Author Archives: Igor Koršič

Krugman: Evropa se samopohablja

Mladina

EKONOMIJA

Huje kot v tridesetih

Evropsko gospodarstvo preživlja hujšo krizo, kot je bila tista v tridesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja

Igor Mekina  |  16. 11. 2013

Paul Krugman ocenjuje, da je danes vsaj »enako slabo kot v času velike depresije«.

Paul Krugman ocenjuje, da je danes vsaj »enako slabo kot v času velike depresije«.
© AP

Znani ekonomist, komentator New York Timesa in nobelov nagrajenec Paul Krugman v svojih zapisih na svojem blogu neprestano smeši zagovornike varčevanja. Njegovi komentarji so še posebej zanimivi prav sedaj, ko je Slovenija dobila pohvale od tistih, ki so najpogosteje tarče Krugmanovih najbolj uničujočih in duhovitih kritik – to pa je prav Evropska komisija in še posebej njen komisar Olli Rehn. V svojem zadnjem komentarju z naslovom Izjemen dosežek Evrope se tako na primer Paul Krugman ukvarja z ocenami nekaterih ekonomistov in evropskih komisarjev, da gre EU počasi in zagotovo bolje ter da zato ta politika že daje rezultate.

Kako slabi so učinki te politike Krugman nato ponazori s preprostim grafom, ki prikazuje padec in nato počasen vzpod industrijske proizvodnje od leta 1930 naprej, ki kaže, da je po padcu proizvodnje za 30 odstotkov v Evropi sledil počasen vzpon, ki je v osmih letih od začetka padca vendarle privedel do več kot popolnega okrevanja gospodarstva. Nato je seveda sledila vojna, kar pa je že druga zgodba. To je bilo v času ‘velike depresije’, ki je privedla do največjih pretresov na evropskem kontinentu – šest let po začetku sodobne krize pa je krivulja evropskega ‘okrevanja’ povsem drugačna. Po padcu, ki je skorajda na ravni tistega iz časov največje gospodarske krize sodobnega sveta, se namreč krivulja industrijske proizvodnje samo malo vzpne, nato pa znova pade in na tej ravni nadaljuje ali celo pada – v prihodnost. In to brez perspektive skorajšnjega okrevanja, na kar opozarja tudi Paul Krugman, ki ocenjuje, da je danes vsaj »enako slabo kot v času velike depresije«, pri čemer od točke, kjer so evropska gospodarstva v tridesetih letih okrevala, danes nazadujejo. »Biti slabši kot v tridesetih letih, to je res izjemen dosežek,« je sarkastičen Krugman.

Kako slabi so učinki te politike Krugman nato ponazori s preprostim grafom, ki prikazuje padec in nato počasen vzpod industrijske proizvodnje od leta 1930 naprej.

Kako slabi so učinki te politike Krugman nato ponazori s preprostim grafom, ki prikazuje padec in nato počasen vzpod industrijske proizvodnje od leta 1930 naprej.
© AP

Na podoben način se je v zapisu Mario in varčevalci ob znižanju obrestnih mer ECB, ki jo je sporočil Mario Draghi, Krugman ponorčeval iz evropskih politikov. »Tisti, ki spremljajo te zadeve, so verjetno opazili, da so samo pred tednom dni varčevalci (‘austerians’), še posebej Olli Rehn, pa tudi mnogi drugi, pozdravljali znake ekonomske rasti v tem četrtletju kot zmagoslavje svoje politike v zadnjih štirih letih. Da, bilo je neumno – torej, lahko bi se na primer tepel po glavi, nato zmanjšal intenzivnost tega samokaznovanja in zagotovo bi mi bilo bolje. Toda, ali to že pomeni, da je bilo to, da sem se tepel po glavi, dobro zame?« sesarkastično sprašuje Krugman in opozarja, da Evropska centralna banka zagotovo ne bi zniževala obrestnih mer, če bi »Evropa res okrevala«.

Na podoben način je Krugman že ob največji ameriški finančni krizi kritiziral tudi poskuse republikancev, da v ZDA vse breme krize prevalijo na pleča najšibkejših. In v tem pogledu so njegove ideje precej bliže pogledom Jožeta Mencingerja kot pa slovenskih ‘mladoekonomistov’. »Zmanjševanje pravic nezaposlenim zato, ker ste prepričani, da jim je še prelahko, je kruto celo v normalnih časih, toda v času, ko se gospodarstvo nahaja v depresiji, je stranski učinek tega uničevanje delovnih mest,« piše Krugman. Po njegovi oceni je kljub temu potrebno priznati moč slabih idej. »V letu 2011 so zmagoslavni republikanci sprejeli koncept, ki je bil že popularen v Evropi oziroma se zavzeli za ‘razširitev varčevanja’ – to je prepričanje, da bo zmanjšanje porabe vzpodbudilo gospodarstvo s tem, ko se bo okrepilo zaupanje. Izkušnje so kmalu zatem pokazale napačnost tega koncepta. V vsem razvitem svetu so zmanjševanje porabe spremljali veliki padci. Na koncu je celo IMF priznal, da se je zmotil, ter da so bistveno pocenili učinek zmanjševanja porabe na zmanjšanje rasti. Toda kot lahko opazite, republikanci niso posebej znani po spreminjanju svojih stališč zaradi nasprotnih dejstev … Zadeve bi lahko bile še hujše. Ta teden smo se izognili padcu v prepad. Toda še zmeraj smo na cesti, ki ne vodi nikamor,« opozarja kolumnist New York Timesa.

Kot vse kaže, ima še bolj prav kot se zdi, kajti jegove ocene očitno in žal še vedno veljajo tudi za Evropo.

Komisija sprejela nova pravila o podpori filmski industriji

Bruselj, 14. novembra 2013

Državne pomoči: Komisija sprejela nova pravila o podpori filmski industriji

Evropska komisija je sprejela spremenjena merila za ocenjevanje shem podpore, ki jih države članice namenjajo filmom in drugim avdiovizualnim delom, na podlagi pravil EU o državnih pomočeh. Novo sporočilo o kinematografiji omogoča, da se pomoč dodeli več različnim dejavnostim, poudarja pravico držav članic, da same opredelijo kulturne dejavnosti, za katere sodijo, da so vredne podpore, uvaja možnost dodelitve višjega zneska pomoči čezmejnim produkcijam in spodbuja filmsko dediščino. Komisija je upoštevala pripombe, prejete v okviru treh javnih posvetovanj z državami članicami in zainteresiranimi stranmi.

Podpredsednik Evropske komisije in komisar, pristojen za konkurenco, Joaquín Almunia, je ob tem dejal:„Cilj teh revidiranih pravil je spodbuditi živahno ustvarjanje avdiovizualnih izdelkov v Evropi, pri tem pa ohraniti kulturno raznolikost v celotni EU. Sporočilo vzpostavlja skupen okvir EU za državno podporo, ki jo dodeljujejo države članice, s tem pa zagotavlja tudi evropsko razsežnost avdiovizualnega sektorja ter si prizadeva za ohranitev njegove uspešnosti in konkurenčnosti.“

Nova pravila razširjajo področje uporabe sporočila o kinematografiji iz leta 2001 (glej IP/01/1326), ki se je uporabljajo le za državno pomoč za filmsko produkcijo, na vse faze avdiovizualnega dela, od osnovne zamisli do dejanskega predvajanja gledalcem. Intenzivnost pomoči, ki se dodeli filmu, je načeloma še naprej omejena na 50 % proračuna za produkcijo. Stroške distribucije in promocije je možno kriti z enako intenzivnostjo pomoči. Vendar lahko koprodukcije, ki jih financira več kot ena država članica, zdaj prejmejo pomoč v višini do 60 % proračuna za produkcijo. Po drugi strani pa ni omejitev za pomoč za pisanje scenarijev ali razvoj filmskega projekta ali za zahtevna avdiovizualna dela, kot jih opredeli vsaka država članica v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti.

Nova pravila državam članicam še naprej omogočajo, da upravičencem do ukrepov pomoči s področja avdiovizualnih del naložijo obveznost teritorializacije porabe. Dejansko je takšna omejitev pravil enotnega trga EU upravičena, saj spodbuja kulturno raznolikost, zaradi česar je treba ohraniti vire in strokovno znanje v okviru industrije na nacionalni ali lokalni ravni. Revidirana pravila zagotavljajo, da takšne obveznosti teritorializacije ostajajo sorazmerne s temi cilji. Države članice lahko zlasti zahtevajo, da se 160 % dodeljenega zneska pomoči porabi na njihovem ozemlju. Poleg tega lahko ne glede na višino odobrene pomoči pomoč pogojijo tudi z določili o najmanjši ravni izvedbe produkcijske dejavnosti na njihovem ozemlju. Ta raven pa nikoli ne more biti višja od 50 % proračuna za produkcijo. Kakor v prejšnjem sporočilu je tudi v novem predpisano, da obveznost teritorializacije porabe v nobenem primeru ne sme presegati 80 % proračuna za produkcijo.

V novem sporočilu o kinematografiji je poudarjen tudi pomen ciljev v zvezi s filmsko dediščino, in sicer zlasti dejavnosti zbiranja, hrambe in dostopnosti evropskih filmov. Države članice bi morale spodbujati in podpirati producente, naj kopijo del, ki so prejela pomoč, deponirajo za hrambo in za uporabo v posebne nekomercialne namene.

Države članice bi morale svoje obstoječe sheme podpore s tem poročilom uskladiti v dveh letih.

Ozadje

Države članice EU filmski industriji po ocenah letno namenijo 3 milijarde evrov: 2 milijardi evrov v obliki nepovratnih sredstev in ugodnih posojil ter 1 milijardo evrov v obliki davčnih spodbud. Približno 80 % teh sredstev je namenjenih filmski produkciji. Francija, Združeno kraljestvo, Nemčija, Italija in Španija odobrijo največji delež te podpore.

Merila za oceno državnih pomoči, ki so se uporabljala od leta 2001, so prenehala veljati 31. decembra 2012. Po navedenem datumu je Komisija še naprej ocenjevala nove sheme podpore filmski industriji neposredno na podlagi člena 107(3)(d) Pogodbe o delovanju EU, ki dovoljuje pomoč za cilje na področju kulture. Kadar koli je to bilo mogoče, je Komisija prav tako upoštevala svojo ustaljeno prakso, ki izhaja iz sporočila o kinematografiji iz leta 2001.

Novo sporočilo o kinematografiji upošteva prispevke, prejete med tremi javnimi posvetovanji, ki so bila organizirana v letih 2011, 2012 in 2013 (glej IP/13/388IP/12/245MEMO/12/186IP/11/757 in spletna stran o javnih posvetovanjih).

Celotno besedilo novega sporočila o kinematografiji je na voljo na naslovu:http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/specific_rules.html.

Nove objave odločitev o državni pomoči na internetu in v Uradnem listu so navedene v tedenskem e-biltenu o državni pomoči.

Spričevalo demokratične in pravne kulture EPP (European Peoples parties)

 

Testimony of the democratic culture of EPP

The below resolution on Slovenia, issued by EPP (European Peoples parties)  is clearly bellow  the standards of of The League of Yugoslav Communists that did not issue any statements supporting  the Yugoslav Peoples Army  case against Janez Janša in 1989. This resolution casts a devastating blow  on the  democratic credibility of the EPP.  Many a Slovene is shocked today: Is this the EU, we where once  looking to for protection of our democratic rights!? Political organisations on the EU level should do everything to enhance democracy, rule of law and human rights instead of doing  the opposite, that is the case here. We know there are many members of EPP with great democratic integrity. We expect them to speak up. Not for or against Janez Janša, but for democratic legal standards and decant behaviour of a European organisation towards a sovereign  state. There is still a possibility for the reporter, in this case Mr. Buzek, to apologise to the Slovene state authorities. It is clear, that he was misled by the one side, that  he allowed to abuse him.  He probably made some superficial comparing between his own Poland and Slovenia.  Those interested in details on the Slovene-Finnish-Austrian affair on corruption in international arms trade can go Austrian and Finnish press on the issue, as well as to some messages sent home by the US embassy in Ljubljana, published by Wikileaks. And EPP should direct their attention to the scandalous actions by EU states in the cases of president Morales and Edward Snowden. They should be firm about the abuses of democratic and human rights in Hungary as well as against blows against public media and universities in Greece.

I.K.

EPP Resolution on the Situation in Slovenia (Eurpean Peoples Parties)

1. Slovenia is in a difficult economic situation and needs a broad support in the Slovenian population to tackle the consequences of the financial crisis and to pursue the economic and other necessary reforms to overcame the crisis and conclude the transition. In May 2013, the European Commission stressed that the state of the Slovenian judicial system is unsatisfactory. It imposed a series of corrective measures to the Slovenian government.

2. Expresses its concerns regarding the condemnation of the President of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), Janez Janša in first instance. Takes note of Janez Janša ́s appeal to second instance which will hopefully take place within prescribed term of 3 months. Reminds that the guarantee of a fair trial and presumption of innocence as fundamental rights. Expects that the on-­‐going procedure will not lead to the exclusion of Janez Janša from political competition.

3. Invites independent organisations, such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE, to follow closely the compatibility of the on-­‐going procedure with the rule of law and international standards.

4. The EPP fully supports its member party, Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), which is a major player in Slovenian politics, as well as New Slovenia – Christian Democrats (N.Si) and Slovenian People ́s Party (SLS).

5. The EPP underlines the need of an impartial and independent judiciary in all Member States. In this context calls for the swift adoption of rigid lustration laws in all Member States which have not yet done so, as well as their thorough implementation, and for a transparent and public scrutiny of this process.

6. Calls on the Commission to ensure that public procurement procedures in all Member States are following the requirements laid down in EU law, thus ensuring transparency and efficiency.

Occupy kupuje poceni dolgove in osvobaja dolžnike

Occupy Wall Street activists buy $15m of Americans’ personal debt

Rolling Jubilee spent $400,000 to purchase debt cheaply from banks before ‘abolishing’ it, freeing individuals from their bills
Occupy Wall Street
‘Our primary purpose was to spread information about the workings of this secondary debt market,’ said Andrew Ross. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A group of Occupy Wall Street activists has bought almost $15m of Americans’ personal debt over the last year as part of the Rolling Jubilee project to help people pay off their outstanding credit.

Rolling Jubilee, set up by Occupy’s Strike Debt group following the street protests that swept the world in 2011, launched on 15 November 2012. The group purchases personal debt cheaply from banks before “abolishing” it, freeing individuals from their bills.

By purchasing the debt at knockdown prices the group has managed to free $14,734,569.87 of personal debt, mainly medical debt, spending only $400,000.

“We thought that the ratio would be about 20 to 1,” said Andrew Ross, a member of Strike Debt and professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University. He said the team initially envisaged raising $50,000, which would have enabled it to buy $1m in debt.

“In fact we’ve been able to buy debt a lot more cheaply than that.”

The group is able to buy debt so cheaply due to the nature of the “secondary debt market”. If individuals consistently fail to pay bills from credit cards, loans, or medical insurance the bank or lender that issued the funds will eventually cut its losses by selling that debt to a third party. These sales occur for a fraction of the debt’s true values – typically for five cents on the dollar – and debt-buying companies then attempt to recoup the debt from the individual debtor and thus make a profit.

The Rolling Jubilee project was mostly conceived as a “public education project”, Ross said.

“We’re under no illusions that $15m is just a tiny drop in the secondary debt market. It doesn’t make a dent in the amount of debt.

“Our purpose in doing this, aside from helping some people along the way – there’s certainly many, many people who are very thankful that their debts are abolished – our primary purpose was to spread information about the workings of this secondary debt market.”

The group has focussed on buying medical debt, and has acquired the $14.7m in three separate purchases, most recently spending $13.5m on medical debt owed by 2,693 people across 45 states and Puerto Rico, Rolling Jubilee said in a press release.

“No one should have to go into debt or bankruptcy because they get sick,” said Laura Hanna, an organiser with the group. Hanna said 62% of all personal bankruptcies have medical debt as a contributing factor.

Due to the nature of the debt market, the group is unable to specify whose debt it purchases, taking on the amounts before it discovers individuals’ identities. When Rolling Jubilee has bought the debt they send notes to their debtors “telling them they’re off the hook”, Ross said.

Ross, whose book, Creditocracy and the case for debt refusal, outlines the problems of the debt industry and calls for a “debtors’ movement” to resist credit, said the group had received letters from people whose debt they had lifted thanking them for the service. But the real victory was in spreading knowledge of the nature of the debt industry, he said.

“Very few people know how cheaply their debts have been bought by collectors. It changes the psychology of the debtor, knowing this.

“So when you get called up by the debt collector, and you’re being asked to pay the full amount of your debt, you now know that the debt collector has bought your debt very, very cheaply. As cheaply as we bought it. And that gives you moral ammunition to have a different conversation with the debt collector.”

Krugman: Zarota proti Franciji

The Plot Against France

By 

On Friday Standard & Poor’s, the bond-rating agency, downgraded France. The move made headlines, with many reports suggesting that France is in crisis. But markets yawned: French borrowing costs, which are near historic lowsbarely budged.

So what’s going on here? The answer is that S.& P.’s action needs to be seen in the context of the broader politics of fiscal austerity. And I do mean politics, not economics. For the plot against France — I’m being a bit tongue in cheek here, but there really are a lot of people trying to bad-mouth the place — is one clear demonstration that in Europe, as in America, fiscal scolds don’t really care about deficits. Instead, they’re using debt fears to advance an ideological agenda. And France, which refuses to play along, has become the target of incessant negative propaganda.

Let me give you an idea of what we’re talking about. A year ago the magazine The Economist declared France “the time bomb at the heart of Europe,” with problems that could dwarf those of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy. In January 2013, CNN Money’s senior editor-at-large declared France in “free fall,” a nation “heading toward an economic Bastille.” Similar sentiments can be found all over economic newsletters.

Given such rhetoric, one comes to French data expecting to see the worst. What you find instead is a country experiencing economic difficulties — who isn’t? — but in general performing as well as or better than most of its neighbors, with the admittedly big exception of Germany. Recent French growth has been sluggish, but much better than that of, say, the Netherlands, which is still rated AAA. According to standard estimates, French workers were actually a bit more productive than their German counterparts a dozen years ago — and guess what, they still are.

Meanwhile, French fiscal prospects look distinctly nonalarming. The budget deficit has fallen sharply since 2010, and the International Monetary Fund expects the ratio of debt to G.D.P. to be roughly stable over the next five years.

What about the longer-run burden of an aging population? This is a problem in France, as it is in all wealthy nations. But France has a higher birthrate than most of Europe — in part because of government programs that encourage births and ease the lives of working mothers — so that its demographic projections are much better than those of its neighbors, Germany included. Meanwhile, France’s remarkable health care system, which delivers high quality at low cost, is going to be a big fiscal advantage looking forward.

By the numbers, then, it’s hard to see why France deserves any particular opprobrium. So again, what’s going on?

Here’s a clue: Two months ago Olli Rehn, Europe’s commissioner for economic and monetary affairs — and one of the prime movers behind harsh austerity policies — dismissed France’s seemingly exemplary fiscal policy. Why? Because it was based on tax increases rather than spending cuts — and tax hikes, he declared, would “destroy growth and handicap the creation of jobs.”

In other words, never mind what I said about fiscal discipline, you’re supposed to be dismantling the safety net.

S.& P.’s explanation of its downgrade, though less clearly stated, amounted to the same thing: France was being downgraded because “the French government’s current approach to budgetary and structural reforms to taxation, as well as to product, services and labor markets, is unlikely to substantially raise France’s medium-term growth prospects.” Again, never mind the budget numbers, where are the tax cuts and deregulation?

You might think that Mr. Rehn and S.& P. were basing their demands on solid evidence that spending cuts are in fact better for the economy than tax increases. But they weren’t. In fact, research at the I.M.F. suggests that when you’re trying to reduce deficits in a recession, the opposite is true: temporary tax hikes do much less damage than spending cuts.

Oh, and when people start talking about the wonders of “structural reform,” take it with a large heaping of salt. It’s mainly a code phrase for deregulation — and the evidence on the virtues of deregulation is decidedly mixed. Remember, Ireland received high praise for its structural reforms in the 1990s and 2000s; in 2006 George Osborne, now Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer, called it a “shining example.” How did that turn out?

If all this sounds familiar to American readers, it should. U.S. fiscal scolds turn out, almost invariably, to be much more interested in slashing Medicare and Social Security than they are in actually cutting deficits. Europe’s austerians are now revealing themselves to be pretty much the same. France has committed the unforgivable sin of being fiscally responsible without inflicting pain on the poor and unlucky. And it must be punished

Depressing news from Paul Krugman

Those Depressing Germans

Komentar:

Če malo premislimo, je sporočilo, ki sledi iz Krugmanovega komentarja srhljivo. Nič ne kaže, da bi komurkoli od odgovrnih strokovnjako, politikov in finančnikov po šestih letih prišlo vsaj približnop na pamet, v čem je  problem. Ob vsej neizmerni množici strokovnjakov in mega zmogljivih računalnikov se z opozorili oglaša zanemarljiva in drobcena manjšinica, nekaj preslišanih posameznikov.  Mi ostali plovemo katastrofi nasproti, ponosni, da je človeštvo v znanosti in tehnologiji tako zelo napredovalo. Tako si verjetno mislimo: Bo že kako. Saj je dovolj pametnih ljudi na svetu. Pametni so morda že, Vendar so kljub temu večinoma žrtve iracionalnih verovanj in ideologij, ki so dadomestile starodvane obrede, s katerimo se je človek zbogal z večnostjo. Če bi se nam ljubilo pogledati, kdo vse je tiho in pokorno podpiral nacistični, fašistični, komunistične in druge totalitarne režime in kulte, bi se morali globoko zamisliti. Še zdaleč ni šlo  samo banalnega zlo(bneža) Eichmanna.  Med potrpežljivimi in zvestimi so bili tudi nešteti ugledni profesorji tega in onega.  Tu pa tam tudi kakšen umetnik. KLjub vsemu so ti slednji redki med fanatiki in apologeti.  Samo pamet očitno ne pomaga nič.

I.K.

By :

Published: November 3, 2013 847 Comments

German officials are furious at America, and not just because of the business about Angela Merkel’s cellphone. What has them enraged now is one (long) paragraph in a U.S. Treasury report on foreign economic and currency policies. In that paragraph Treasury argues that Germany’s huge surplus on current account — a broad measure of the trade balance — is harmful, creating “a deflationary bias for the euro area, as well as for the world economy.”

The Germans angrily pronounced this argument “incomprehensible.” “There are no imbalances in Germany which require a correction of our growth-friendly economic and fiscal policy,” declared a spokesman for the nation’s finance ministry.

But Treasury was right, and the German reaction was disturbing. For one thing, it was an indicator of the continuing refusal of policy makers in Germany, in Europe more broadly and for that matter around the world to face up to the nature of our economic problems. For another, it demonstrated Germany’s unfortunate tendency to respond to any criticism of its economic policies with cries of victimization.

First, the facts. Remember the China syndrome, in which Asia’s largest economy kept running enormous trade surpluses thanks to an undervalued currency? Well, China is still running surpluses, but they have declined. Meanwhile, Germany has taken China’s place: Last year Germany, not China, ran the world’s biggest current account surplus. And measured as a share of G.D.P., Germany’s surplus was more than twice as large as China’s.

Now, it’s true that Germany has been running big surpluses for almost a decade. At first, however, these surpluses were matched by large deficits in southern Europe, financed by large inflows of German capital. Europe as a whole continued to have roughly balanced trade.

Then came the crisis, and flows of capital to Europe’s periphery collapsed. The debtor nations were forced — in part at Germany’s insistence — into harsh austerity, which eliminated their trade deficits. But something went wrong. The narrowing of trade imbalances should have been symmetric, with Germany’s surpluses shrinking along with the debtors’ deficits. Instead, however, Germany failed to make any adjustment at all; deficits in Spain, Greece and elsewhere shrank, but Germany’s surplus didn’t.

This was a very bad thing for Europe, because Germany’s failure to adjust magnified the cost of austerity. Take Spain, the biggest deficit country before the crisis. It was inevitable that Spain would face lean years as it learned to live within its means. It was not, however, inevitable that Spanish unemployment would be almost 27 percent, and youth unemployment almost 57 percent. And Germany’s immovability was an important contributor to Spain’s pain.

It has also been a bad thing for the rest of the world. It’s simply arithmetic: Since southern Europe has been forced to end its deficits while Germany hasn’t reduced its surplus, Europe as a whole is running large trade surpluses, helping to keep the world economy depressed.

German officials, as we’ve seen, respond to all of this with angry declarations that German policy has been impeccable. Sorry, but this (a) doesn’t matter and (b) isn’t true.

Why it doesn’t matter: Five years after the fall of Lehman, the world economy is still depressed, suffering from a persistent shortage of demand. In this environment, a country that runs a trade surplus is, to use the old phrase, beggaring its neighbors. It’s diverting spending away from their goods and services to its own, and thereby taking away jobs. It doesn’t matter whether it’s doing this maliciously or with the best of intentions, it’s doing it all the same.

Furthermore, as it happens, Germany isn’t blameless. It shares a currency with its neighbors, greatly benefiting German exporters, who get to price their goods in a weak euro instead of what would surely have been a soaring Deutsche mark. Yet Germany has failed to deliver on its side of the bargain: To avoid a European depression, it needed to spend more as its neighbors were forced to spend less, and it hasn’t done that.

German officials won’t, of course, accept any of this. They consider their country a shining role model, to be emulated by all, and the awkward fact that we can’t all run gigantic trade surpluses simply doesn’t register.

And the thing is, it’s not just the Germans. Germany’s trade surplus is damaging for the same reason cutting food stamps and unemployment benefits in America destroys jobs — and Republican politicians are about as receptive as German officials to anyone who tries to point out their error. In the sixth year of a global economic crisis whose essence is that there isn’t enough spending, many policy makers still don’t get it. And it looks as if they never will.

Desnica pretresa evropski establišment

Right wing rattles the European establishment

Kot v tridesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja je vse nastavljeno za katastrofo. Stanje je še mnogo slabše: Thatcher – Reagan (Hoover, laisser faire ali neoliberalizem) poskrbita za krizo. V tridesetih se je vsaj vsaka država lahko reševala po svoje. V EU, še zlasti Evroconi so države talci in morajo izpolnejvati “domače naloge”, za katere se vnaprej ve, da bodo neučikovite. Enosmerna, parcialna poliotika se izvaja zato, ker je Nemčija prevelika in premočna in ima zapleteno psihologijo in ima morda nehote koristi od takega razvoja.  Boji se inflacije, gospodinjska mentaliteta jo zavezuje k varčevanju. Levica ne more sestaviti vlade, ker socilademokrati ne marajo sodelovati z LInke. (Stara tradicija iz tridesetih.) Vse je lepo povezano z imperialnimi interesi globalnega, pretežno ameriškega kapitala. Vsaka izmed ogroženih držav je prepruščena sama sebi. EU sadi rožice, rine glavo v pesek, ponavlja mantro o domačih nalogah  in o približajoči se katastrofi niti ne govori. Gre za iracionalno, magično, infantilno in prastaro prepričanje, da bo grožnja tako morda izginila. Razumljivo, saj v Evropi prevladuje thatcherjanska desnica, ki jo ne odlikuje zapleteno sistemsko razmišljanje, ampak nagovarja gospodinsko in kmečko pamet.   Še večji problem, še bolj odgovorna je alternativa, t.i. levica, ki razen obtoževanja, demonizacije  nasprotnikov in prilagajanja njihovim programom (neoliberalnim) ni sposobna ničesar. Še posebej je cepljena proti samokritiki, proti vprašanju, s čim pa mi sami povzročamo tak razvoj. Politična korektnost, danske mesne kroglice in božično drevo v spodnejm članku je lep laboratorisjki vzorec obnašanja evrospke, verjetno tudi svetovne levice. Problem, upravičeno ali neopravičeno doživljanje orgoženih identitet je proglašen za neproblem, za zgolj desničarski fenomen. Zato  se ga zamolči ali prepove. Politična korektnost poskrbi, da se vsi problemi, nasprotja in napetosti vstrajno pometajo pod preprogo. Tako pritisk v evropskem loncu nekontrolirano narašča,  in nihče se ne ukvarja s trem, kako zmanjšati ogenj in kako katastrofalne bodo polsedice eksplozije.  Še kredibilnih akademskih študij na to temo ni. In to kljub temu, da smo vse to že nekoč videli, v predvojni weimarski Nemčiji .

I.K.

Laerke Posselt for The New York Times:

Mikkel Dencker, a mayoral candidate in Hvidovre, Denmark, put up campaign posters. He has made the removal of meatballs from kindergarten in deference to Islam a campaign issue.

 A member of Denmark’s Parliament and, he hopes, mayor of this commuter-belt town west of Copenhagen, Mr. Dencker is furious that some day care centers have removed meatballs, a staple of traditional Danish cuisine, from their cafeterias in deference to Islamic dietary rules. No matter that only a handful of kindergartens have actually done so. The missing meatballs, he said, are an example of how “Denmark is losing its identity” under pressure from outsiders.

The issue has become a headache for Mayor Helle Adelborg, whose center-left Social Democratic Party has controlled the town council since the 1920s but now faces an uphill struggle before municipal elections on Nov. 19. “It is very easy to exploit such themes to get votes,” she said. “They take a lot of votes from my party. It is unfair.”

It is also Europe’s new reality. All over, established political forces are losing ground to politicians whom they scorn as fear-mongering populists. In France, according to a recent opinion poll, the far-right National Front has become the country’s most popular party. In other countries — Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland and the Netherlands — disruptive upstart groups are on a roll.

This phenomenon alarms not just national leaders but also officials in Brussels who fear that European Parliament elections next May could substantially tip the balance of power toward nationalists and forces intent on halting or reversing integration within the European Union.

“History reminds us that high unemployment and wrong policies like austerity are an extremely poisonous cocktail,” said Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, a former Danish prime minister and a Social Democrat. “Populists are always there. In good times it is not easy for them to get votes, but in these bad times all their arguments, the easy solutions of populism and nationalism, are getting new ears and votes.”

In some ways, this is Europe’s Tea Party moment — a grass-roots insurgency fired by resentment against a political class that many Europeans see as out of touch. The main difference, however, is that Europe’s populists want to strengthen, not shrink, government and see the welfare state as an integral part of their national identities.

The trend in Europe does not signal the return of fascist demons from the 1930s, except in Greece, where the neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn has promoted openly racist beliefs, and perhaps in Hungary, where the far-right Jobbik party backs a brand of ethnic nationalism suffused with anti-Semitism.

But the soaring fortunes of groups like the Danish People’s Party, which some popularity polls now rank ahead of the Social Democrats, point to a fundamental political shift toward nativist forces fed by a curious mix of right-wing identity politics and left-wing anxieties about the future of the welfare state.

“This is the new normal,” said Flemming Rose, the foreign editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. “It is a nightmare for traditional political elites and also for Brussels.”

The platform of France’s National Front promotes traditional right-wing causes like law and order and tight controls on immigration but reads in parts like a leftist manifesto. It accuses “big bosses” of promoting open borders so they can import cheap labor to drive down wages. It rails against globalization as a threat to French language and culture, and it opposes any rise in the retirement age or cuts in pensions.

Similarly, in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, the anti-Islam leader of the Party for Freedom, has mixed attacks on immigration with promises to defend welfare entitlements. “He is the only one who says we don’t have to cut anything,” said Chris Aalberts, a scholar at Erasmus University in Rotterdam and author of a book based on interviews with Mr. Wilders’s supporters. “This is a popular message.”

Mr. Wilders, who has police protection because of death threats from Muslim extremists, is best known for his attacks on Islam and demands that the Quran be banned. These issues, Mr. Aalberts said, “are not a big vote winner,” but they help set him apart from deeply unpopular centrist politicians who talk mainly about budget cuts. The success of populist parties, Mr. Aalberts added, “is more about the collapse of the center than the attractiveness of the alternatives.”

Pia Kjaersgaard, the pioneer of a trend now being felt across Europe, set up the Danish People’s Party in 1995 and began shaping what critics dismissed as a rabble of misfits and racists into a highly disciplined, effective and even mainstream political force.

Ms. Kjaersgaard, a former social worker who led the party until last year, said she rigorously screened membership lists, weeding out anyone with views that might comfort critics who see her party as extremist. She said she had urged a similar cleansing of the ranks in Sweden’s anti-immigration and anti-Brussels movement, the Swedish Democrats, whose early leaders included a former activist in the Nordic Reich Party.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front, has embarked on a similar makeover, rebranding her party as a responsible force untainted by the anti-Semitism and homophobia of its previous leader, her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who once described Nazi gas chambers as a “detail of history.” Ms. Le Pen has endorsed several gay activists as candidates for French municipal elections next March.

But a whiff of extremism still lingers, and the Danish People’s Party wants nothing to do with Ms. Le Pen and her followers.

Built on the ruins of a chaotic antitax movement, the Danish People’s Party has evolved into a defender of the welfare state, at least for native Danes. It pioneered “welfare chauvinism,” a cause now embraced by many of Europe’s surging populists, who play on fears that freeloading foreigners are draining pensions and other benefits.

“We always thought the People’s Party was a temporary phenomenon, that they would have their time and then go away,” said Jens Jonatan Steen, a researcher at Cevea, a policy research group affiliated with the Social Democrats. “But they have come to stay.”

“They are politically incorrect and are not accepted by many as part of the mainstream,” he added. “But if you have support from 20 percent of the public, you are mainstream.”

In a recent meeting in the northern Danish town of Skorping, the new leader of the Danish People’s Party, Kristian Thulesen Dahl, criticized Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, of the Social Democrats, whose government is trying to trim the welfare system, and spoke about the need to protect the elderly.

The Danish People’s Party and similar political groups, according to Mr. Rasmussen, the former prime minister, benefit from making promises that they do not have to worry about paying for, allowing them to steal welfare policies previously promoted by the left. “This is a new populism that takes on the coat of Social Democratic policies,” he said.

In Hvidovre, Mr. Dencker, the Danish People’s Party mayoral candidate, wants the government in, not out of, people’s lives. Beyond pushing authorities to make meatballs mandatory in public institutions, he has attacked proposals to cut housekeeping services for the elderly and criticized the mayor for canceling one of the two Christmas trees the city usually puts up each December.

Instead, he says, it should put up five Christmas trees.

Mate Dolenc: Slovenija, država za dobro znane lopove

Requiem za dom navadnega človeka

Bil sem navzoč pri rušenju hiše – črne gradnje – Darka Kuzmiča v Bohinju. Hiše, ne vile. Dodajam; hiša je bila njegov dom, ne vikend! Trideset let. Ni bila arhitektonska grdobija, kakršne sicer rastejo v Bohinju, ampak gozdna brunarica. Darko je mizar, z estetskim občutkom za les. Hiša je bila skoraj nevidna, zadaj za Mladinskim domom. Ni človeka, ki bi lahko rekel, da je koga motila ali kazila naravo. Razen države Slovenije. Tam je bila okrog 40 let, 30 let je bila Darkotu dom. Ni je postavil on, ampak Mladinski dom v državni lasti, za hišnika. To je bil Darko.

Rušenje sta vodila neka inšpektorica in neki uradnik z veličastnim konjskim repom na glavi in rinko v ušesu, kot bi prišel s Papue Nove Gvineje. In okrog 40 policajev. Tu so bile seveda tudi odločbe. Darko naj bi izčrpal vse pravne možnosti za zadržanje rušenja. V dveh letih. Za Jakliča (in vse jakliče) se po osmih letih najdejo še vedno nove in nove in nove pravne možnosti, da se mu ne ruši. In še se bodo, saj ima mož denarja kot pečka in temu denarju se ne izmakne ne uradnik, ne sodnik, ne politik.

Slovenska država ni bila narejena za državljane. Narejena je bila za janše, jankoviće, peterlete, ruple, rodete, bavčarje, virante, erjavce, pahorje in podobno svojat.

Ob slovesu od svojega doma je Darko poljubil sliko Tita. Razumem ga in se s to gesto globoko strinjam.

Nikoli nisem tako preziral države Jugoslavije (čeprav je nisem maral), kot zdaj preziram državo Slovenijo. Državo, ne domovino. Domovino sem obdržal, zgoraj našteti mi je niso mogli vzeti. Ker jo imam v svoji notranjosti. Tja biriči ne morejo vstopiti. Ne pri Darkotu, ne pri meni.

Ali pa se bo sčasoma zgodilo tudi to?

Mate Dolenc

Gorazdova 15, Ljubljana, Belgija

Tako slovenska država razume pravo in socialno spodobnost

Kot že toliko vladnih kolegov pred njim, nam je tudi tokrat minister za infrastrukturo in prostor Samo Omrzel zagotavljal, da tu ni nobenega problema, da je vse zakonito in da zakoni morajo veljati za vse enako. To smo slišali že ničkolikorat  v zvezi z izbrisanimi, z afero Plut, z zaseženo hišo v Grosupljem itd. itn. Pozneje pridejo računi, večinoma iz evrsopkega sodišča. In potem davkoplačevalci plačujemo take “strokovno neoporečne” sodbe  in ukrepe slovenskih sodišč in drugih državnih organov z zakonitimi obretsmi vred.. Tudi če je vse zakonito, čeprav tudi tokrat kaže da ni, bo verjetno  epilog tak, da bo porušena Kuzmičeva hiška pomagala  legalizirati črnogradnje vrsti naših Jakličev.
Milka Bizovičar, gospodarstvo

čet, 07.11.2013, 21:28

Črne gradnje: Državljanom v posmeh
Si predstavljate, da vam podrejo hišo, naslednji dan pa ni več denarja za rušitve črnih gradenj?
Samo dan po tem, ko je država spet našla način, da je svojim neposlušnim državljanom pokazala mišice in Bohinjčanu Darku Kuzmiču podrla hiško, v kateri je bival dolga leta, je resorni minister preostalim lastnikom črnih gradenj povedal, da bo od danes povsem drugače. Vsi, ki so brez ustreznih dovoljenj zgradili kakšen vikend, brunarico, hiško ali pa stajo za razvajene koze, ki se rade kopajo v bazenu – mimo tega znanega Jakličevega primera pač res ne moremo –, bodo lahko svoje objekte čez kakšno leto legalizirali. Če so le gradili na svoji zemlji ali pa imajo služnost na njej.Čeprav se bodo lastniki črnih gradenj zaradi tega nemara oddahnili, je vprašanje, kaj o tem mislijo državljani. Vključno z Darkom iz Bohinja. Si predstavljate, da dolga leta živite v neki hiški – verjetno ne v napoto sokrajanom, ker vas drugače v stiski ne bi podprli –, potem pa pridejo uradniki in vam v prah, strogo po črki zakona, porušijo streho nad glavo? In to prvi dan, ko je marsikdo iz omare potegnil bundo. In vrh vsega ravno dan pred tem, ko na ministrstvu povedo, da zdaj pa nimajo več denarja za rušitve črnih gradenj. Naj pade še tista v Bohinju, da bo zmanjkalo za ono Türkovo, ki bi jo menda morali zravnati z zemljo konec meseca na obali. Ha! Zdaj je jasno, kako bodo inšpektorji tam »poskrbeli za vzpostavitev zakonitega stanja«, kot so dejali pred kratkim.Minister noče komentirati primerov, ki še niso rešeni, zato ne vemo, kaj si misli o tem, da ta vila in ona kozja staja še vedno stojita. Povedal pa je, da se z rušitvijo Darkove hiške ni nikomur zgodila krivica, ker je bil objekt po vseh pogojih zrel za rušitev. V nasprotju s prej omenjenimi? »V tem primeru se je izkazalo, da smo pravna država, saj elementarni pogoji pravice do gradnje niso bili izpolnjeni. Država je izpolnila svojo obveznost.« Državljanom v poduk in posmeh hkrati.

Črne gradnje: Državljanom v posmeh

Se še kdo spomni nekega superministra?

Napaka za prihodnost
Tina Kristan, Ozadja

čet, 07.11.2013, 21:00

Napaka za prihodnost
Verodostojnosti Turku niso vzeli mediji, ne predstavniki javnega šolstva, ne sodišče.

»Da bi se pogovarjali o dejstvih, bom odgovoril z vprašanjem: Koliko novih fakultet ali univerz smo ustanovili? Katera je bila na novo akreditirana? In katera je dobila koncesijo?« se je lani na eni javnih tribun zagovarjal takratni superminister Žiga Turk.

Ni bilo prvič in še zdaleč ne zadnjič. Skoraj ni bilo dogodka, na katerem ga ne bi doletelo vprašanje: Ali varčujemo v javnem šolstvu zato, da bi ostalo več denarja za zasebne šole? In ves čas je vztrajal: ne. Včasih se je celo zdelo, da takšno vprašanje na kakšnem predvsem protokolarnem dogodku ni bilo primerno. Napaka.

A pojdimo po vrsti in govorimo, kot je rekel minister, o dejstvih. Pri tem ne pozabimo njegovega poskusa, da po nujnem postopku spremeni zakon o visokem šolstvu. Ideja je bila, da bi vlada imenovala celoten svet nacionalne agencije za kakovost v visokem šolstvu, organa, ki podeljuje akreditacije zavodom. Ni mu uspelo. Je pa vladi uspelo nadpovprečno znižati sredstva za visoko šolstvo. Poleg tega, kar je ključno, je vlada v zadnjih izdihljajih, dan po tem, ko ji je parlament izglasoval nezaupnico, objavila razpis za podelitev treh koncesij zasebnim visokošolskim zavodom. Dan po tem je bil razpis objavljen v uradnem listu, teden dni pozneje pa so na ministrstvu že odpirali prispele vloge. Še preden so to storili, smo v Delu razkrili, da pogoje razpisa za tri koncesije izpolnjujejo zgolj štirje zavodi. Naglica pri vsem tem je bila še toliko bolj nerazumljiva, ker so se koncesije podeljevale šele s študijskim letom 2014/2015.

Vnaprej znani zmagovalec je bila, denimo, tudi fakulteta, ki je v solasti inštituta, katerega soustanovitelj je bil Borut Rončević, sicer direktor direktorata za visoko šolstvo na superministrstvu. Da gre za Fakulteto za medije, verjetno ne preseneča. Mediji so namreč tisto področje, za katerega je bila takratna stranka na oblasti in katere del je tudi Turk, ki je sicer iz vseh organov stranke izstopil kmalu po zaključku ministrskega mandata, vedno še posebno dovzetna. Nove novinarje pač potrebujemo, čeprav so le nekaj mesecev pred tem za petino zmanjšali število vpisnih mest v družboslovju.

Tako je bil cilj superministra, ki ga je ves čas zanikal, dosežen. Napaka. Dokaz za to je tudi odločitev upravnega sodišča, ki je razveljavilo že podeljene koncesije, pri tem pa zapisalo, da sta bila razpis in podelitev koncesij diskriminatorna ter neustavna in nezakonita. Koncesije so dobile rdeči karton, s tem pa tudi superminister. In tako izgubil svojo verodostojnost. Nismo mu je vzeli ne mediji, ne predstavniki javnega visokega šolstva, ne upravno sodišče. Povrhu tega je zdaj prav zaradi koncesij še pod drobnogledom NPU. Torej še eden v vrsti politikov, ki bi moral izgubiti pravico, da bi kdajkoli v prihodnje še opravljal kakršnokoli javno funkcijo? So to res previsoki standardi za Slovenijo? Če bi takšne postavili že pred leti, danes morda ne bi poslušali napovedi, da bo Slovenija prihodnje leto poleg Cipra edina država v recesiji.