"Letting technocrats run Europe is bad politics and bad economics"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Another article, on a similar theme to the last one, posted without comment:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/14/technocrats-europe-bad-politics-economics

[Gustaf]

I find that to be a bit of a sloppy hack job.

"The UK never had a chancellor who was a trained economist, so obviously British economic policy was just made up out of thin air, proving that economic expertise is not needed"

Yeah...not. Sweden's minister of health is not a doctor and our health system is working fine. Obviously we should abolish that expensive medical education.

He is sort of right on certain points, but I feel that's more due to luck. The euro is, for example, the opposite of what he thinks - a political project without working economic institutions. Economists pointed this out from the start.

Of course, since many economists are not independent and the political pressure was so strong it was easy to cloud this 10 years ago, but the euro is an example of bad politics leading to bad economics, not the other way around.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I didn't think you'd like it much

Most of it is basically a rant (of course) and it's published in the features section of the paper, so there you are. But I think the absurd idea that technocrats are BRILLIANT and will solve EVERYTHING FOREVER (which has become the default position of the bulk of the media, I note with vague disgust) needs challenging as frequently as possible, so...

[Gustaf]

I didn't think you'd like it much

Most of it is basically a rant (of course) and it's published in the features section of the paper, so there you are. But I think the absurd idea that technocrats are BRILLIANT and will solve EVERYTHING FOREVER (which has become the default position of the bulk of the media, I note with vague disgust) needs challenging as frequently as possible, so...

I think I agree with that point on some level, but not on the level that he's making it.

Basically, I don't buy that he knows what he's talking about. I suspect that what he dislikes is a mixture of economics he doesn't understand and politics he doesn't like and it's all suffused under the vague label of technocrats.

For example, it seems odd to argue simultaneously that non-political leaders are bad and that they are not non-political.

I also suspect that he's unaware of the fact that economic models, to the extent that they are normative, assume that we should maximize societal welfare...

[Beet]

Regardless of what he knows (which we don't know), he's right. That's becoming more and more clear every single day.

[Wonkish1]

Regardless of what he knows (which we don't know), he's right. That's becoming more and more clear every single day.

Well to the degree that they aren't a magical fix by themselves I don't think you could possibly not come to the same conclusion.

To the extent that these guys may be able to forge some level of compromise to do what is needed to save their countries than they could be an improvement, but I'm also not holding my breath.

[© tweed]

For example, it seems odd to argue simultaneously that non-political leaders are bad and that they are not non-political.

the 'non-political' represents a particular brand of politics that the author dislikes.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Regardless of what he knows (which we don't know), he's right. That's becoming more and more clear every single day.

Yeah, whether or not he's using jargon or quantitative supports is irrelevant here. The conditionalities being imposed on the PIIGS by the troika and the bond markets are socially destructive in the worst way. There's a reason why the populace of Latin American countries tend to hate "technocrats" now.

[Wonkish1]

Regardless of what he knows (which we don't know), he's right. That's becoming more and more clear every single day.

Yeah, whether or not he's using jargon or quantitative supports is irrelevant here. The conditionalities being imposed on the PIIGS by the troika and the bond markets are socially destructive in the worst way. There's a reason why the populace of Latin American countries tend to hate "technocrats" now.

I'll tell you what how about we just get rid of those pesky bond holders and leave the country to deal with its problems without access to credit, does that sound good?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Regardless of what he knows (which we don't know), he's right. That's becoming more and more clear every single day.

Yeah, whether or not he's using jargon or quantitative supports is irrelevant here. The conditionalities being imposed on the PIIGS by the troika and the bond markets are socially destructive in the worst way. There's a reason why the populace of Latin American countries tend to hate "technocrats" now.

I'll tell you what how about we just get rid of those pesky bond holders and leave the country to deal with its problems without access to credit, does that sound good?

Way to try and create a false dichotomy here. I'm just saying that the bond markets are playing with fire here and could be the cause of their own future problems, not that they shouldn't exist.

[Wonkish1]

Regardless of what he knows (which we don't know), he's right. That's becoming more and more clear every single day.

Yeah, whether or not he's using jargon or quantitative supports is irrelevant here. The conditionalities being imposed on the PIIGS by the troika and the bond markets are socially destructive in the worst way. There's a reason why the populace of Latin American countries tend to hate "technocrats" now.

I'll tell you what how about we just get rid of those pesky bond holders and leave the country to deal with its problems without access to credit, does that sound good?

Way to try and create a false dichotomy here. I'm just saying that the bond markets are playing with fire here and could be the cause of their own future problems, not that they shouldn't exist.

The only thing that bond holders are playing with fire about is actually owning Italian debt today(MF Global anyone?) if they stopped playing with fire and shunned Italian debt then Italy's problems would be very severe as the credit markets shut off to the Italian government.

You're acting like the bond markets are playing with fire for not owning Italian debt. Well knock yourself out, hope you don't lose your shirt.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I agree. For an American example, the Vietnam War was run by technocrats. Obama's economic team has been run by technocrats.

Smartest Guys in the Room, and all that.

[Gustaf]

For example, it seems odd to argue simultaneously that non-political leaders are bad and that they are not non-political.

the 'non-political' represents a particular brand of politics that the author dislikes.

I like the trying to sound like an option at a standardized test of literacy skills. Very multi-faceted, yet, coming from you, still a tad predictable.

I still think that if his objection is that those people are letting a brand of politics he doesn't like influence their decision making he can't simultaneously argue that it is a good thing in general to let politics influence decision making.

If his point is left=good, right=bad, just say it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If his point is left=good, right=bad, just say it.

Alas, you can't really do that at the new Grauniad.

[Gustaf]

If his point is left=good, right=bad, just say it.

Alas, you can't really do that at the new Grauniad.

Lol. I can imagine.

[Insula Dei]

I haven't read the link (way too lazy for that) or even this thread, but I guess I can imagine the point that's being made there and the discussion that's going on here. And on the whole, yeah, I think the guy of the Guardian article has a good point and I disagree with what Gustaf has said and agree with what Al has said.

Most important of all is that we remember that real political choices are not the sort of thing that can be made simply by looking at an issue as a problem that has one single correct way to solve it. There are hundreds of ways to resolve any single issue, and which path we choose to walk down has to be decided in accordance to what society as a whole values.

[Gustaf]

I haven't read the link (way too lazy for that) or even this thread, but I guess I can imagine the point that's being made there and the discussion that's going on here. And on the whole, yeah, I think the guy of the Guardian article has a good point and I disagree with what Gustaf has said and agree with what Al has said.

Most important of all is that we remember that real political choices are not the sort of thing that can be made simply by looking at an issue as a problem that has one single correct way to solve it. There are hundreds of ways to resolve any single issue, and which path we choose to walk down has to be decided in accordance to what society as a whole values.

What exactly that I said do you disagree with? Because I certainly don't disagree with your second paragraph.

EDIT: well, I do, but not on the level relevant to this discussion.

[Wonkish1]

I haven't read the link (way too lazy for that) or even this thread, but I guess I can imagine the point that's being made there and the discussion that's going on here. And on the whole, yeah, I think the guy of the Guardian article has a good point and I disagree with what Gustaf has said and agree with what Al has said.

Most important of all is that we remember that real political choices are not the sort of thing that can be made simply by looking at an issue as a problem that has one single correct way to solve it. There are hundreds of ways to resolve any single issue, and which path we choose to walk down has to be decided in accordance to what society as a whole values.

LOL way to understand the issues here and get to a point...

[Insula Dei]

I haven't read the link (way too lazy for that) or even this thread, but I guess I can imagine the point that's being made there and the discussion that's going on here. And on the whole, yeah, I think the guy of the Guardian article has a good point and I disagree with what Gustaf has said and agree with what Al has said.

Most important of all is that we remember that real political choices are not the sort of thing that can be made simply by looking at an issue as a problem that has one single correct way to solve it. There are hundreds of ways to resolve any single issue, and which path we choose to walk down has to be decided in accordance to what society as a whole values.

What exactly that I said do you disagree with? Because I certainly don't disagree with your second paragraph.

EDIT: well, I do, but not on the level relevant to this discussion.

Having now read the thread (well, the relevant sections) I find myself disagreeing less with you than I'd have expected. Still, I think your criticism of the article does not hold up, more especially this:

For example, it seems odd to argue simultaneously that non-political leaders are bad and that they are not non-political.

The point is that 'non-political politics' is impossible. It's a logical contradiction. Leaders can't be non-political. So, yes, it's bad when leaders claim that they are 'non-political' and that they only do what has to be done.

[Gustaf]

I haven't read the link (way too lazy for that) or even this thread, but I guess I can imagine the point that's being made there and the discussion that's going on here. And on the whole, yeah, I think the guy of the Guardian article has a good point and I disagree with what Gustaf has said and agree with what Al has said.

Most important of all is that we remember that real political choices are not the sort of thing that can be made simply by looking at an issue as a problem that has one single correct way to solve it. There are hundreds of ways to resolve any single issue, and which path we choose to walk down has to be decided in accordance to what society as a whole values.

What exactly that I said do you disagree with? Because I certainly don't disagree with your second paragraph.

EDIT: well, I do, but not on the level relevant to this discussion.

Having now read the thread (well, the relevant sections) I find myself disagreeing less with you than I'd have expected. Still, I think your criticism of the article does not hold up, more especially this:

For example, it seems odd to argue simultaneously that non-political leaders are bad and that they are not non-political.

The point is that 'non-political politics' is impossible. It's a logical contradiction. Leaders can't be non-political. So, yes, it's bad when leaders claim that they are 'non-political' and that they only do what has to be done.

But in what lies the badness? Is it because they are wrong in a non-political sense or because they are wrong in a political sense? If the latter, the problem doesn't seem to be that they are non-political but that they are political. If the former, the author must be claiming that there is something other than politics by which to judge economic policy.

And if he's merely saying that they shouldn't be viewed as non-political, isn't that sort of *shrug*? Semantics are fun and all, but still...

I think he's throwing around rethoric he doesn't quite understand.

Specifically, I'd say that there is a huge difference between saying that policy does not have one objective answer and saying that all conceivable answers are equally valid. There are plenty of economic policies that are objectively, non-politically bad (or, at least, they are so within the framework of normal politics in today's society - which I think is sufficient, since beyond that it all becomes sort of pointless anyway, doesn't it?)

[All Along The Watchtower]

I haven't read the link (way too lazy for that) or even this thread, but I guess I can imagine the point that's being made there and the discussion that's going on here. And on the whole, yeah, I think the guy of the Guardian article has a good point and I disagree with what Gustaf has said and agree with what Al has said.

Most important of all is that we remember that real political choices are not the sort of thing that can be made simply by looking at an issue as a problem that has one single correct way to solve it. There are hundreds of ways to resolve any single issue, and which path we choose to walk down has to be decided in accordance to what society as a whole values.

What exactly that I said do you disagree with? Because I certainly don't disagree with your second paragraph.

EDIT: well, I do, but not on the level relevant to this discussion.

Having now read the thread (well, the relevant sections) I find myself disagreeing less with you than I'd have expected. Still, I think your criticism of the article does not hold up, more especially this:

For example, it seems odd to argue simultaneously that non-political leaders are bad and that they are not non-political.

The point is that 'non-political politics' is impossible. It's a logical contradiction. Leaders can't be non-political. So, yes, it's bad when leaders claim that they are 'non-political' and that they only do what has to be done.

But in what lies the badness? Is it because they are wrong in a non-political sense or because they are wrong in a political sense? If the latter, the problem doesn't seem to be that they are non-political but that they are political. If the former, the author must be claiming that there is something other than politics by which to judge economic policy.

And if he's merely saying that they shouldn't be viewed as non-political, isn't that sort of *shrug*? Semantics are fun and all, but still...

I think he's throwing around rethoric he doesn't quite understand.

Specifically, I'd say that there is a huge difference between saying that policy does not have one objective answer and saying that all conceivable answers are equally valid. There are plenty of economic policies that are objectively, non-politically bad (or, at least, they are so within the framework of normal politics in today's society - which I think is sufficient, since beyond that it all becomes sort of pointless anyway, doesn't it?)

The badness comes from the deception that "non-political leaders" employ by pretending to be impartial, "objective" actors.

Every leader is political, and has an agenda. Better to be honest about it, then to deceive people with the "enlightened technocrat" act.

[Wonkish1]

The badness comes from the deception that "non-political leaders" employ by pretending to be impartial, "objective" actors.

Every leader is political, and has an agenda. Better to be honest about it, then to deceive people with the "enlightened technocrat" act.

What's your point? Doing nothing = default and widespread pain throughout Italy. The luxury of politicians looking at everything through a political lens is no more. People in Italy don't care what someone's motivations are they just want off the ledge of the cliff.

But I'm still not predicting anything amazing from these "technocrats". They instead might just prove to be a slight improvement making the future default "not as bad".