November 12 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The GlobalEurope Anticipation Bulletin (GEAB), produced by the influential think tank LEAP/Europe 2020, predicts that the US Government will default on its debt anytime before next summer. The analysis presented in their recent issue here suggests that the default will occur due to the following five factors:

“• The recent upward trend of the US Dollar is a direct and temporary consequence of the collapse of stock markets

• Thanks to its recent «political baptism», the Euro becomes a credible «safe haven» value and therefore provides a «crisis» alternative to the US dollar

• The US public debt is now swelling uncontrollably

• The ongoing collapse of US real economy prevents from finding an alternative solution to the country’s defaulting

• «Strong inflation or hyper-inflation in the US in 2009?», that is the only question.”

The outline presented in the GEAB generally corresponds to what we have been saying for a while with regard to the future of the US (and all the implications for those countries tied to it). The ‘global financial meltdown’ that is unfolding now is far from reaching its climax, one reason being the impending derivatives bubble that must burst and destroy the false economy based on speculation in order to start re-building the global economy. Those who expect any ‘meaningful results’ from the upcoming G20 meeting in Washington this week will be disappointed. To put it simply, if the US creditors wait a bit longer they would get a better deal. The important question that GEAB raises above regarding the US should be considered in the following manner: will the impending (hyper-) inflation be dealt with through internal implosion (with all its ramifications for the social order in that country) or a World War as has occurred many times in the past?

Posted in Economic Issues, In The News, Other, Disaster Management, Security Measures, Europe, North America, Politics | No Comments »

October 17 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The movie below is written and directed by Peter Joseph. It is 123 min long and offers a lot of food-for-thought. We welcome your comments.

Posted in Identity Management, Security Measures, Health Preparedness, Economic Issues, In The News, Water Issues, Food Security, Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Environment, Politics | No Comments »

October 15 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The systemic crisis that now unfolds in the world cannot be fully understood without first understanding what role ‘money’ plays in all areas of human life. Initially introduced as a means of exchange between consenting parties, money was tied to tangible goods produced by spending physical energy (both resources and labour). In the last 400 years money has turned into an ‘independent’ player that has commodified every aspect of human life, without exception. In other words, from a marginal tool of exchange in social interactions (otherwise governed by centuries-long traditions of moral and behavioural codes) money has became the ultimate end-goal, codifier and master of all relations. Needless to say, in the present system the control over the supply side of money determines everything else. The article by Charles Eisenstein entitled ‘Money and the Crisis of Civilization’ presents a simple review of how this system was created and sheds light on why it won’t be able to survive. To date, the continuation of the system was characterized by cycles of wars and conflicts to prop it up. How many people have paused and considered what is coming next?

Posted in In The News, Economic Issues, Politics | No Comments »

May 29 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

David Eddie has published a wonderful perspective on the Bernier follies in the Globe and Mail. It’s simply a must read:

“Headline: “He ‘destroyed my life,’ girlfriend says.”

Then she returned the favour.

So many questions remain unanswered in the wake of the Profumo-like scandal that brought down former cabinet minister Maxime “Mad Max” Bernier this week:

What was he doing in Julie Couillard’s house so long after they had broken up? Why did he leave sensitive documents there? Then, when he realized they were missing, why didn’t he ask for them back? Why did she take so long to say she had them?

And why did she have to do it so publicly? “Honey,” so many of the pundits seem to be saying, “why you gotta go and be like that?”

If you ask me, he did it to himself. He set the trap, carefully arranged the sticks and leaves over the pit, then stepped on it and fell in. If ever a man was “hoist by his own petard,” it was Mr. Bernier (with Ms. Couillard the petard).

To me, the whole thing looks like a “booty call” gone horribly wrong.

At first, I was perplexed by the timelines of their relationship. They broke up in January, supposedly, perhaps even December (she decided to end it, she says, “shortly before Christmas”).

Yet they were seen together after that at numerous political functions.” Click here to read more.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

May 21 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

With moves in Alberta and Saskatchewan to enable the provinces to hold elections for Senate nominees there has been increasing coverage of the Stephen Harper backed plan to reform the Canadian Senate. On the surface, the arguments in favour of Senate reform look good - staging elections will make the Senate more accountable, more democratic and it will prevent political party domination of an outgoing government on the incoming one - but dig a little deeper and the logic behind it becomes ever more elusive.

How, for example, will electing a Senate make it more accountable? The belief that elections directly lead to accountability is a popular one in Canada: if the person who is elected fails to do his or her job constituents can remove that official in the next elections, so the thinking goes. Limited terms and frequent elections are believed to be means to end corruption and increase accountability. Few who are not involved with government realize, however, what the effect of elections is on the ability to govern responsibly. Leaders who live in constant fear of losing their jobs in the next elections have a hard time focusing on long-term strategy. Indeed, if media coverage of politics is any indication the most important concern for any elected representative is, in fact, the next elections be they in 2 months or 2 years. The very reason why senators had been appointed for such lengthy terms was to ensure that at least someone in the government was focused on the issues as opposed to elections. Thus, making the Senate an elected body might not bring about the accountability being touted.

Considering issues of accountability, the role the Senate plays in providing criticism of the government (anygovernment, red, blue, orange or green) is often forgotten. The Senate committees might just be the only bodies putting forth the sort of biting analysis we need. Elected officials certainly don’t want the system to be seen as faulty it could cost them the next elections; the bureaucrats, whose advancement is determined by their perceived efficiency, don’t want much public criticism of the system which they effectively run. The only body that is currently offering any insights into the shortcomings of government is the Senate - just consider the committee reports on Airport Security and Aid in Africa.   

On the assumption that electing the Senate will make it more democratic, the question begs, do elections alone create democracy? In a party-based political system many Canadians already feel that elections aren’t really providing them with much of a say. In an informal survey International Perspectives conducted in October 2007, 52% of respondents said they felt their voices weren’t being heard in a party-based electoral system.  Much of the problem stems from the allegiance elected representatives must pledge to the party to which they belong; to many Canadians it would appear that politicians have more loyalty to the political party that supported their candidacies than to the constituents who voted for them. Although senators have political affiliations the job security afforded by the current terms of appointment ensures that senators who disagree with the party’s approach to an issue can push back - I’m not so sure that elected senators would be so independent. Thus, although the idea of elections conjures notions of democracy, the inherent problems with our current system suggest that an elected Senate might not be any more or less democratic than the existing one.

Canadians are easily (perhaps too easily) excited whenever mention is made at how much money is spent by government. The spending of tax payer dollars is the perfect sound bite to incite public support for change of a system: elected governments love to use the “wanton-waste-of-your-money” messaging against the sometimes uncooperative permanent bureaucracy; opposition parties love to use it against ruling parties; and, now, supporters of Senate reform are using it against the British-modelled institution. I hope that Canadians are able to look past the usual tools for leading the masses in desired directions, thinking past the carrots. It just might be that an institution like the Senate, as bizarre as it may seem to our Liberazi lenses, is the only thing with at least some public interest left.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

May 13 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

Instead of writing again on the Serbian situation, I’ll let Ljubodrag Simonovic speak. The following is a very insightful and thought provoking interview Simonovic gave recently on Serbian television.

Posted in Europe, Politics | No Comments »

May 1 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

A friend recently turned me onto The File by E.X., a wonderfully, biting column printed in the Ottawa Citizen. For anyone who hasn’t read it yet - do! The following is an entertaining column from last week. (Thanks, Alex!)

When it comes to hiring, The System is a product like any other, trying to appeal to the elusive youth demographic

In its first report, the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service states that more work has to be done to “brand” the public service, that is to say, to market The System. Specifically it says that there “is a need for a strong and positive Public Service ‘brand’ that will support the marketing of the Public Service as an attractive employment option for talented Canadians.”

Public servants were happy for the clarification. Rumours had been circulating that the Harper government intended to brand all liberal, lefty public servants - which according to them was all 250,000 - on the left buttock with the letters CNG (Canada’s New Government).

The Committee seems to be arguing that if The System can create a strong, well-leveraged brand it will attract potential employees more easily than weaker brands will. One can only assume that weaker brands include provincial governments and the City of Ottawa.

The Committee does not indicate what specific product line should be marketed as part of a Government of Canada branding strategy to attract Generation X, Y, or beyond. Should it be The System’s streamlined human resources practices? Its vigorous policy analysis? Its modern management practices?

Susie, Jacob and Mohammed were fourth-year students applying for jobs in the federal government. According to the Committee, it takes an average of 22.4 weeks to staff a position from inside the public service. It didn’t dare speculate on how long it takes to hire someone from outside. Still, the three students were young and had an entire lifetime ahead of them, so they were prepared to go through the process.

Like many of their generation the quality of life, particularly the quality of work life, was important. And so each of them asked themselves: “What would be the ideal brand personality of the place where I work, and does the federal public service fit the bill?”

Brand personality answers this question: if the product - in this case The System - were a person, how would you describe him or her? Friendly? Intellectual? Totally nuts? As it happened, each of the potential employees had in mind a different brand personality for the ideal workplace.

Susie wanted to work in a System that had a personality like Hallmark: down-to-earth, sincere, genuine, and old-fashioned. She had been raised in a caring suburban family home with liberal parents who had followed the teachings of Dr. Spock and Penelope Leach on raising babies, kids and teenagers. She had never been spanked, had been treated with respect, and had been given the appropriate balance of firm guidance and fulfilling freedom. Not surprisingly, Susie expected to work in a System with a caring boss who acted like Robert Young in Father Knows Best.

Susie imagined a workplace where her co-workers were sympathetic and respectful, not intruding but always there when needed with a supportive word. Kind of like the 15 teddy bears and giant pandas strewn about her bedroom.

Jacob had just graduated from engineering school and had a different image of the ideal workplace. He wanted to work in a System with an accomplished, influential and competent personality. He imagined a System that ran like a pristine assembly line: cool and mechanically efficient, everything moving with perfect precision. Sometimes he dreamed of a mythical 1958 General Motors plant that ran with machine-like effectiveness inside, and turned out gleaming, glitzy cars for the outside.

Mohammed was always moving. Just like Richard Dreyfuss as Duddy Kravitz in the movie, he seemed incapable of standing still. He radiated a manic energy built on ambition, brass and confidence. The thought of sitting at a desk in a large government department had no appeal. He wanted action, to work in a System with the brand personality of the Toronto Maple Leafs: energetic and unfocused. In his System, organizations worked at breakneck pace with a sense of permanent urgency to resolve issues immediately. There was no long-term planning in Mohammed’s office. It was an organization with ADD.

Eight months later, all three found themselves working in The System. Susie was in a spirited hyper-sector that seemed to be running on a continuous treadmill just to keep up with the demands of the Once New Government. The Director was a petty tyrant.

Mohammed found himself in a division that operated with the quiet, operational efficiency of a Swiss bank.

Jacob ended up in an agency where everyone knew everyone else and there was a cheerful, courteous and supportive atmosphere.

All three quit within the year.

E.X. knows that rejuvenating The System is a top priority. The only trouble is that this means hiring young people. For more E.X. go to ottawacitizen.com/exfiles.

Posted in Other, Politics | No Comments »

April 29 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

Brenda Martin is happy; she’s coming back to Canada after her ordeal in a Mexican prison. Of course, after all the frenzied media attention which pushed for her return, Martin is able to be concerned about how her mother might feel about seeing her daughter brought back to her native land in handcuffs. Chances are too that Martin won’t even spend any more time in prison upon her arrival considering time served and all that jazz. Yet the acceleration of Martin’s return and the quick media support for it leaves me wondering about the Canadian perspective on judicial systems and personal responsibility.

Leaving aside the systemic issues of our permanent bureaucracy (of which there are many), much of the coverage of Martin’s case focused on either the conditions of her incarceration or her lack of culpability in the alleged crime. It’s a great example of the wider prevailing view in Canada regarding crime and punishment: personal responsibility for one’s actions is directly correlated to one’s guilt ergo if a person didn’t know any better how can they be guilty and suffer consequences for those actions. Furthermore, our aversion to accepting responsibility for our actions renders us intolerant for the ways in which other countries choose to punish offenders under their jurisdictions: we expect that other countries should treat us with the same light-handed punishment our own government would.

There were few questions about the actions of Brenda Martin which might have led to her arrest in the media campaign that pressured the Canadian government to bump her case ahead of the hundreds of other Canadians sitting in foreign jails. For some reason, the media was quick to put blame almost entirely on the Canadian government alone for the fact that Martin had been for some two years held in a Mexican jail without a hearing. The media portrayal of Martin was one of a completely unaware employee caught up in the criminal affairs of her corrupt boss; yet what employee doesn’t know to at least some degree the character of their employer? Sure, she might not have knowingly committed a crime herself, but at what point does a person need to become responsible for themselves and, as a result, take measures to protect their own interests?

The case of Saul Itzhayek, the Montreal businessman held in India for travelling on an expired visa, is yet another such example. The media has been eager to point out the governmental failings leading to the 10-month incarceration of Itzhayek; yet who is ultimately responsible? Although mistakes are made, how difficult is it to make sure that the visa for the country in which you are travelling is up-to-date? Is this a Canadian bureaucratic shortcoming, or the individual’s? The fact of the matter is that other countries have their own laws and punishments. Undoubtedly these punishments will seem extreme compared to our “correctional” system.  If we choose to travel abroad, however, we must educate ourselves as to the culture, customs and laws of those regions, understanding that the consequences of actions (and mistakes), which we might take freely in Canada, are different in other places. In this sense, it is first up to the individual to undertake developing that understanding - an unfeeling bureaucracy should be one’s last resort.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

April 16 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The French government wants to make it illegal to promote “extreme thinness” - with offences punishable by up to 3 years in jail and fines of up to €30,000. They consider pro-anorexia websites and rail-thin models as incitement causing suicide or death. So much for an individual being responsible for themselves.

As with any tragic topic, particularly one which predominately affects youth, eating disorders pluck the heartstrings. Mothers who struggle to keep their daughters alive grace the television screen in well-funded campaigns to stamp out anorexia and bulimia. Advertisers, fashion runways and magazines are regarded as the evil spreaders of negative imaging causing young girls everywhere to die in the pursuit of skinny.  Amidst all the drama and heartache no one ever seems to question the role of individual responsibility.

It’s a tough question; to what degree an individual should be responsible for themselves? Most governments now exist predominately based on a notion that they provide some service to the population which is governed. Like feudal tutelage, under which a ruler promises to protect people in exchange for tithes, modern governments are expected to act in the best interest of the people in exchange for taxes. Since much of the Western world has managed to find peace with itself, the threat of invasion or traditional war is practically non-existent, thus Western governments are increasingly micro-managing their populations. In some ways, absolving individuals of being responsible for themselves, guarantees a role for governments.

Deferring responsibility for ourselves to a higher authority, however, is a slippery slope. Regulating personal preference is a dangerous encroachment into the private realm. If we admit that we can’t manage the most basic aspects of life, such as our own self-preservation, at what point is that authority able to simply make all decisions about our well-being without even consulting us? After all, if we aren’t responsible, how can we be expected to make sound decisions?

The prevalent approach to squarely lay blame upon the fashion and entertainment industries suggests another troubling development in Western society: the diminishing role of the family in providing necessary life skills.  In yet another act of responsibility-absolution, many believe that the television and other media are the root cause of eating disorders. Traditionally, however, children develop patterns of self-image from their parents. So, the issue of parental responsibility should also be questioned: if the media has this great an influence, who is doing the parenting? Of course, this will be the most painful question for parents to answer. No one wants to admit culpability in the troubles plaguing one’s children. Yet in our choice to develop a society which doesn’t just open the doors of equal opportunity for women, it pushes them through without an alternative, children who are not responsible for themselves is but one of the consequences. This is what happens when a system raises our children.  

Banning the grotesquely skinny won’t make eating disorders disappear. If there is demand for the ultra-skinny image, the thin model will continue to be offered. The issue of why we have this problem (which I might add is likely unique to a pampered society that can afford to obsess about such things) is more complex and systemic than grieving parents and lawmakers wish to believe. The most unfortunate aspect of it all is that given the tragic nature of the subject the notion of who is responsible is so entrenched that the issue isn’t something allowed for debate. In this sense, grief and tragedy trump logic and reason.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

April 16 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The Ottawa Citizen recently ran an article outing the Canadian government for its lack of a Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) plan. The only way this can be surprising is if one has never had to deal with the government in this country. 

How does a country as advanced and wealthy as Canada find itself without CIP? It’s simple, politics: not the electoral sort; not entirely the partisan party-based sort; but the traditional sort that “involves intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control” particularly as it relates to “the structure, organization, and administration of the state.” 

It’s a systemic problem that isn’t at first glance so apparent to a person on the outside .

Blinded, we focus our attentions on the elected figures from whom we demand so much accountability. We have notions that an elected official, whether he or she has a background in the subject matter for which the appointed post requires, is ultimately in control of an entire department. Whatever goes wrong is the fault of that elected representative; is he or she not, after all, in control?

Elected officials, however, are focused on what the name suggests: the next election. Regardless of how pristine and accountable we wish them to be, elected officials are in a perpetual race for popularity. (Just watch CPAC; the House of Commons is like a day-care for adults where each one screams louder and more stubbornly than the last in a bid to be heard.) Under constant threat of that next popularity contest, elected officials prefer measures that offer instant results; something tangible to take back to the electorate today; tomorrow isn’t as important; long-term strategy is for the national political martyr. Every measure, every issue is considered by a minister and his or her respective staff through this prism of looming elections. Their jobs are under eternal threat based on the whims and fancies of a widely ignorant electorate. Such is the nature of our system of democracy.

That’s why we built up that permanent mega-bureaucracy! An extensive system of bureaucrats enjoying jobs-for-life, some even unionized. Once inside one never need leave. The government bureaucracy is cushy, safe and a breeding ground for mediocrity. Salaries are determined by seniority of role, which in turn can be measured by how many others are directly under that role in the seemingly unending layers of hierarchy that is government. The permanent bureaucracy is an entity onto itself complete with self-interests and internal divisions as various departments (and individual bureaucrats) compete for “limited” funds in a race for ever-larger fiefs and more seniority. Best of all, the bureaucracy is seldom recognized by the public as distinguishable from the elected body; indeed, when bureaucratic shortcomings are brought to the public attention it is the elected representative “in charge” who is held accountable.

The bureaucracy, far from being always under the control of ministers and other elected officials, has ideas of its own. Bureaucrats, no different than others not-employed by the public sector, have party allegiances. It’s even been claimed that the bureaucracy leans considerably to one side of Canada’s political spectrum with strong ties to Canada’s most-frequently ruling party. This makes for an interesting competition between, say, a Conservative government and the bureaucracy.

Throw in interest groups and lobbyists and it’s a wonder that Canada has plans for anything at all! 

This is not to say that all of government is full of self-interested people; indeed, the government has been taking in some of Canada’s brightest minds. Unfortunately, once inside it’s like facing a giant boulder speeding down the hill in your direction - at best it can be slightly redirected with much effort, but never stopped. Anyone standing in the boulder’s way will simply be crushed.

In some ways it’s a good thing that much of Canada’s critical infrastructure (that is short of those national monuments…) is in private hands. At least given economic interests, we might have some guarantee that communication networks, for example, will still work in an emergency.

Posted in Disaster Management, Security Measures, Politics | No Comments »