Extremes and scared "leaders"

Newsflash: "President Trump" scares (some) World leaders

Yes, for a very wide definition of the word "leader".

These so-called "leaders" are the main responsible party for most of the extremism on the rise. The people we now call "extremists" (from which I exclude actual extremists, like Daesh) are mostly people who felt abandoned and betrayed by their own nations, and reacted in a way that we have not yet fully grasped. There's not much to add here.

Note: My own texts on this blog qualify me as an extremist. So be it.

What I find amusing in this ongoing media coverage is the way most pundits keep ranting about "race issues": Trump has risen because of racism; Europe is falling apart because of racism (exacerbated by the refugee crisis). I disagree. That's not to say there is no racism (or any other kind of tribalism) at play. Racism is an issue; it's just not the issue.

People don't rally behind Trump because he targets non-white people. They rally behind him because he targets the "illegal scum that comes into this Great Nation and steals the jobs away from the honest-to-God-hard-working-Americans". Something similar happens in Europe. Europe began disintegrating with the 2011 crisis, with the way EU countries divided, and turned on each other. The European elected accountants showed the European people that the game was "Each man for himself". The current divisions over the refugees are just another step on that course.

Looking at the USA, try a little "What if" exercise. What if Mexico and Canada were "reversed"? Apply everything you know about Mexico to Canada and vice-versa, but keep each people's skin color - Mexicans would still be "latino", and Canadians would still be "white".

Mexicans would visit the USA on tourism, and many would have work relations there, which would be construed as mutually beneficial. Canadians would flock to the USA in their millions, looking for a better life, taking any job available, and working for much lower wages. And with a sizable percentage of illegal immigrants.

Is anyone really suggesting that if the USA were filled with Canadian immigrants "stealing American jobs", Trump would ignore them just because they're white?

No, this is not about race, or religion, or any such nonsense. That's the pretext, not the motive, and its use stems from the fact that it's a lot easier to stir up the mob by giving them an easily recognizable "other". 

This is about money. This is about inequality. This is about poverty.

This is what's getting these movements into the spotlight and, ultimately, into power. People who are already in poverty and people who perceive themselves (correctly or incorrectly) to risk falling into poverty. People who feel abandoned and betrayed; people who see no hope of ever recovering their lost income level; people who fear they will lose their own income.

I find it stupid beyond belief that so many people compare today's extreme right parties to the Nazi party, and then ignore that the Nazi's rise to power happened after the Great Depression. Back then, people didn't vote for them because of Antisemitism. That only became relevant after the Nazis took a hold on power.

I believe Trump's opponents know this. I also believe Trump's opponents use the race/religion/whatever issue for the same reason Trump uses it - because it's an easier way to stir up the mobs. Solving the actual problems - inequality, and the poverty and misery it causes - is one of the most complex problems we face today. It's a lot easier to just shout "Racism".

Add to that the business as usual of the last few decades, from both sides of the fence, both of which have brought us here, and both still eager to give us more austerity, more "pro-growth structural reforms", more deregulation... more of the same, really.

No wonder people are going for the extremes. Sure it can get ugly, but the number of people who believe they have little or nothing to lose is growing.

And those scared "leaders"? They're the ones delivering more and more people, on a silver platter, to the extremes.

"Brilliant" reads of the day

'Buy American' Hurts Americans

The point? Those who say "buy national/local products" are hurting the very locality they claim to defend.

The evidence? There you go:

Trade among perfect strangers from all over the world is cooperation, trust, mutual benefit, and peace in action. Don't we need more of it? Injecting divisive nationalism into commerce, however innocently, violates the true liberal spirit, which has bestowed incalculable blessings on the human race.

As can clearly be seen from the dwindling inequality throughout the world. Except, of course, if we take a local look at the evolution of inequality. But, as the man says, don't do that.

EU Anti-tax evasion measures

How more ironic can you get than having the Dijsselbloem bloke crowing about the EU's measures against tax evasion? This line is particularly funny: “We’ve been [so] very busy competing with each other ... that big companies tend not to pay taxes.”

Indeed, I wonder how that happened. An oversight, I suppose. I mean, it's not as if this "competition" was deliberately created to attract funds to some member states, in detriment of others. That would most certainly never happen in an organization bearing the name "Union".

But, of course, at least some of our hard-working European buddies are more honest (about their motives, that is) than others:

Austria’s finance minister, Hans Jörg Schelling, said: “I think we should not overshoot in tackling these things out of the hysteria on Panama.”

Absolutely, let's no overshoot, lest we see the money taking off and going somewhere else, when it's so much better that it stays in a select group of European countries that can then perpetuate the "narrative" that they're "hard-working" and "responsible".

The reason for Trump's success

Judging by what I've been reading lately in the media, I've got it all wrong in my posts about Trump's success. The general opinion is that race issues, rather than economic issues, are the main driving force behind Trump's success.

The reason? Just look how well Trump is doing in upscale zones. And what do these well-off Trump supporters have in common with the not-so-well-off Trump supporters? Why, their whiteness, of course.

So, the anti-racist media took a look at a group of people whose only common characteristic is race and covered all of them with one single reason for supporting Trump. How non-racist of the anti-racist media.

After all, there's no way those people can have... I don't know... different reasons to support Trump. Sure, they live in different states. And they lead different lifestyles. And they have different levels of income. But don't let unimportant things like "details" bother you, they're all white, therefore... racism.

I suspect "who could've predicted that" is going to become even more popular.

Double standards - The new normal for both sides of the social spectrum

I don't know about you, but I find double-standards disturbing. I find this particularly jarring when I see it coming from those I admired, those who were supposed to be on what I consider "my side".

Yes, there are sides, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you can't see beyond your side. In other words, the problem isn't tribes, it's tribalism. Whether we can have one without the other is a question for which I have no answer. As extreme as my opinions may be, I do my best to avoid tribalism and to base my criticism of others on their words, acts, behaviours, or attitudes, instead of tribal affiliation.

I'd say the main offender is the all-encompassing generalization, the "All X are Y" thingy (yes, I know, I use it, too, sometimes - just ask me my opinion about entrepeneurs, managers, or politicians). If I were to give free rein to my tribalism, I'd probably agree that those who claim "All women are sluts" should be dragged into the street and shot, and those who say "All men are rapists" may have a point. Since I make an effort to see beyond my tribalism, I don't agree. I believe both are equally idiotic and destructive.

Also idiotic and destructive is the more subtle way of expressing "All X are Y". E.g., when speaking about online harassment, the sentence is usually "A vast majority of the victims of online harassment are female, harassed by angry white males". Note the description of the perpetrators. There are only characteristics, which are combined to create a group which is then collectively held responsible for an act.

However, point this out and you'll get an answer like "Ah, that's not what I meant, that's just your interpretation, and you got it all wrong. It's not about you, and if you think it's about you, then you're probably sexist/racist/whatever. Get over it".

OK, sure, let me have a go at it, then, I'll change the words a bit, OK?

"A vast majority of the victims of terrorism attacks are civilians, killed by angry Muslims".

There, what do you think? Ah, it's wrong because I'm denigrating a whole group based on the actions of some members of said group? Good point. We shouldn't do that. Tell me again, then, why is it not wrong in the "angry white male" thingy.

"All men are rapists" or "Harassment if carried out by white males" is perfectly acceptable, while "All Muslims are terrorists" is not. Anyone who identifies as progressive will tell you the latter is wrong, and I unreservedly agree. What I can't understand is why on Earth those same people will go out of their way to support the former. Anyone with a functioning brain and the ability to hold tribalism in check can see that the above examples are all terrible.

Terrorism isn't carried by Muslims, it's carried out by... terrorists. Most terrorists are Muslims. Maybe. The point still stands, though - terrorism is carried out by terrorists. By the same universal standard, harassment is carried out by harassers. Most harassers are white male. Again, maybe.

Then, again, maybe not. Harassment has become a tactic used by every tribe, these days, both online and offline. However, certain tribes believe harassment is justified because their cause is Right(TM) and the person they're harassing is horrible. The thing is... every tribe believes this. This argument is meaningless, and if you're piling up on someone on Twitter or Facebook, congratulations. You're part of the problem.

Now, truth be told, we've always had double-standards. So, what is my beef with the current crop?

Because the tribe that's currently legitimizing the use of double-standards is the tribe that, in the past, has rightly denounced them. That was the tribe you joined, if you believed double-standards were wrong. Suddenly, you find your tribe using the same weapons that were used against them, and still claiming some sort of moral high ground. Your tribe is harassing, all the while condemning harassment.

And you can't change to the other tribe, really. Because you look at the other tribe and it's still horrible. It's just that your tribe has also become horrible. A different sort of horrible, but horrible nonetheless.

I'll leave with a fine example of what I mean. It's from the Guardian. I didn't select it for being the worst example, mind you, it just happened to be the last one I read, while writing this.

Across the internet, we have now reached a tipping point. For women, the abuse is often violent and sexualised, with direct threats to rape and mutilate. For non-white people, the abuse is often racist; for Jews, it is antisemitic; for Muslims, it is Islamophobic. To some extent, everyone online is affected. To the extent that our lives are conducted online, this is the water in which we all swim: it’s horribly polluted and it’s making a lot of us sick.

Did you say "To some extent, everyone online is affected"? OK, that sounds fair. Let's see, then, how you define "everyone":

• women
• non-white people
• Jews
• Muslims

Oh, I see... "everyone". Carry on, then.

As editor, I think we need to act more decisively on what kind of material appears on the Guardian. Those who argue that this is an affront to freedom of speech miss the point. That freedom counts for little if it is used to silence others. When women and minorities don’t feel able to speak their mind for fear of insult, threat or humiliation, no such freedom exists.

Again, we have a strange definition of "everyone": "women and minorities". Somehow, this seems to be the only free speech threatened.

And, then, I ran into another story, also on the Guardian, the story of a woman explaining why it's OK to have an affair that's been going on for nearly a decade, build an incredible lie around her, including keeping a calculated fake friendship with her lover's wife, all for the purpose of facilitating the affair. It ends with this question:

It takes a very brave person to give an honest response, but, before judging me, ask yourself just one question – what’s stopping you from doing exactly the same?

I know my answer. Since I think differently from this person, and going by the current way of thinking, I'm probably not brave. And I'm probably sexist, because I have a different opinion.

I will, however, finish with a question of my own: How would this go if the story was about a man, instead of a woman?

Our destiny is Trump - Part 2

Note: I do not write today's post lightly. There is some pain associated with this. Mostly from seeing social causes I support being completely destroyed by people with no princicples who want nothing more than attention and power. I have little doubt a backlash is coming, and I just hope when the dust settles, we won't end up worse than when all this idiocy began.

This time, we'll look at intolerance.

Historically, we can classify social progressive movements as "left-leaning". And while actions by these movements have led to violent confrontation, they were generally based on a goal of tolerance, a desire to achieve a state of greater social justice. In fact, the violence was often initiated by those standing on the other side of the issue, as an attempt to eliminate threats to the status quo.

And, then, something... changed.

Suppose my job is to bake cakes and a gay couple asks me a cake for their wedding. That's my job, so I should just do it, regardless of my beliefs. Otherwise, I should look for a different line of work.

On the other hand, if my job is, say, being the CEO of a tech foundation and I've never promoted any homophobic practices at that foundation, then it should be irrelevant what causes I support, financially or otherwise, in my personal life. It should be irrelevant if I happen to support an anti-gay cause like, say, California's Proposition 8, provided I don't bring that mindset into the workplace.

The first hard lesson I learned about modern-day progressives it that... I'm wrong.

We went from fighting against someone losing his job solely for being gay to making someone lose his job just because he's anti-gay.

Apparently, the motive behind this fight wasn't the principle that no one should suffer consequences in his professional life for whatever private beliefs he holds (provided said beliefs didn't manifest in his professional activity), but rather the principle that being gay shouldn't be a reason to fire anyone. I won't disagree with the latter, but I find it incomplete. Social justice is achieved with universal principles, not carved-out exceptions or sectary causes.

We used to fight to give a voice to those who couldn't speak, now we fight to shame and silence those who disagree with us - even worse, those who actually agree with us, but have more moderate views.

We used to fight for improving the rights of those we called "minorities", now we harass those we call "privileged" for things as petty as wearing dreadlocks, which is now called "cultural appropriation", or wearing a sombrero, which has become "culturally offensive".

In short, we went from having Social Justice Warriors, in the best possible sense of the words, to this sad travesti we have today, where people harass and intimidate other people for the crime of... being different.

So, we have the progressives of today using what was, mostly, a tactic of the conservatives, and claiming moral superiority. Ironic, really.

But eve more ironic is that we now have equally vocal and intolerant people acting like idiots on both sides of every issue, and these drive any moderate out of said issues.

Oh, yes, I said "idiots" (belated trigger warning: I'll repeat it a lot). Does that mean I consider these people idiots? No. I don't really know them, other than their public personas, and I've always considered someone's public persona a bit like a cartoon people create.

That being said, I do consider that these people behave like idiots. I have as much contempt for the Roosh Vs and the All-women-are-sluts club members as I do for the Sarkeesians and the All-men-are-rapists club members. They are equally revolting human beings who just happen to hold opposing views.

I wish rapists would get convicted more often, and got hit with harder sentences. Most of all, I wish the police had a special branch to support (emotionally and legally) anyone who comes forward and denounces a sexual assault. The recent Ghomeshi trial shows just how much we need this. But I also wish due process to be applied to every case, instead of the brilliant suggestion for "just accepting the victim's version and giving no weight whatsoever to the «predator's» side of the story".

I understand the issue of diversity in culture, e.g., games, movies, or books. But I do not feel represented by those who are leading the fight for this diversity in any of these media. Going about defining "gamers" as "Whiny males living in their parents' basements" and using "Gamers are dead" as a battle cry is not an attack against lack of diversity, it's just behaving like an idiot. I don't call myself a "gamer" (sometimes I go through phases where I spend too much time playing PC games, and then I can spend a couple of years without playing anything) and I didn't feel targeted, but as I watched that drama unfold, I cringed as I saw all the moderates saying "Forget it, I'm outta here".

What about the death threats and harassment, you say? That's a matter of Police, not social justice. If the Police doesn't look into it, hire a lawyer and sue the State. I'll donate for this. I might even donate for lobbying to get the Law changed, but not with the current crop of movement leaders.

And, please, don't even get me started on cultural appropriation. That Native American bloke who sues people for using American Indian symbols is not acting like an activist, he's acting like an idiot.

I'd like to give a special mention to Black Lives Matter. I believe that is the most serious social issue we're currently facing. I don't know if I agree with the way it's being directed, but I do know I have no better alternative to offer, so... no criticism from me.

Now, where is the connection between all this and Trump-like candidates?

Take a look at Trump supporters. Look at the extreme views they espouse. Look at the level of aggression they display. Now, look at Trump protesters. How do they behave? How do they fight back? Other than their beliefs or their causes, what's the difference? You've got people behaving like aggressive shouting idiots on one side complaining about... the people behaving like aggressive shouting idiots on the other side.

Look at the Yale video with the protester behaving like a shouting idiot, confronting Nicholas Christakis, the master of Yale’s Silliman College. Or the video with another college person behaving like an idiot, trying to intimidate people to stop filming, or the two blokes behaving like idiots on the more recent "dreadlocks kid" video, after they found out they were being filmed, and going after the person doing the filming. What's the difference between these people and the proverbial hate-filled Trump supporters, other than the words coming out of their mouths?

Unfortunately, the vast majority of what passes up as "progressive figths" are little more than petty harassment of the "Different Other". 

The problem is that this display of idiocy not only becomes viral, but gains traction, by progressive support. Very much so. And mainstream politicians tend to pick it up, in the hope it will net them more votes. As the hysteria level goes up, once again, the moderates are left behind.

Then, one day, a different sort of Trump comes along, one with a cleaner act. A Trump who calls this intolerant double-standard-filled bigotry on both sides for what it is, but who is a more credible contender - he shows tolerance in his criticisms, he acknowledges the problems and presents solutions other than "Boy, I'm so good at this, I'll solve it before you even leave the voting booth". He shows he can actually tell the serious issues (e.g., Black Lives Matter) from the useless-waste-of-time issues (e.g., Dreadlocks Kid). Note that I'm not even saying this person will actually be sincere, just that he will put forth his act in a convincing manner. There's a very good chance he'll get the moderates. He may even have a shot at getting the extremists, provided he's the only alternative to what they see as "the Evil candidate" (which is a synonym for "the candidate of the Other", basically). He may very well nail the election.

On the progressive side, all these people creating shark-fests against the "Different Other" were (not themselves, but their demographic) the "Different Other" of yesterday, victims of conservative shark-fests. Their use of the same tactic of intolerance lends an unfortunate credibility to those who did it in the past. I can only assume they believe that they'll never become the "Different Other" again. That's a risky bet, as we'll all find out if social progress ever recedes. Because you can't really cry "foul" at someone using the same tactics you embraced for yourself.

If all we're going to do is fight hate and intolerance with more hate and intolerance, we're in for a rocky voyage. And we're opening ourselves to the day when a majority of people grow tired of this, and someone comes along who convinces them with a very simple "I have a solution". And we may not find out how final that solution is until it's too late.

"Portugal is headed in the wrong direction" says...

... Poul Thomsen.

Who?!

He's this IMF bloke who visited us often, a few years ago (you know, "Love the climate, the cuisine, the people are nice, etc..."). A very "cocksure" person, borrowing Bertrand Russel's definition.

Yeah, I know, I said I was done writing about the IMF. So, sue me.

He's quite "cocksure" that Portugal is headed in the wrong direction, that the Portuguese people should be served another dose of austerity.

He could be right, obviously. But I wonder...

This remarkable fellow came into our lives as the head of the troika, sent in when we asked for "help".

Among his current criticisms is the "high Portuguese debt". Curiously absent from his arguments was the growth said debt incurred while under the troika's program.

Another curious omission from the certainty he displayed was an opinion about our banking system. Why would I have liked to hear it?

Because the terribly efficient troika he led had, among its goals, the sanitizing of the Portuguese banking system. And a couple of years later the troika left, under what they and our ex-Dear Leader called a "Clean Exit". Meaning "Jolly good show, pats on the back to everyone, there you have it, off you go".

And now, a couple more years later, what we found out is that everyone involved in this "jolly good show" has been tremendously productive at nothing but under-the-rug-sweeping and belly-pushing, and our banking system is worst than when the troika arrived (BTW, so is our debt, did I mention that...?)

So, this fine example of Dunning-Kruger, no doubt based on the remarkable results he has achieved here, keeps spouting certainties, taken out of some part of his body best left unmentioned.

He could be right. It's just that, so far, he hasn't.

Panama Papers - The Finale

Yesterday, we had another predictable step in the winding-down of the Panama Papers - the enacting of new rules, aka, the Silver Bullet.

These new rules will be a "hammer blow" against tax evasion. Yay!

Let's see...

Will it put comrade Juncker on the spot for Luxembourg's sweet deals? Ah, no. OK...

Will it take care of the EU fiscal-bargain zones? Ah, again, no.

Will it, at least, have any sort of impact whatsoever on the UK territories and on the US (places like, say, Delaware)? I'll leave the answer as an exercise for the reader.

And there we have it. Ladies and Gentlemen, this was the Panama Papers, I hope you've enjoyed it.

I expect a few more innocuous names, some more lip service, and then we'll forget about this.

Until the next leak, where every pundit and his 3rd-cousin-twice-removed will go "Who could've predicted that?"

Oh, you probably didn't notice it, but yesterday Oxfam published another one of their report thingies... yeah, I know. How boring can you get, right?

Panama - Update #2

The "business as usual" is definitely setting in.

• The Panama Papers do not reveal a problem with the global finance system or tax evasion. No, the problem is government corruption.

• Likewise, there is no problem with the system because the countries that actually respect the rules don't show up on the leak - e.g., USA.

• We're still getting plenty of people from the "Them" club. The last I saw mentioned Azerbaijan.

• From the "Us" club, we get plenty of "celebrities" I've never heard of, and those that are actually, you know, celebrities, are inconsequential.

• All the banks that were/are used to get "Them" to move "their" money to "our side" have, obviously, denied any wrong-doing. And since they say so, it must be true.

I particularly enjoy the argument in point 2, as it uses a tactic that I've known for a long time - the Conspiracy Theory. You see, if you suspect something (e.g., no one "respects the rules"), but can't prove it's actually true, therefore it must be False (perfect "logic", obviously). And if you raise the point that "unknown" is not the same as "false", you're just one of those fellows conspurcating the Wonderful World Around Us with your Filthy Conspiracy Theories.

It's pointless debating with someone who goes for this tactic, because they know two things:

1. They have no arguments.
2. They are Right(TM).

And don't bother mentioning Snowden, Volkswagen, or horsemeat, unless you want to hear some Non-Filthy Conspiracy Theories that the Anti-Conspiracy Theorist just knows is True.

Anyway, as far as the Panama Papers are concerned, I expect this will be it. Plenty of smoke, and nothing else.

Our destiny is Trump - Part 1

Yeah, I know. Maybe I should have written "fate" instead of "destiny".

Scale makes us focus on DT. The scale of his unexpected ascension. The scale of his "eccentricity". The scale of the consequences of his victory.

This last point is important. We already have, at least, two victorious Trumps in Europe (Hungary, Poland), but we don't focus on these. And if we consider these are already ruling and making decisions, that's not very rational of us. But then, rationality is a fairy tale we like to tell ourselves in order to feel better.

To their credit, there is a difference between our European Trumps and the US "certified original" - our Trumps tend to do this peculiar thing, before opening their mouths, called "thinking". Still, DT's results will show us how important this "thinking" business actually is.

Right now, everyone is looking for someone to blame for the Trump phenomenon. We're in a deluge of brain-dead media articles telling us who's to blame (hint: If the title begins with "Everything you need to know..." or contains the words "Here's why", you might be better off giving it a miss). Funnily enough, the media often blames Trump on... the media. But, naturally, on the "other" media, because "our" media is caring and responsible, and would never contribute to this Harbinger of Hatred, right?

Yeah, right...

I'm not a man of many certainties, but there is one thing I have little doubt about: Our destiny is Trump. Probably not this Trump. Probably a more credible, nuanced Trump. But some sort of Trump, nonetheless.

There have been many comparisons between Trump and Hitler. In most such comparisons there's usually one useful detail that's lost in all the noisy "Dooooooom" hype - the possible (probable) effect of the rise of inequality throughout the world. I, too, will be comparing these "fine" specimens of Mankind, but I will be more interested in the context, rather than the actual persons involved; it's the context that matters, not if we're comparing DT to Hitler or Donald Duck.

Context, then...

When we talk about the currently rising inequality, someone always mentions there are more and more people being pulled out of poverty. True. However, when you earn next-to-nothing, getting to earn second-next-to-nothing is not as much of an achievement as it is made to appear. And that's what we're talking about, in most cases - people who earn their salaries by working in factories with a wide assortment of working conditions (yes, it's an euphemism), with no financial safety net at all, and who won't be able to create such a safety net, based on their low income. We're definitely not talking about people coming out of poverty into a sustainable long-term middle-class; and I'm definitely including the so-called "Developed/First-World Nations" in this description, even though, for these nations, I do put things in perspective - as bad as we are getting, we're still in a different world, compared to countries like China or Bangladesh.

So, what's the point behind all this? If you look at Hitler's path to power, you'll see two note-worthy details:

1. The first step along that path was achieved by democratic election, not a coup or a German Spring.

2. The Nazi Party went from 2.6% (810,127 votes) in 1928 to 18.25% (6,379,672) in 1930. I'll let you figure out on your own what was the Big Event between 1928 and 1930.

So, you see, the problem isn't someone shouting at the top of his lungs "Jews are evil". The problem is when a significant part of the population falls on hard times and someone says "I can solve your problems! Oh, and by the way, not only are Jews evil, but they're also the cause of your problems".

We won't get leaders like Trump because people are actively racist/chauvinist/whatever, anymore than we got Hitler because people were actively anti-Semitic. We will get leaders like these when enough people fall on hard times and someone comes along and says "I can solve your problems". Regardless of whatever else they say.

And, right now, this is what an ever-growing part of the population perceives as its major problem - inequality. Not so much that there are a few people getting richer, but that there are a whole lot more getting poorer. Yes, I know, there's a lot of sound bites to counter this "conspiracy theory":

• Trickle-down. I won't even address this BS, other than to ask "Is this still a thing?!"
• We're taking untold millions from abject poverty. Riiight... and where exactly are we putting them, pray tell?
• The times are changing, life has become more precarious, and people have to get used to change. Oh, they will get used to change. We all will, in fact. I just think that, sooner or later, we'll all regret the change that "people" will choose.

When we mention "inequality", the first thing that comes to mind is income inequality. But there's more to it than that.

Legislative inequality

This one is easy. The push to rise the minimum wage is met with cries of "Doooooom". The push to lower corporate tax is lauded by pretty much every pundit and "independent" financial institution/watchdog. Even "better", the tax evas..., er, I mean, "avoidance" schemes are considered "good management".

Executive inequality

A major bank is on the brink of collapse and the taxpayers "volunteer" to step in with a bailout. All the usual suspects applaud.

The government says "Well, the State will now take over the bank's management, since we're paying for it". All hell breaks loose, with "reasonable" statements such as "The State cannot interfere with the management of a private corporation".

Judicial inequality

There's no need to say much here, as it's obvious from the current cost of "Justice" that it's completely skewed to favour those who can afford it.

At the end of the day, all this means is that more and more people are being pushed into precarious situations, more and more people are getting out-priced - or even scared out - of what should be ordinary life choices, all the while watching the "chosen few" living it out.

In fact, we can make a final comparison to illustrate this uncertainty gap:

• Entrepreneurs (whatever that means) and business owners will usually cry out for fiscal stability, demanding to know the "rules of the game", which usually means "rules that suit them".

• However, when it comes to those who work for them, they'll parrot out the "Times are uncertain" line, and push people into precarity, denying them the same stability they so vocally demand for themselves.

This, I believe, is the main reason why some sort of Trump is our future. Not the only reason, but definitely the main reason.

More about this next time.

Panama - Update #1

So, we're now entering day #2 of our Panama roller coaster, and damage control is definitely ramping up.

• Yesterday, I saw on TV some big name in the EU structure (too lazy to look it up, sorry) saying that his Panama company has been shut down for years. And I'm sure there was a legitimate reason for opening it in the first place.

• Our good friend, the Newly-Elected-Argentinian-President (did I mention I was feeling too lazy today?) said there was nothing illicit in his Panama activities. Ah, OK, thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure if there was anything illicit, you'd immediately disclose it.

• All the usual suspects are scrambling to assure everyone there are plenty of legitimate reasons for using offshores, such as "confidential dealings between parties", "paying less taxes using totally legal mechanisms", and... I guess that's it, really.

• Some of the more "creative" usual suspects have put forth a refreshingly new angle - we should not demonize those who use offshores to avoid paying taxes because we all do it anyway (pay as little tax as we can, not use offshores), and so there is a fundamental difference between, say, a drug dealer and a footballer, or a leader from a slavic country located to the East of Europe and a leader from a latin country in South America.

This last point takes on an amusing twist, when the argument becomes "if we demonize these tax-minimizers, then we will be demonizing everyone" and "the Big Bad State" will swallow us all as criminals.

So, for now, my prognostic is - nothing will change.

And not necessarily because of Panama, or our good old Cayman comrades.

It's more because of Switzerland, and Luxembourg, and Holland, and Austria, and Ireland. Mind you, the first two are seen as prosperous European nations, examples to follow.

And because of the nations that also do it, but don't appear often in the headlines, such as the UK or the USA.

And because of everyone who has money and power to decide.

Yes, I said "everyone". I'm most definitely not buying the "legitimate reasons" excuse.

After all, I'm sure there are "legitimate reasons" to gather up untold numbers of human beings and putting them in camps where they can't leave, without a trial to determine why they should be put there. I just can't think of one.

Hype? What do you think is the result of all these assholes stuffing their money on offshores? Destroyed lives. The drug dealer destroys the life of the young man who is addicted, and the tax evader destroys the life of the old man who waits months or years for an NHS exam, because "there is no money" and "there is no alternative".

Panama Papers

Let's see what these next few weeks will bring us.

While the headlines talk about "the celebrities and the powerful", so far I've only seen mentions of Putin, the Arab Spring "notables", and other members of the "Them" group. Then we get David Cameron's dad, if I understood correctly (and my apologies to the gentleman in question if I didn't), as the oddball of the bunch. Let's see how many more names from the "Us" group will we get.

The Fonseca comrades (funny that we should get a Portuguese-sounding name here; should I feel proud?) are already full gear into damage control mode, casting doubt on the papers, albeit in a rather... how shall I put it... ham-fisted manner. But it's still early days, I'm expecting more subtle and effective plans to cast doubt and create deniability.

And I'll leave you with one of my favorite sentences:

Who could've predicted this?