JP Morgan to the Eurozone periphery: your constitutions are too anti-fascist

[Lief 🗽]

http://blogs.euobserver.com/phillips/2013/06/07/jp-morgan-to-eurozone-periphery-get-rid-of-your-pinko-anti-fascist-constitutions/

Last week, the European economic research team with JP Morgan, the global financial giant, put out a 16-page paper on the state of play of euro area adjustment. This involved a totting up of what work has been done so far and what work has yet to be done in terms of sovereign, household and bank deleveraging; structural reform (reducing labour costs, making it easier to fire workers, privatisation, deregulation, liberalising ‘protected’ industries, etc.); and national political reform.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cory]

The Plutocrats have always had a love affair with Fascism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A lot of this is standard neoliberal potboiler--which, granted, is unbelievably awful in and of itself--but this part made me do a double take:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh no. What a nightmare.

Are these people even pretending anymore?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Well, who do you think put Hitler in power and were his biggest backers?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Neoliberals hate democracy. It should be pretty clear by now.

[Silent Hunter]

Well, who do you think put Hitler in power and were his biggest backers?

The German people who voted for him?

[MaxQue]

Neoliberals hate democracy. It should be pretty clear by now.

Indeed, since democracy isn't buyable, nor sellable and doesn't create money.

[Silent Hunter]

Indeed, since democracy isn't buyable, nor sellable and doesn't create money.

Disagree on the last part - stable governance and respect for property rights, all part of a democratic system, are a catalyst for economic growth.

There is a reason that Luxembourg is so rich (Qatar may well beat it on terms of per capita GDP, but that's because of the oil).

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Stable governance and respect for property rights" are perfectly compatible with dictatorship. In fact, probably more so than with democracy.

[Leftbehind]

Yeah, their support for democracy only goes so far as it ensures a revolving door of neoliberals.

[Dozzerics]

Totally ignoring the fact that the JPMorgan was completely incompatible into finding the real cause of the problems in Europe nowadays - that were brought by neoliberal 'reformers' such as Thatcher and Blair in the UK, Chirac in France and many others across Europe - this is an obvious proof that the ones who currently control the economy do not wish for the ones who comprise the bulk of population - the lower-class in Eastern Europe and the middle-class in Western Europe - to have any voice at all.

However, I really do believe that the main fault for the existence of such cancerous big corporations rests with the governments - who basically made it unsustainable for small and medium enterprises to exist. Some even went as far as into uniting all small and medium enterprises in a certain sector under a nationalised company, only to later privatise it (see France and public utilities).

Whatever the cause may be in reality, it's certainly not JPMorgan is claiming in their absolutely awful report. In all honesty, these people are worse than Eastern European dictators.

[Zanas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You should have bolded this part. It's truly horrendous. Even more horrendous however is the fact that these people basically are slowly getting to run our countries instead of our governments nowadays...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I do like how JP Morgan is essentially giving these countries good advice through reverse psychology: 'Maintain (relatively) weak executives, decentralize (to some extent), jealousy guard labor rights, work to build consensus, and speak up if things go wrong' is, regardless of whether or not one agrees with every tenet, generally a good, solid set of sociopolitical advice that fits into a coherent, well-intentioned narrative.

[DC Al Fine]

Well, who do you think put Hitler in power and were his biggest backers?

Small shopkeepers & the lower middle class. Big business preferred Hitler to the commies & social democrats, but they tended to support DVP or DNVP IIRC.

[TNF]

Well, who do you think put Hitler in power and were his biggest backers?

Small shopkeepers & the lower middle class. Big business preferred Hitler to the commies & social democrats, but they tended to support DVP or DNVP IIRC.

I think Snowstalker might be referring to American business' well known sale of armaments and machinery to the Nazis, something that continued even during World War II.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Vosem]

It's pretty obvious if you read the bolded statement that this line

put in place in the aftermath of the fall of fascism

is calling the constitutions outdated, as opposed to insufficiently fascistic.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's pretty obvious if you read the bolded statement that this line

put in place in the aftermath of the fall of fascism

is calling the constitutions outdated, as opposed to insufficiently fascistic.

Indeed, Vosem, democracy is so outdated...

[Vosem]

It's pretty obvious if you read the bolded statement that this line

put in place in the aftermath of the fall of fascism

is calling the constitutions outdated, as opposed to insufficiently fascistic.

Indeed, Vosem, democracy is so outdated...

It's not removing democracy they want, it seems mainly to be strengthening the national (elected) executive at the expense of regions, fighting 'political clientelism' (presumably by shifting away from party-list systems where being an insider can get you a seat in a legislature towards FPTP, where you must be elected on your own personal merits), and removing planks about labor relations, such as Article 23 in Greece (which guarantees the freedom, in any industry, to unionize, and the freedom to strike is given to all except 'judicial functionaries and those working in the security corps' -- which I think we can all agree is overbroad). Only the last ('the right to protest') strikes me as inherently damaging to democratic structures; though all of the things they're calling for in Lief's quote are enunciated rather vaguely and therefore difficult to judge.

[Antonio the Sixth]

strengthening the national (elected) executive at the expense of regions

What a progress, undoing these paltry 30 years of decentralization. Also, go tell to Germany that their Länder have too much power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

rofl

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see what's wrong with such a provision. Syndicalism and strike are basic worker's rights.

[Zanas]

such as Article 23 in Greece (which guarantees the freedom, in any industry, to unionize, and the freedom to strike is given to all except 'judicial functionaries and those working in the security corps' -- which I think we can all agree is overbroad).

Errr, all Republicans, maybe yes.
Of course in any industry you should have the right to unionize and to strike. That's a basic really.
I'll grant you that allowing the Army to strike is hard to imagine, but they should be able to unionize as well, they have working conditions and wages problems as anyone else.

[Vosem]

strengthening the national (elected) executive at the expense of regions

What a progress, undoing these paltry 30 years of decentralization. Also, go tell to Germany that their Länder have too much power.

What the effect would be is dependent on where they want it done, but I don't think centralization is an inherently undemocratic thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

rofl

Not sure what you're laughing at...do you have some other interpretation of 'fighting political clientelism'? It's a pretty vague goal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see what's wrong with such a provision. Syndicalism and strike are basic worker's rights.

Certainly they are not for public employees, or even those working in certain fields where ceasing work may create a public emergency. Certainly in certain industries unions are key to fundamental workers' rights, but this is certainly far too much. It also seems to me that 'right to strike' prevents companies from hiring equally skilled workers to replace strikers, which seems to be a very dangerous position.

Ultimately you're going to end up with a problem of over-unionization interfering with the public good.

such as Article 23 in Greece (which guarantees the freedom, in any industry, to unionize, and the freedom to strike is given to all except 'judicial functionaries and those working in the security corps' -- which I think we can all agree is overbroad).

Errr, all Republicans, maybe yes.

Doesn't 'republican' signify 'left-wing' in France, or am I mistaken?

Of course in any industry you should have the right to unionize and to strike. That's a basic really.

Hospital employees? Firemen?

I'll grant you that allowing the Army to strike is hard to imagine, but they should be able to unionize as well, they have working conditions and wages problems as anyone else.

Or people working to ensure national security? Really?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Centralization is not undemocratic, it just makes absolutely sense since most European countries (contrary to the US) don't have excessively powerful local entities, but often quite the opposite.

I don't really care about interpreting what JP Morgan's "advice" to European democracies, but the idea that under PR all elected parliamentarians are party hacks while under FPP they are elected on their own merits is definitely worth laughing at.

And yeah, like it or not, even public employees have a right to strike and unionize. Sure, it's annoying to have a few trains delayed/canceled from time to time, but I don't think this trumps basic principles of workplace democracy. Of course there are necessary exceptions for cops, servicemen etc, as the article you cited mentions. Why do you care so much about public employees anyway? Don't you guys want to privatize everything?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Think the right term for this nonsense is 'trojan horse.'

[Vosem]

Centralization is not undemocratic, it just makes absolutely sense since most European countries (contrary to the US) don't have excessively powerful local entities, but often quite the opposite.

I don't know very much about how much power European administrative divisions have as compared to US states, it just seems a bit of a stretch to call this 'fascist' like some of the posters above seem to be doing.

I don't really care about interpreting what JP Morgan's "advice" to European democracies, but the idea that under PR all elected parliamentarians are party hacks while under FPP they are elected on their own merits is definitely worth laughing at.

The thread title is an interpretation of JP Morgan's advice and it is devoted to such interpretations. I don't agree that PR inherently results in the election of hackish faceless politicians, but that does seem to be what JP Morgan is suggesting.

And yeah, like it or not, even public employees have a right to strike and unionize. Sure, it's annoying to have a few trains delayed/canceled from time to time, but I don't think this trumps basic principles of workplace democracy.

And here is where I disagree; an elected government is there to represent all the people and by giving people who work for it the right to strike and thereby influence appropriations and policy you're breaking a fundamental 'one-man-one-vote' principle. As an employee of the government, you are also there to help all the people as opposed to just yourself. As an employee of a private company, obviously you're there to help yourself and you obviously have a right to unionize/strike to do so -- but even there, including an explicit 'right to strike' in the constitution seems as if it would have odd implications in the negotiations, since if companies can't fire strikers, they essentially can't really do anything except agree to strikers' demands, whatever they may be.

Of course there are necessary exceptions for cops, servicemen etc, as the article you cited mentions.

It doesn't unless, say, nurses are somehow included in either 'judicial functionaries' or 'security corps'. Admittedly, I'm going off of an English translation (an official one, on the Hellenic Parliament's website) as opposed to the original Greek text, which would presumably be clearer, but still.

Why do you care so much about public employees anyway?

Their competence is a pretty integral part of a high standard of living?

Don't you guys want to privatize everything?

I'm one person, Antonio. There's no 'you guys'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Supporting centralization and FPP is not the worst part of that set of "recommendations", though it is still pretty disgusting.

It's really hilarious to hear you lecturing me about the notion of public service now. Anyhow, obviously you can't always strike in a public utility like you do on a private business. The right to strike, as every other right, is not absolute, as I'm pretty sure that for example, even on strike, hospitals won't leave their patients to die and will keep ERs going. Basic services are always being provided. As for the shortage of other services, sure that's annoying, but society can afford a short and rare interruption of minor public services if this helps protecting the rights of the workers who provide them.

Excellent sob story about poor businesses being forced to bow down to the strikers. Business (especially big ones) can more easily afford to suspend their production than workers can afford living without their wages, you know.