vision". He does have a vision and a method to impose it; and while he does impose it, irrespectively to human cost, he comes back to collect his earnings. He even does that under the casquette of the philanthropist - which he is, no doubt about that, as his "contributions" speak for themselves and are self-evident.
  However, disregarding the fact that his "contributions" are getting important after his own "initiatives" and other people's responses to these initiatives, would be as misleading, as to conclude that "he only speaks his heart off"! Not more, but nor less either...
  
  PS: on the initiative itself, except stating it is very much needed in Greece - that's sure and gets even more sure day by day, one should also bear in mind that wherever his NGOs appear, public unrest's boost follow. And even more, wherever his NGOs appear, the image of a "failed state" may be created to the International Community, as he is very well known to get involved in such kind of states. The negative thing for the locals though, is that "failed states" may be invaded, "should the necessity becomes a reality", as the Media report in such cases. So I wonder: his involvement to current or soon-to-be "failed states" is subsequent only to chance and his viosionary thinking, or could there may be a more vital explanation? A plan, for instance? "Once is chance, twice is coincidence; third time is a plan", says James Bond. Well... when it happens again and again and again, could there be chance and coincidence? If so, he is a very lucky person, predicting other people's bad luck!

• Kill and Let Die

  Excellent work in bringing the essence of the political debate between Obama and Ronmey back to the center of the political discussion. While the American establishment and the rest of the world keeps on getting confused with appearance, body language, marketing-built profiles and public statements built in a voter-friendly manner that devalues the real questions of the world US agenda, you keep reminding the Western Society that manipulating its own over-production of Power, is neither Legal, nor Ethic (or legitimated).
  However, even your whole argument is quite apparent to anyone with a sense of morality and legality, we have to face the fact that we have entered a New Era of the Extremes, following the Decade of the Extremists of George Bush junior time. Therefore, while sanity and prudence get on the defense, the basic instincts of a Far-West society, where the "rule of the gun" prevails, come into force, without the legitimacy for such development - or even the inevitable consequences - being considered as important part for the overall equation of the White House agenda. This - as you bring in light in your last phrase - however, does bear with inevitable consequences, while, on their turn, inevitable consequences give the necessary ground for hatred to be cultivated, extremist groups to be created and so forth.
  
  

• Our Debt to Stalingrad

  After quite some decades, you brought sanity back in the historical process and its writings. Once, the rule used to be that "the winner writes the History". This "warrior's attitude" comes from ancient times, when oral history and victory myths got mixed in a very human-friendly, God-imposed manner; it is that same rule that applies till today, proving that when it comes to History, as it is subsequent to Politics and its agenda, academic excellence and scientific process never come first! They always get "influenced", if not altered from political incentives. The excellent work of Keegan, on the History of War is very indicative of the way People tend to remember and/or repeat their past stories.
  Exactly cause of all the above, the Cold War brought a very opportunistic "Historical Remembering" of the facts of WW II to the whole of the West, with the main center being based on the "west of the west", the US coast. As Soviets became the "eternal enemy", they should be deprived from their glorious past and their great successes. And they were, despite their concrete sacrifices, which - with any kind of measurement - are much more significant for the West, than West's own sacrifices against Nazism.
  
  Your article brings forward Historical Justice! I congratulate you, Sir! As far as the Knowledge is not forgotten, Truth may Prevail, after all! This is a hope, within a very hopeless environment, as far as we get your indicative "lesson" and start learning from History, after we clean it off the Propaganda materials that were incorporated to its corps. You made an excellent work in that sense! Therefore, I feel much obliged to you, even if I am not Russian, for one more specific reason: you bring the question of "proportionate thinking" back to the center of the discussion, something very vital in the New Era of the Extremes (or the Extremists?) that has just begun! Stalingrad should serve as a symbol against Nazism, but the History of Stalingrad and its recollection should also serve as a bad example of Western Thinking, till today! History should be subsequent to facts and Humankind should be as brave as to recognize even his current enemies sacrifices: after all, as History keeps teaching us if we read it without prejudice and dogmatic approaches, today's enemies are tomorrow's allies! So, "altering" History, may - after all - alter the very future itself, as future allies are always subsequent to today's history! Right?