It has been brought to our attention that there is a global crisis going on. The frequent reader of this blog will know that we usually have between little and no truck with democracy; see for example how car-making in the United States has been kept alive for far too long, simply because a democracy cannot shut down an industry whose workers can place any candidate they want in Congress. Creative destruction is one of the most vital elements of a market economy; everybody knows Detroit should have been turned into a theme park the day the first Toyota landed on the American coast 40 years ago.
Here's Scottish economist Alexander Fraser Tytler in 1760: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves funds from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy". Very prescient of him; so workers associated with the car industry votes themselves large subsidies from the government, but the government should, as he suggests, go bankrupt doing this. So why hasn't it? Democratic governments rather ingeniously responded by finding excuses to borrow peoples' savings, or issue government bonds as the sanitized term is, rather than tax their voters. That means future generations must pay for the cash that today's voters have awarded themselves. That is generational theft. But politicians are not malicious; they don't enter politics with a plan to borrow money to buy votes. It's just that the candidate who demands hardship of his voters will not get elected, so the path of least resistance guides the democratic process, and the debts keep piling up.
And let's have a wee think about America's 'trading' relationship with China: (a) the American consumer spends lots of money on his credit-card buying Chinese made sofas and refrigerators, (b) Visa and American Express sends the cash they got from the investment bankers in charge of securitisation to China to pay for the goods; (c) China lends the money to the American Treasury (by buying government bonds); (d) the American government can't quite believe their luck, but like a sailor in port decides to spend it all on a pointless war in Iraq. Perhaps it's just me but it seems like every dollar is spent twice. And that the Chinese's savings have gone kablooie.
This is what passes for the best of all economic systems; unpopular but absolutely vital decisions cannot be made. And now it has to contend with the fear factor, too.
Here's Scottish economist Alexander Fraser Tytler in 1760: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves funds from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy". Very prescient of him; so workers associated with the car industry votes themselves large subsidies from the government, but the government should, as he suggests, go bankrupt doing this. So why hasn't it? Democratic governments rather ingeniously responded by finding excuses to borrow peoples' savings, or issue government bonds as the sanitized term is, rather than tax their voters. That means future generations must pay for the cash that today's voters have awarded themselves. That is generational theft. But politicians are not malicious; they don't enter politics with a plan to borrow money to buy votes. It's just that the candidate who demands hardship of his voters will not get elected, so the path of least resistance guides the democratic process, and the debts keep piling up.
And let's have a wee think about America's 'trading' relationship with China: (a) the American consumer spends lots of money on his credit-card buying Chinese made sofas and refrigerators, (b) Visa and American Express sends the cash they got from the investment bankers in charge of securitisation to China to pay for the goods; (c) China lends the money to the American Treasury (by buying government bonds); (d) the American government can't quite believe their luck, but like a sailor in port decides to spend it all on a pointless war in Iraq. Perhaps it's just me but it seems like every dollar is spent twice. And that the Chinese's savings have gone kablooie.
This is what passes for the best of all economic systems; unpopular but absolutely vital decisions cannot be made. And now it has to contend with the fear factor, too.
When we are fearful, we tend to return to a primal state where all that matters is survival. Out goes concern for the environment, out goes appreciation of the positive effects of global trade, out goes any sense of charity and compassion with our fellow human beings. Those letters from UNICEF go straight into the bin. Populist protectionism gets all the airtime. Strangers look more threatening that ever. Nobody so much as smiles at their mother-in-law. We are not capable of making rational, long-term decisions in that state of mind, and we are certainly not competent to vote. We stink.
Right.
What are our options then? Well, first of course we have to suspend democracy globally. Good riddance. Unfortunately our democratic institutions don't just manage themselves so we need at least some form of leadership, and looking around in the region that has so far been least affected by the recession - well, a stash of USD4 trillion foreign currency reserves sort of steadies the nerves - it seems painfully obvious that we need to go with Enlightened Tyranny. That should be pretty uncontroversial.
What is controversial of course is, who gets to be that tyrant, and how is she chosen. A word on the gender profile of this tyrant: I'm afraid I've rather had it as it were with combining testosterone and leadership. Excess testosterone makes people less sensitive to risk, caring only about the potential reward associated with a decision. Testosterone makes people more competitive and less likely to make rational decisions. A beagle is basically a wolf without testosterone. You can hold testosterone largely responsible for the concept of honour killing, the invasion of Iraq, everything that's wrong in South America, the last 15 minutes of the trading session on the Korean Future Exchange (don't ask), the 1980s, and of course the current financial crisis. Note how Iceland has given the pink slip to all males in the banking sector, and put two housewives in charge of the entire financial system. In fact rather than a swearing-in ceremony we'd all be better off with a castration ceremony, thereby eliminating the source of the testosterone. Interested readers may learn more about the effects of testosterone in scientific papers by Robert Sapolsky ("T is trouble", 1998) and Dave Barry ("Dave Barry's Guide to Guys", 1995), but I think this digression has gone far enough.
So I don't think I'm being controversial when I insist this tyrant should be a woman. My primary school teacher of Danish Literature would seem ideal, except of course in terms of the requirement to be enlightened, so we shall pass on her; Mother Theresa appears to have passed away - although that was never a problem when in 1997 North Koreans voted to fill the position of Eternal President of the Peoples' Paradise for the Worker, and overwhelmingly came out in support of the founder, Kim Il Sung. He died in 1994. But I digress. Hillary Clinton has to be ruled out on account of having too much testosterone, I'm afraid (sorry, mate), and while Lindsey Lohan would look good on the commemorative stamps, I'm sorry, she's a dumb git. I have previously recommended Barbara Bush, but she's a wee bit long in the tooth now.
We would appear to be stuck.
But listen: why don't I temporarily take the global leadership. I'll be a benevolent dictator practicing full frontal honesty. Note that no castration would be required since my tenure would only be temporary: you have my word that the moment I feel power beginning to corrupt, or the moment a proper qualified candidate appears, I'll relinquish office immediately. Trust me. You know you can.
